Evolution Vs God

[ERayR]

Through much study, I have came to the conclusion that evolutionists tend to sway increasingly to an anti-Creator point of view. I have noted how impossible it is for an evolutionist to place the Creator into the mix. I have spoke with biology professors at BYU and whereas they believe in the Creator, they cannot place him within the framework of nature. This brings up an interestong point about the Intelligent Design movement- I find it troubling that many notable Christians outright reject intelligent design but yet believe wholeheartedly in the creation. Just to be sure- that is a contradiction of beliefs. One absolutely cannot deny intelligent design in nature if he calls himself a "Christian".

 

If ID is tied to macro-evolution it is very possible to reject it and still be a christian. 

[Tiki]

Feb 2002 Ensign

It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race. It was shown to the brother of Jared that all men were created in the beginning after the image of God; whether we take this to mean the spirit or the body, or both, it commits us to the same conclusion: Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our Heavenly Father.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/02/the-origin-of-man?lang=eng

[Freedom]

Through much study, I have came to the conclusion that evolutionists tend to sway increasingly to an anti-Creator point of view. I have noted how impossible it is for an evolutionist to place the Creator into the mix. I have spoke with biology professors at BYU and whereas they believe in the Creator, they cannot place him within the framework of nature. This brings up an interestong point about the Intelligent Design movement- I find it troubling that many notable Christians outright reject intelligent design but yet believe wholeheartedly in the creation. Just to be sure- that is a contradiction of beliefs. One absolutely cannot deny intelligent design in nature if he calls himself a "Christian".

There is a difference between God being the creator and in control of his creation, and the preposterous notions of the intelligent design movement. I can make an ice cube. This does not mean i controlled the elements, and altered the temperature to turn the water into ice, it simply means that I took advantage of the natural processes that produce ice by putting the water in a sufficiently cold environment. I do not see god manhandling my garden, or incubating little fly larva. He follows the laws of physics and works through natural means.

[Rob Osborn]

There is a difference between God being the creator and in control of his creation, and the preposterous notions of the intelligent design movement. I can make an ice cube. This does not mean i controlled the elements, and altered the temperature to turn the water into ice, it simply means that I took advantage of the natural processes that produce ice by putting the water in a sufficiently cold environment. I do not see god manhandling my garden, or incubating little fly larva. He follows the laws of physics and works through natural means.

Yeah, its because God is the author of the creation (what we call "nature"). The very existance of nature is a testimony for intelligent design.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

"I don't know why God included non-fuctioning genes in certain species... but that doesn't prove macro-evolution.  

 

Perhaps God used 'templates' of sorts while creating.  He turned on and turned off specific genes to create variety in his creations.  Why reinvent the wheel everytime you create a new species!  If a pianist knows he's going to play a number of different songs, should he build a new piano for each song that has just the keys needed in that specific score?  Or is it better for the pianist to make a full piano, and just play the notes he needs for each song?  The unused keys on the piano during each song aren't "wasted" they are just remnants of an effecient desgin process where the pianist didn't have to make a new piano from scratch everytime he wanted to play a new song. 

 

Again... your example is not evidence for macroevolution."

 

I put all that in quotes because I actually don't believe it.  I actually believe in macro-evolution but we've had enough of these discussions in this forum that I felt like trying to argue the other side.  How'd I do?

Not too horribly. Why didn't God want us to have a good sense of smell though?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Feb 2002 Ensign

It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race. It was shown to the brother of Jared that all men were created in the beginning after the image of God; whether we take this to mean the spirit or the body, or both, it commits us to the same conclusion: Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our Heavenly Father.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/02/the-origin-of-man?lang=eng

This is fine. However appeals to GA's (or the bible for Protestants) and objections based on theology do not deal with the massive and ever growing evidence for evolution. Edited August 30, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Rob Osborn]

"The massive and ever growing evidence for evolution"? This is typically evolutionists only crutch. There is actually very little evidence, and even it is mainly conjecture.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

"The massive and ever growing evidence for evolution"? This is typically evolutionists only crutch. There is actually very little evidence, and even it is mainly conjecture.

You base this on what?

[Questing Beast]

Through much study, I have came to the conclusion that evolutionists tend to sway increasingly to an anti-Creator point of view. I have noted how impossible it is for an evolutionist to place the Creator into the mix. I have spoke with biology professors at BYU and whereas they believe in the Creator, they cannot place him within the framework of nature. This brings up an interestong point about the Intelligent Design movement- I find it troubling that many notable Christians outright reject intelligent design but yet believe wholeheartedly in the creation. Just to be sure- that is a contradiction of beliefs. One absolutely cannot deny intelligent design in nature if he calls himself a "Christian".

I think one cannot discount "intelligent design" if one calls him/herself intelligent. Are we the only intelligence in the universe then? From whence springs a trait that the universe does not posses latently? Isn't a kind of ex nihilo? How can the parts be more than the sum? I have argued this, and the only thing that disbelievers in a cosmic intelligence can rebut with is to point out that our perceived intelligence (sapience, actually) is only one of countless evolved traits and is not anymore significant than wings or gills, etc. It is just an evolved trait to aid survival, etc. I argue back that if we are aware of the universe and our places in it, does that not mean that intelligence NOW exists in the universe, making the universe intelligent? And  "they" argue back, "does the universe now fly of breathe underwater?" Of course not. And so I lose out to an idiocy that absolutely demands moral irresponsibility, or rather, no moral obligation to a higher power than their own brain. And that is the key behind disbelief: a repugnance in contemplating that there really Is a Higher Power to which we are all accountable....

[Questing Beast]

"The massive and ever growing evidence for evolution"? This is typically evolutionists only crutch. There is actually very little evidence, and even it is mainly conjecture.

There is huge evidence. Worthy's demand to "see one change from a kind to another kind" is ludicrous. And he edited out the cogent responses that showed his demand to be ludicrous. I could have told him this, and I am not in any way even educated much less an "expert":

 

"The geologic record is much slower than the lifespan of a human, or even of all humans combined. Yet we see evidence of change occurring in experiments repeatedly made on the microbiological level. If evolution does not work, then your meds don't work, in other words. As for kinds changing, or evolving into other kinds, we have fossils dating back millions of years, and our own bodies possessing vestiges of the same kinds of organs or skeletal structure akin with other mammals. Mammals and other species possess like-traits where they break off into different kinds that can be traced in the fossil record. There's your observation of kinds changing into other kinds. But you have to be a dedicated geologist or biologist or even micro biologist, plus archaeologist in order to see what you are asking for".

 

I'd like to see how he answered that response....

Edited August 30, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Rob Osborn]

There is huge evidence. Worthy's demand to "see one change from a kind to another kind" is ludicrous. And he edited out the cogent responses that showed his demand to be ludicrous. I could have told him this, and I am not in any way even educated much less an "expert":

 

"The geologic record is much slower than the lifespan of a human, or even of all humans combined. Yet we see evidence of change occurring in experiments repeatedly made on the microbiological level. If evolution does not work, then your meds don't work, in other words. As for kinds changing, or evolving into other kinds, we have fossils dating back millions of years, and our own bodies possessing vestiges of the same kinds of organs or skeletal structure akin with other mammals. Mammals and other species possess like-traits where they break off into different kinds that can be traced in the fossil record. There's your observation of kinds changing into other kinds. But you have to be a dedicated geologist or biologist or even micro biologist, plus archaeologist in order to see what you are asking for".

 

I'd like to see how he answered that response....

Just because two kinds can look similar doesnt provide proof of macroevolution. That would be like saying a praying mantis definately evolved directly from a tree branch. Proof requires a biological testable proof not any of tjis supposed opinionated guess on fossils that look similar.

[ERayR]

This is fine. However appeals to GA's (or the bible for Protestants) and objections based on theology do not deal with the massive and ever growing evidence for evolution.

 

One does not have to, nor do I, appeal to statements from GA's to support my position.  The theological argument that appeals to me is the one about the fall.  The validity of the "ever growing evidence for evolution" come primarily from bieased interpretations of data. 

[danielwoods]

How about one evidence for macro evolution that we can currently still examine.  Fossilized genes. Genes are are large stretches of DNA that code for a protein in an organism.  Decades ago scientists cracked the genetic code for genes.  Given a certain DNA sequence, we can know the exact amino acid sequence in a given protein.  This knowledge has been used to treat and diagnosis diseases, and all other sorts of neat things.  Since we have sequenced the entire genetic code of many different species, we have found something that can best be described as fossil genes.  Remnants of proteins in our DNA that have degraded over time due to the relaxation of natural selective pressure to keep the genes intact. 

 

For example in old world primates and humans that have trichromatic vision, we see large quantities of fossilized olfactory genes. Genes in the same location as functioning genes in mice dogs etc. Species that rely on their sense of smell to survive. Why did God put non-functional genetically degraded genes into our DNA? Take the ice fish found in the antarctic.  It has no hemoglobin in its blood. Yet right where we would expect to find the two genes which would encode the hemoglobin protein, we find a degraded, nonfunctioning version of this gene. If I was going to design an icefish that wasn't going to use hemoglobin, why would I stick in a non-functioning gene for hemoglobin? These types of genes abound in nature.  The closer related two species are that have non-functioning genes, the more closely these genes mimic each other.  This is just a tiny example.  Evolutionary theory explains this perfectly.  Why under a creator design us with non-functioning genes unless he used evolution as a means to create us?

 

This argument is no different that the one that evolutionists criticize creationist for using. 

 

1) Unknown problem exists

2) Can't imagine it being done using evolution

3) Must be created. 

 

I'm not saying this is a valid form of argumentation. I'm saying just the opposite. Simply because we don't understand something doesn't mean that it must default to something we believe happened. 

[Questing Beast]

@Rob Osborn: Macro evolution is discredited in the eyes of conservative believers because the attachment to disbelief has been noted and taken exception to: the behavior of the disbelievers is scornful and their private lives often partake of "forbidden" things, because they don't have a god to answer to. Believers are offended, therefore they automatically look for ways to discredit the evidence of evolution.

 

Your example of a praying mantis and tree branch looking similar therefore being evolved from a common ancestral kind is unfortunate. More apt is the "tail bone" comparison in the video. Or the "wing" structure of dinosaurs and birds, and countless other like traits, vestigial or shared. The observable evolution on a microbiological level supports evolution. Darwin's bird species observations are evidence of both adaptation and evolution, for adaptation leads over time to evolution into species that can no longer procreate, and eventually from there into different "kinds". This theory is supported by every find that continues to come out of the ground....

Edited August 30, 2013 by Questing Beast

[ERayR]

 

There is huge evidence. Worthy's demand to "see one change from a kind to another kind" is ludicrous. And he edited out the cogent responses that showed his demand to be ludicrous. I could have told him this, and I am not in any way even educated much less an "expert":

 

"The geologic record is much slower than the lifespan of a human, or even of all humans combined. Yet we see evidence of change occurring in experiments repeatedly made on the microbiological level. If evolution does not work, then your meds don't work, in other words. As for kinds changing, or evolving into other kinds, we have fossils dating back millions of years, and our own bodies possessing vestiges of the same kinds of organs or skeletal structure akin with other mammals. Mammals and other species possess like-traits where they break off into different kinds that can be traced in the fossil record. There's your observation of kinds changing into other kinds. But you have to be a dedicated geologist or biologist or even micro biologist, plus archaeologist in order to see what you are asking for".

 

I'd like to see how he answered that response....

 

Micro-evolution is a fact and works.  The varieties in the plant and animal species attest to this.  However, as hard as we have pushed in this area we have never been able to end up with a different kind than what we started with.  We have made changes within but have not breached the limits of what made the animal what it is.

Edited August 30, 2013 by ERayR

[Questing Beast]

Micro-evolution is a fact and works.  The varieties in the plant and animal species attest to this.  However, as hard as we have pushed in this area we have never been able to end up with a different kind than what we started with.  We have made changes within but have not breached the limits of what made the animal what it is.

That is true. And if archaeological and geological assertions every said, "This kind turned into that kind in an evolutionary eyeblink, less than 100K years", you would have a valid argument against macro evolution. But the evidence is not interpreted that way. It all says "millions of years" for kind into other kind changes. Even on the microbiological scale it takes far more time, than experiments of a lifetime in a lab, for complexity to evolve into the first "kind" above the microbiological. As long as the evolution remains AT the microbiological level there will not be any evolution into a different, (more complex) kind....

[ERayR]

@Rob Osborn: Macro evolution is discredited in the eyes of conservative believers because the attachment to disbelief has been noted and taken exception to: the behavior of the disbelievers is scornful and their private lives often partake of "forbidden" things, because they don't have a god to answer to. Believers are offended, therefore they automatically look for ways to discredit the evidence of evolution.

 

Your example of a praying mantis and tree branch looking similar therefore being evolved from a common ancestral kind is unfortunate. More apt is the "tail bone" comparison in the video. Or the "wing" structure of dinosaurs and birds, and countless other like traits, vestigial or shared. The observable evolution on a microbiological level supports evolution. Darwin's bird species observations are evidence of both adaptation and evolution, for adaptation leads over time to evolution into species that can no longer procreate, and eventually from there into different "kinds". This theory is supported by every find that continues to come out of the ground....

 

Only if all other rational interpretation of the data is summarily rejected.

[Questing Beast]

Only if all other rational interpretation of the data is summarily rejected.

What other "rational interpretation" is there? Science is self-correcting. Religion is corrected BY science, it does not alter otherwise. Is there a third interpretation? I don't know of any....

[EllenMaksoud]

So I figured I would start this as these debates always get interesting. I recently watch a video about this. I have to say that for the most part I agree with what the interviewer was saying. I specifically want to talk about macro evolution or Darwinian evolution, were there is a change in kinds of animals, as I think and agree with this movie that there is not much evidence for it.  What do you guys think?

 

I don’t want to see comments such as “This guys is just a creationist nut job he is stupid”. Those comments don’t really further dialogue. 

 

Watch the movie below to get familiar with what he is saying.  I have to say that I was very skepitical of this movie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=U0u3-2CGOMQ

I tend to evaluate the validity of a person's arguments by whether I like them or not.

 

Science and belief are not mutually exclusive.  I believe in God, and that if evolution correctly describes what happened, then it was God that made it happen that way. He created a mechanism that would operate largely without control.

[Questing Beast]

I tend to evaluate the validity of a person's arguments by whether I like them or not.

 

Science and belief are not mutually exclusive.  I believe in God, and that if evolution correctly describes what happened, then it was God that made it happen that way. He created a mechanism that would operate largely without control.

Very sensible. I concur....

[thesometimesaint]

[ERayR]

What other "rational interpretation" is there? Science is self-correcting. Religion is corrected BY science, it does not alter otherwise. Is there a third interpretation? I don't know of any....

 

The reason you don't know of any is because whenever God is mentioned it is summarily rejected.  If I were to reference Brigham Youngs statement that God brought Adam and Eve from another planet you would summarily dismis it.  If I were to say God took the map of life and used it as a pattern, turn off portions he didn't want to use and turning on what he did want to use,  You would summarily dismis it.  In a words you will not consider anything that postulates that God had a hand in it. 

 

You then say that God used evolution to create man.  Make up your mind.  If you are going believe God had any connection with creation then to be consistent you have to accept that God may have used one of these other methods and the conclusions are possibly the result of biased interpretation of the data.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Apart from the poor editing and "aggressive" nature of the questioning (the microphone-close-to-the-face tactic is meant to make the interview subject nervous), I thought the interviewer made a key mistake.

He kept equating "observation" as being a key part of the Scientific Method, as if not being able to see something happening means it can't be part of a scientific inquiry. While being able to see something is obviously really, really helpful, we are still able to conduct scientific tests based on processes and things that we can't see. It happens all the time. We see data or evidence for an event or process having occurred in the past, and we formulate a hypothesis on what that event or process was.

If Ray Comfort really believes what he is saying, then he would be the worst detective and/or Defense Attorney of all time.

"Sorry folks. You can't see what happened, so you're only making a decision based on faith. Are you really going to send my client to prison based on faith?"

In a sense I agree with you. There are things in the video that make me cringe. But I think that there is a little to the "you have faith in it" thing that Comfort kept going back to. Becuase it is not observed and it is not testable there is a certain amount of "faith" required to belief it. I agree that there is change that is observed. I have no issue with that.

[thesometimesaint]

As a Saint I have faith that God used Evolution in Creation(Why stuff works). As a scientist I can not posit any God(How stuff works).

 

Ps. Faith is evidence of things not seen. Science is what is seen.

Edited August 30, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

There is a difference between God being the creator and in control of his creation, and the preposterous notions of the intelligent design movement. I can make an ice cube. This does not mean i controlled the elements, and altered the temperature to turn the water into ice, it simply means that I took advantage of the natural processes that produce ice by putting the water in a sufficiently cold environment. I do not see god manhandling my garden, or incubating little fly larva. He follows the laws of physics and works through natural means.

Wait a sec, I am not advocating anything like this. I am not sure that God is sitting in some chamber controling every little thing. I think there are laws in place and some things happen because of those laws. I also see a time when there were definate creative periods. IOW lets look at it this way. When a hurricane happens does it happen because God made it happen? No. It happens because that is the nature of this earth.