Evolution vs. God ?

[Job]

It takes more faith to believe a sea creature suddenly grew legs and lungs and walked out of the ocean, than it does to simply believe in God. There's more physical evidence for the existence of God then there is for evolution.

 

[Helen]

It takes more faith to believe a sea creature suddenly grew legs and lungs and walked out of the ocean, than it does to simply believe in God. There's more physical evidence for the existence of God then there is for evolution.

Totally...so, is evolution something not Darwin, but the Old Enemy spat out on everyone? I had not thought of it...I had only thought of it as a deception of man....but maybe it is a major "spirit of deception"??:

 

[bbyrd009]

for a short quick certain grasp about evolution via google see www.evolutionvsgod.com - twinc

But to turn natural selection into a long term process through which all life comes to existance seems a premature conclusion.

ya, i'm glad i don't have to have an official position on it myself lol
could be as simple as defining "dust of the earth" as "cells" though

 

[bbyrd009]

There's more physical evidence for the existence of God then there is for evolution.

it doesn't seem like a "one versus the other, to the death" perspective is really the best way to get evolution. I think this is engendered by a rigid definition of Genesis, which is acknowledged to be mythology, ancient truth, and so evolution gets dismissed out of hand just because it does not comport with our understanding of one very...ethereal? line, that might be interpreted in many ways.

 

[bbyrd009]

after all, what is dust? The literal "dust of the earth" is also the dust of the heavens, right? So, that is just dust or maybe more properly stardust
I would contemplate whether "dust of the earth" is even being understood correctly.
Because there is a singular 'dust of the earth' that cannot be found anywhere else in the universe, at least so far, right. And lots of people are spending your tax $ looking too.

 

[Job]

it doesn't seem like a "one versus the other, to the death" perspective is really the best way to get evolution. I think this is engendered by a rigid definition of Genesis, which is acknowledged to be mythology, ancient truth, and so evolution gets dismissed out of hand just because it does not comport with our understanding of one very...ethereal? line, that might be interpreted in many ways.

My views on evolution were never bible based in the beginning. As a child I never believed it. Not once in my entire life did I ever see evolution as a possibility. There is simply no evidence to support it. None.

 

[Job]

Totally...so, is evolution something not Darwin, but the Old Enemy spat out on everyone? I had not thought of it...I had only thought of it as a deception of man....but maybe it is a major "spirit of deception"??:

Even though there is zero evidence to support the theory of evolution, the devil is still convincing people that evolution is real. Even christians are jumping on the band wagon. So yeah, it is a major spirit of deception.

As for Darwin, where do you think he got the idea?

m

 

[twinc]

I wonder if genetic mutation is a result of the fall. Then the world would actually be in a state of devolution in the long term as our genes approach minimum viability.

In the short term natural selection is a valid concept. But to turn natural selection into a long term process through which all life comes to existance seems a premature conclusion.

via google see Evolution vs God - twinc

 

[bbyrd009]

My views on evolution were never bible based in the beginning. As a child I never believed it. Not once in my entire life did I ever see evolution as a possibility. There is simply no evidence to support it. None.

so you say, but you might reflect upon how your belief might keep you from seeing any evidence if it was there. Essentially what you believe is all that matters to you, it becomes the "truth" in your eyes.

Iow can confidently say that i do not know, and no one can contest that, see. I can also confidently say that i don't need to know, and may never know, and these are also impossible to contest. The truth, whatever it is, does not affect my faith.

Now, if in fact God made Man from "the dust of the earth,"

and uses evolution all the way up to and including making Adam and Eve, how does that change your pov? If at all?

 

[Job]

so you say, but you might reflect upon how your belief might keep you from seeing any evidence if it was there. Essentially what you believe is all that matters to you, it becomes the "truth" in your eyes.

Transitional fossils. There should be hundreds of millions of these fossils showing the slow gradual physical change from what it was to what it is today. They should litter the country side, but they don't, because they don't exist. They don't even have a complete skeleton of our supposed ancestors. They take a tooth or a jaw bone or a skull cap and build a man around it.

There's no evidence of that slow gradual physical change. Transitional fossils are absent from the fossil record. None exist.

That's just one reason the theory of evolution holds no weight with me. Another is the animals in existence today. Many of these living specimens are so unique that it would have been impossible for them to evolve into their present forms.

k

 

[lforrest]

Transitional fossils. There should be hundreds of millions of these fossils showing the slow gradual physical change from what it was to what it is today. They should litter the country side, but they don't, because they don't exist. They don't even have a complete skeleton of our supposed ancestors. They take a tooth or a jaw bone or a skull cap and build a man around it.

There's no evidence of that slow gradual physical change. Transitional fossils are absent from the fossil record. None exist.

That's just one reason the theory of evolution holds no weight with me. Another is the animals in existence today. Many of these living specimens are so unique that it would have been impossible for them to evolve into their present forms.

k

There are also some very complex cellular machines, that would be impossible to evolve. If the cellular machine was in a stage of evolutionary development it would not be functional and would prove a hindrance to a lifeform rather than an advantage. Natural selection would prevent the evolution of those complex cellular machines.

 

[bbyrd009]

There should be hundreds of millions of these fossils showing the slow gradual physical change from what it was to what it is today.

fossils are actually extremely rare, i guess? i'm not really sure what conditions are required tbh. But there are also species that have not changed since like forever, sharks, gators etc, and these are acknowledged. So that there "should" be all these fossils might be wishful thinking iow

 

[Job]

fossils are actually extremely rare, i guess?

Actually they are not.

In terms of the number of individual fossils there are probably countless billions.

How many fossils have been found? (Page 1) - Fossils - Ask a Biologist Q&A



j

 

[bbyrd009]

Actually they are not.





How many fossils have been found? (Page 1) - Fossils - Ask a Biologist Q&A



j

actually i guess it depends upon who you ask, or what is meant by "rare?"

are fossils rare or common - Google Search

 

[bbyrd009]

"...There are numerous examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, providing an abundance of evidence for change over time."

Transitional forms

 

[Job]

actually i guess it depends upon who you ask, or what is meant by "rare?"

are fossils rare or common - Google Search

"...There are numerous examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, providing an abundance of evidence for change over time."

Transitional forms

You're turning this into a pissing contest and I don't want to play. My views on evolution will never change and it appears yours won't either.

Have a nice day.

j

 

[Stranger]

The truth, whatever it is, does not affect my faith.

That is about one of the stupidist statements I have ever heard.

Stranger

 

[aspen]

what constitutes a new animal? Foxes, cats and dog share a common ancestor...do you consider all three animals the same animal?

 

[twinc]

what constitutes a new animal? Foxes, cats and dog share a common ancestor...do you consider all three animals the same animal?

no they do not and here as elsewhere we see the result, as also in scriptures, of incorrect/false interpretation - so in this wise it has been requested as also with scriptures to consult the experts and specialists as to what is accepted and taught in schools, colleges and Universities by these experts and specialists - so I repeat again via google see [evolution vs god] - twinc

 

[aspen]

no they do not and here as elsewhere we see the result, as also in scriptures, of incorrect/false interpretation - so in this wise it has been requested as also with scriptures to consult the experts and specialists as to what is accepted and taught in schools, colleges and Universities by these experts and specialists - so I repeat again via google see [evolution vs god] - twinc

Huh?