Evidence for God from Science

DBowling wrote: ↑Mon Jul 23, 2018 4:27 am

RickD wrote: ↑Mon Jul 23, 2018 3:30 am

neo-x wrote: ↑Mon Jul 23, 2018 3:11 am

RickD wrote: ↑Mon Jul 23, 2018 2:02 am

neo-x wrote: ↑Sun Jul 22, 2018 11:47 pm Evolution can never be guided.

In light of the fact that you believe in God, could you explain what you mean?

Don't you believe that God ultimately set up the mechanisms that allow evolution to happen?

Edit:
In other words, if one believes in evolution, and that God is the creator and sustainer, then one believes that God guided evolution, right?

I wouldn't put it like that. It has not to do with god but the idea of evolution itself. The same way God can't make a squared-circle, is the same way evolution can't be guided. It's an absurdity. If evolution is guided then by definition it is not evolution; it's creation.

That makes no sense to me. Could you expound on that?

I think the definition of "evolution" is what neo-x is getting at.

The classic definition of evolution involves the following:
- common descent
- random mutation
- natural selection

If the evolutionary principle of "random mutation" is replaced with another process such as "guided mutation" or "intelligent addition of new genetic information into the DNA" then by definition the process being described is no longer evolution.

I understand that point. But as I said to Neo, in order for things to change over time(evolution), things have to exist in the first place. And those things have to have a reason to change. And in the very least, that's where God would have guided evolution.

See what I'm saying?

RickD wrote: ↑Mon Jul 23, 2018 5:37 am

DBowling wrote: ↑Mon Jul 23, 2018 4:27 am I think the definition of "evolution" is what neo-x is getting at.

The classic definition of evolution involves the following:
- common descent
- random mutation
- natural selection

If the evolutionary principle of "random mutation" is replaced with another process such as "guided mutation" or "intelligent addition of new genetic information into the DNA" then by definition the process being described is no longer evolution.

I understand that point. But as I said to Neo, in order for things to change over time(evolution), things have to exist in the first place. And those things have to have a reason to change. And in the very least, that's where God would have guided evolution.

See what I'm saying?

I understand and agree...

Technically speaking evolution does not deal with the origin of life. Evolution presumes the existence of an original life form and then attempts to describe a process that explains the development of all life from that single life form (common descent)

From my perspective there are two fundamental flaws to the theory of evolution.
1. As you point out, Science has been unable to identify a naturalistic process that even comes close to explaining the origin of the first life form that all life supposedly evolved from.
2. The process of random mutation is totally incapable of explaining either the inconsistent rate of change that we see in the fossil record or the diversity and complexity of genetic information that we see in the DNA of life today.

If ACB wants to engage and discredit evolution I think he should focus on the genuine flaws in evolutionary theory (origin of life and inadequacy of random mutation) instead of looking to another fatally flawed theory that is contradicted by both Science and Scripture.

Either God foreknew and desired what He clearly foreknew evolution would produce, or not. NOTHING exists that God didn't cause, have complete control over, or produced attributes or end results that He didn't desire to use per His eternal plans for man. Neo suggests that a mechanism exists that God did not control, nor was concerned with what it might produce - as if there is any "might" in what God can know. He cannot be surprised. As there is a connective chain to what God produces and interacts with in the future. Neo basically is asserting that God made a process that "just happened to" produce mankind, which meant He reacted after the fact to the moral flaws necessitating His love come die for it. And all of this absurdity means He has not well thought out the attributes of God or His foreknowledge of all first things and their outcomes, and how He would one day interact with them - whether mankind or anything else He might cause. God cannot produce a square circle, nor can He make a process that He doesn't have sovereign control over. Not to mention, Neo ignores many, many passages of Scripture that directly contradict his contention. It's because Neo has more faith in evolution than He does in what Scripture teaches us about God - which is dangerous and sad. It's also inherently illogical, because if God has the attributes that Scripture tells us He does - especially His foreknowledge of seeing all outcomes of whatever He puts into play - and that those outcomes involve Him interacting with whatever comes into existence. Let's not forget all of the prophecy of the Bible that can be documented as fulfilled - scholars can tell us the approximate dates that are FAR before the fulfillments, and these prophecies have a level of detail impossible for people to make up so that they later merely SEEM fulfilled.

Bottom line, God is either in perfect control or He's not. If He's not, then He can't know what HE will do, or what He creates will become, and can't see how He will interact with whatever future things and situations. So He couldn't know what the supposed random processes of evolution would cost Jesus on the Cross???!!! Neo has grand distortions in his mind vs. what God's Word tells us.

RickD wrote: ↑Mon Jul 23, 2018 5:07 am

neo-x wrote: ↑Mon Jul 23, 2018 4:21 am

RickD wrote: ↑Mon Jul 23, 2018 3:30 am

neo-x wrote: ↑Mon Jul 23, 2018 3:11 am

RickD wrote: ↑Mon Jul 23, 2018 2:02 am

In light of the fact that you believe in God, could you explain what you mean?

Don't you believe that God ultimately set up the mechanisms that allow evolution to happen?

Edit:
In other words, if one believes in evolution, and that God is the creator and sustainer, then one believes that God guided evolution, right?

I wouldn't put it like that. It has not to do with god but the idea of evolution itself. The same way God can't make a squared-circle, is the same way evolution can't be guided. It's an absurdity. If evolution is guided then by definition it is not evolution; it's creation.

That makes no sense to me. Could you expound on that?

Guided evolution is an absurdity. Evolution is random. If God intervened than it is not evolution. It is creation. It's very straightforward. Introducing an idea of divine intervention changes the meaning of evolution as it is defined. We can't take scientific terms like that and redefine them.

I understand what you're saying. But what started the process of evolution? Didn't God guide[direct or have an influence on the course of action of (someone or something)] evolution?

As a theist who believes in evolution, you have to believe in creation as well. There's no avoiding that. Someone or something had to start evolution. Someone had to create whatever began to exist, so it could evolve, right?

Ok, but the question isn't whether God created or not; the issue is the use of a scientific term and its misuse out of its context.

So you can say God created. Fine by me. Or you can say that things happened on their own and deny creation. However, you can't say God created evolution or guided it. These two don't go together. Please, I'd like to reiterate: You can say that God has created everything that exists but you can't use evolution in it or squared circles because evolution's basic premise is that it isn't guided or created. If you change the definition, then evolution and creation basically mean the same thing. However, they aren't really the same thing.

Creation has a purpose and a goal; evolution is literally indifferent, aimless and random.

So you can believe that life, as it exists, was created by God but you can't say that it also evolved at the same time. Either one or the other happened. Because saying that evolution was also "created" trivialises both creation and the scientific notion of evolution as well.

I would say again, the same way God can't make a squared circle is the same way God can't guide evolution. It is not a question of God's capability but the absurdity of the two ideas meshing together, that is what I am objecting to.

And I get your point, Rick. But if I were you I would simply say God has created things or everything but it is creation all the way (choose your interpretation or model of it); however, I wouldn't say things have evolved - IMO, only this would be logically and intellectually honest with your position (I am not saying your are dishonest, simply stating the most consistent and logical position if I were in your camp).

And I can respect that.

First off, I'm not arguing for evolution. I'm assuming evolution, for the sake of the argument. In other words, I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of someone who believes in evolution, so I can try to understand what you mean. With that, you said:

So you can say God created. Fine by me. Or you can say that things happened on their own and deny creation. However, you can't say God created evolution or guided it.

I wouldn't say that God created evolution(again, I'm assuming evolution is true for argument sake), only that He created the mechanism for evolution. Or, He created the first life, which had the inherent, God given ability to evolve. Or, God guided evolution, in the sense of the definition of "guide", that He "directed or had an influence on the course of action of" evolution. That cannot be avoided if one believes in evolution and the existence of the Christian God. There's no logical way around that. I'm not saying that logic demands that God had to guide evolution along the way.
See the difference?

These two don't go together. Please, I'd like to reiterate: You can say that God has created everything that exists but you can't use evolution in it or squared circles because evolution's basic premise is that it isn't guided or created. If you change the definition, then evolution and creation basically mean the same thing. However, they aren't really the same thing.

Creation has a purpose and a goal; evolution is literally indifferent, aimless and random.

And this is where you are losing me. Unless you're using some scientific jargon that has a different meaning than the normal meanings of "aimless" and "random", then this goes against scripture. God has a purpose for mankind. However one gets to the existence of man, either some kind of creation, or evolution, then I don't see how you can say as a believer, that getting to the point of biological evolution where the spiritual being of man appears, that it was aimless and random.

So you can believe that life, as it exists, was created by God but you can't say that it also evolved at the same time. Either one or the other happened. Because saying that evolution was also "created" trivialises both creation and the scientific notion of evolution as well.

Of course. Life can both evolve to its current point, and be created the way it is now. That would be absurd. So again, if evolution is true, AND God exists, the mechanism for evolution to work, must have been created.

So, back to my original contention, with what you said here:

Evolution can never be guided.

If God is, and evolution is true, then God must have guided evolution, in the sense that He "directed or had an influence on the course of action of" evolution. As a believer in the God of scripture, you cannot logically avoid that.

Rick: I'm not saying that logic demands that God had to guide evolution along the way.

If I create a computer program with key capabilities, and set it so that it will begin running at some point in time, then ALL abilities and limitations that program has to make "decisions" would only be possible per my programming it - evolution isn't some mystical, metaphysical process. It would have had an origin, specific capabilities, and limitations. And God wouldn't have to micromanage the program as it runs, but would necessarily have to set up its capabilities and potential. And as God is all-knowing, He would have to know precisely what the program will produce and when - there are NO surprises with an all-knowing programmer / Creator. Things perceived as random to us are nonetheless certainties to God - as there could never be a thing, action or moment in which God didn't perfectly ALWAYS understand. The creation - supposed evolution - could not have superseded anything it wasn't made capable of doing. Nor would it be capable of producing anything God wouldn't have perfectly known about. And if there was ANY aspect of it He wanted to turn out differently, A) He would have built the capabilities differently, and B) He would not / could not have foreseen any outcomes but those He made it capable of and also foresaw.

So, NO, Neo, while I certainly don't believe in evolution (molecules to man) or ANY Godless processes, evolution as you describe it can exist - not if the attributes of the God of the Bible are accurately described. Really, Neo, your logic on this is beyond GAP Theory nonsense! But the bigger questions I have is how do you see God's attributes and capabilities, or how anything could exist or function without His perfect control and instilling whatever abilities? It's almost as if you are making a god out of evolution itself - a god that doesn't need THE God!

DBowling wrote: ↑Mon Jul 23, 2018 7:12 am

RickD wrote: ↑Mon Jul 23, 2018 5:37 am

DBowling wrote: ↑Mon Jul 23, 2018 4:27 am I think the definition of "evolution" is what neo-x is getting at.

The classic definition of evolution involves the following:
- common descent
- random mutation
- natural selection

If the evolutionary principle of "random mutation" is replaced with another process such as "guided mutation" or "intelligent addition of new genetic information into the DNA" then by definition the process being described is no longer evolution.

I understand that point. But as I said to Neo, in order for things to change over time(evolution), things have to exist in the first place. And those things have to have a reason to change. And in the very least, that's where God would have guided evolution.

See what I'm saying?

I understand and agree...

Technically speaking evolution does not deal with the origin of life. Evolution presumes the existence of an original life form and then attempts to describe a process that explains the development of all life from that single life form (common descent)

From my perspective there are two fundamental flaws to the theory of evolution.
1. As you point out, Science has been unable to identify a naturalistic process that even comes close to explaining the origin of the first life form that all life supposedly evolved from.
2. The process of random mutation is totally incapable of explaining either the inconsistent rate of change that we see in the fossil record or the diversity and complexity of genetic information that we see in the DNA of life today.

If ACB wants to engage and discredit evolution I think he should focus on the genuine flaws in evolutionary theory (origin of life and inadequacy of random mutation) instead of looking to another fatally flawed theory that is contradicted by both Science and Scripture.

I can discredit evolution on its own merits without the Gap Theory but when I want to destroy evolution I use the Gap Theory to do it.As nothing else that has been tried by YEC's or Intelligent Design can totally defeat evolution like the Gap Theory can. YEC's are great at discrediting evolution and yet it is not enough to defeat evolution. This is why no matter what they have thrown at evolution it is still here.The church has tried everything else except the true creation interpretation the Gap Theory and so have not had success against evolution and so our society is indoctrinated with scientific evolution history instead of the real true history of the earth from the bible.

It is sad that if we go by the evidence of the earth evolution is more believable than YEC is.YEC's have been battling evolution since the 1970's when YEC ministries started and have threw everything they have against evolution to no avail.We can watch an old YEC vs Evolution debate and it always comes down to niether side giving convincing evidence to prove their case and so it comes down to who we believe the most.

This is not the case with the Gap Theory because we can just take just the fossil record and use it to prove a former world did exist,it was different than this world we now live in,it lasted billions of years and it perished.This is just focusing on the fossil evidence and nothing else. It is not very hard to do at all.

A person just has to understand how to teach the Gap Theory then do some research on fossils and go through the fossil record and examine them and use them for evidence that the former world did indeed exist.Because the fossil record is very full of many,many extinct creatures that are not in this world we now live in and it was all before this world was made.Then you compare the many examples of the kinds of life that lived in the former world to the kinds of life we have in this world proving they were two different kinds of worlds.Add in discrediting evolution while presenting the fossil evidence of the former world and comparing it to the kinds of life we have in this world and you actually prove a former world existed instead of it coming down to who we just believe and you totally embarrass and destroy the evolutionist with real evidence a former world "A Lost world" existed.Evidence will outshine preaching it is true anyday like evolutionists do.

RickD wrote: ↑Mon Jul 23, 2018 11:34 am First off, I'm not arguing for evolution. I'm assuming evolution, for the sake of the argument. In other words, I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of someone who believes in evolution, so I can try to understand what you mean. With that, you said:

So you can say God created. Fine by me. Or you can say that things happened on their own and deny creation. However, you can't say God created evolution or guided it.

I wouldn't say that God created evolution(again, I'm assuming evolution is true for argument sake), only that He created the mechanism for evolution. Or, He created the first life, which had the inherent, God given ability to evolve. Or, God guided evolution, in the sense of the definition of "guide", that He "directed or had an influence on the course of action of" evolution. That cannot be avoided if one believes in evolution and the existence of the Christian God. There's no logical way around that. I'm not saying that logic demands that God had to guide evolution along the way.
See the difference?

These two don't go together. Please, I'd like to reiterate: You can say that God has created everything that exists but you can't use evolution in it or squared circles because evolution's basic premise is that it isn't guided or created. If you change the definition, then evolution and creation basically mean the same thing. However, they aren't really the same thing.

Creation has a purpose and a goal; evolution is literally indifferent, aimless and random.

And this is where you are losing me. Unless you're using some scientific jargon that has a different meaning than the normal meanings of "aimless" and "random", then this goes against scripture. God has a purpose for mankind. However one gets to the existence of man, either some kind of creation, or evolution, then I don't see how you can say as a believer, that getting to the point of biological evolution where the spiritual being of man appears, that it was aimless and random.

So you can believe that life, as it exists, was created by God but you can't say that it also evolved at the same time. Either one or the other happened. Because saying that evolution was also "created" trivialises both creation and the scientific notion of evolution as well.

Of course. Life can both evolve to its current point, and be created the way it is now. That would be absurd. So again, if evolution is true, AND God exists, the mechanism for evolution to work, must have been created.

So, back to my original contention, with what you said here:

Evolution can never be guided.

If God is, and evolution is true, then God must have guided evolution, in the sense that He "directed or had an influence on the course of action of" evolution. As a believer in the God of scripture, you cannot logically avoid that.

Yes, I appreciate your point, Rick. I, however, don't see that. I do say that God has no influence on the course of evolution. Because if he does then it is not evolution. EVOLUTION CAN'T BE DIRECTED. (caps for emphasis).

I do say that man is aimless and random. God chose man to be his creature but I am denying the special creation of man, Im saying that man evolved. And for that matter, the entire universe is random. It is not fine-tuned or precise or intelligently designed - and whatever it might entail. That is the only way it makes sense, to me at least, if it is chaotic and random. When I look out, I don't see design or purpose at all.

I think God created but that was not our universe, I don't know what it was but God didn't actively divine or fine-tuned this universe.

Why do you think I have a problem with science and scriptures not aligning together, this is precisely why. Evidence points elsewhere and scripture to the contrary.

And that is the problem I have with the argument that tries to lump both together. Why evolve at all? Why not simply make man, if that is to be the end result? Which is exactly what scriptures say and I am fine with that. But no one who thinks evolution is the way God created, for the lack of a better word, can also believe that man is special. That is just not fair and logical. It is inconsistent with both the Bible and science.

Evolution and creation don't make any sense together, it's either one or the other. Either this whole universe is intelligently designed, has a purpose, is precise and is made for man, or it completely evolved and is random and chaotic. I think it's the latter.

neo-x wrote: ↑Tue Jul 24, 2018 1:09 am

RickD wrote: ↑Mon Jul 23, 2018 11:34 am First off, I'm not arguing for evolution. I'm assuming evolution, for the sake of the argument. In other words, I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of someone who believes in evolution, so I can try to understand what you mean. With that, you said:

So you can say God created. Fine by me. Or you can say that things happened on their own and deny creation. However, you can't say God created evolution or guided it.

I wouldn't say that God created evolution(again, I'm assuming evolution is true for argument sake), only that He created the mechanism for evolution. Or, He created the first life, which had the inherent, God given ability to evolve. Or, God guided evolution, in the sense of the definition of "guide", that He "directed or had an influence on the course of action of" evolution. That cannot be avoided if one believes in evolution and the existence of the Christian God. There's no logical way around that. I'm not saying that logic demands that God had to guide evolution along the way.
See the difference?

These two don't go together. Please, I'd like to reiterate: You can say that God has created everything that exists but you can't use evolution in it or squared circles because evolution's basic premise is that it isn't guided or created. If you change the definition, then evolution and creation basically mean the same thing. However, they aren't really the same thing.

Creation has a purpose and a goal; evolution is literally indifferent, aimless and random.

And this is where you are losing me. Unless you're using some scientific jargon that has a different meaning than the normal meanings of "aimless" and "random", then this goes against scripture. God has a purpose for mankind. However one gets to the existence of man, either some kind of creation, or evolution, then I don't see how you can say as a believer, that getting to the point of biological evolution where the spiritual being of man appears, that it was aimless and random.

So you can believe that life, as it exists, was created by God but you can't say that it also evolved at the same time. Either one or the other happened. Because saying that evolution was also "created" trivialises both creation and the scientific notion of evolution as well.

Of course. Life can both evolve to its current point, and be created the way it is now. That would be absurd. So again, if evolution is true, AND God exists, the mechanism for evolution to work, must have been created.

So, back to my original contention, with what you said here:

Evolution can never be guided.

If God is, and evolution is true, then God must have guided evolution, in the sense that He "directed or had an influence on the course of action of" evolution. As a believer in the God of scripture, you cannot logically avoid that.

Yes, I appreciate your point, Rick. I, however, don't see that. I do say that God has no influence on the course of evolution. Because if he does then it is not evolution. EVOLUTION CAN'T BE DIRECTED. (caps for emphasis).

I do say that man is aimless and random. God chose man to be his creature but I am denying the special creation of man, Im saying that man evolved. And for that matter, the entire universe is random. It is not fine-tuned or precise or intelligently designed - and whatever it might entail. That is the only way it makes sense, to me at least, if it is chaotic and random. When I look out, I don't see design or purpose at all.

I think God created but that was not our universe, I don't know what it was but God didn't actively divine or fine-tuned this universe.

Why do you think I have a problem with science and scriptures not aligning together, this is precisely why. Evidence points elsewhere and scripture to the contrary.

And that is the problem I have with the argument that tries to lump both together. Why evolve at all? Why not simply make man, if that is to be the end result? Which is exactly what scriptures say and I am fine with that. But no one who thinks evolution is the way God created, for the lack of a better word, can also believe that man is special. That is just not fair and logical. It is inconsistent with both the Bible and science.

Evolution and creation don't make any sense together, it's either one or the other. Either this whole universe is intelligently designed, has a purpose, is precise and is made for man, or it completely evolved and is random and chaotic. I think it's the latter.

Genesis 1 King James Version (KJV)
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

In the beginning God "CREATED", not "randomly assembled". This seems to contradict your view.

Do you really believe that all those fine-tuning laws that govern the universe were just random events? Even many atheists acknowledge this and have to appeal to a multiverse to make sense of the intricate fine-tuning.

Most importantly, Neo does not address how God can initiate something He doesn't fully know the outcomes of (and hasn't always known them), or how there can be any randomness from this - from GOD'S view. Or how He is not sovereign over all things. Or how evolution could have had available the components necessary to have occurred - without God having provided them. This is just a view incompatible with what Scripture prolifically teaches, no matter how one might cherry-pick passages they like (Jesus, the Gospel, etc.).

Philip wrote: ↑Tue Jul 24, 2018 4:41 am Most importantly, Neo does not address how God can initiate something He doesn't fully know the outcomes of (and hasn't always known them), or how there can be any randomness from this - from GOD'S view. Or how He is not sovereign over all things. Or how evolution could have had available the components necessary to have occurred - without God having provided them. This is just a view incompatible with what Scripture prolifically teaches, no matter how one might cherry-pick passages they like (Jesus, the Gospel, etc.).

I don't know all that. I am following evidence amd being consistent with it as best I understand it.

Stu wrote: ↑Tue Jul 24, 2018 2:26 am

neo-x wrote: ↑Tue Jul 24, 2018 1:09 am

RickD wrote: ↑Mon Jul 23, 2018 11:34 am First off, I'm not arguing for evolution. I'm assuming evolution, for the sake of the argument. In other words, I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of someone who believes in evolution, so I can try to understand what you mean. With that, you said:

So you can say God created. Fine by me. Or you can say that things happened on their own and deny creation. However, you can't say God created evolution or guided it.

I wouldn't say that God created evolution(again, I'm assuming evolution is true for argument sake), only that He created the mechanism for evolution. Or, He created the first life, which had the inherent, God given ability to evolve. Or, God guided evolution, in the sense of the definition of "guide", that He "directed or had an influence on the course of action of" evolution. That cannot be avoided if one believes in evolution and the existence of the Christian God. There's no logical way around that. I'm not saying that logic demands that God had to guide evolution along the way.
See the difference?

These two don't go together. Please, I'd like to reiterate: You can say that God has created everything that exists but you can't use evolution in it or squared circles because evolution's basic premise is that it isn't guided or created. If you change the definition, then evolution and creation basically mean the same thing. However, they aren't really the same thing.

Creation has a purpose and a goal; evolution is literally indifferent, aimless and random.

And this is where you are losing me. Unless you're using some scientific jargon that has a different meaning than the normal meanings of "aimless" and "random", then this goes against scripture. God has a purpose for mankind. However one gets to the existence of man, either some kind of creation, or evolution, then I don't see how you can say as a believer, that getting to the point of biological evolution where the spiritual being of man appears, that it was aimless and random.

So you can believe that life, as it exists, was created by God but you can't say that it also evolved at the same time. Either one or the other happened. Because saying that evolution was also "created" trivialises both creation and the scientific notion of evolution as well.

Of course. Life can both evolve to its current point, and be created the way it is now. That would be absurd. So again, if evolution is true, AND God exists, the mechanism for evolution to work, must have been created.

So, back to my original contention, with what you said here:

Evolution can never be guided.

If God is, and evolution is true, then God must have guided evolution, in the sense that He "directed or had an influence on the course of action of" evolution. As a believer in the God of scripture, you cannot logically avoid that.

Yes, I appreciate your point, Rick. I, however, don't see that. I do say that God has no influence on the course of evolution. Because if he does then it is not evolution. EVOLUTION CAN'T BE DIRECTED. (caps for emphasis).

I do say that man is aimless and random. God chose man to be his creature but I am denying the special creation of man, Im saying that man evolved. And for that matter, the entire universe is random. It is not fine-tuned or precise or intelligently designed - and whatever it might entail. That is the only way it makes sense, to me at least, if it is chaotic and random. When I look out, I don't see design or purpose at all.

I think God created but that was not our universe, I don't know what it was but God didn't actively divine or fine-tuned this universe.

Why do you think I have a problem with science and scriptures not aligning together, this is precisely why. Evidence points elsewhere and scripture to the contrary.

And that is the problem I have with the argument that tries to lump both together. Why evolve at all? Why not simply make man, if that is to be the end result? Which is exactly what scriptures say and I am fine with that. But no one who thinks evolution is the way God created, for the lack of a better word, can also believe that man is special. That is just not fair and logical. It is inconsistent with both the Bible and science.

Evolution and creation don't make any sense together, it's either one or the other. Either this whole universe is intelligently designed, has a purpose, is precise and is made for man, or it completely evolved and is random and chaotic. I think it's the latter.

Genesis 1 King James Version (KJV)
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

In the beginning God "CREATED", not "randomly assembled". This seems to contradict your view.

Do you really believe that all those fine-tuning laws that govern the universe were just random events? Even many atheists acknowledge this and have to appeal to a multiverse to make sense of the intricate fine-tuning.

Yes. I do think that.

neo-x wrote: ↑Tue Jul 24, 2018 6:56 am

Stu wrote: ↑Tue Jul 24, 2018 2:26 am

neo-x wrote: ↑Tue Jul 24, 2018 1:09 am

RickD wrote: ↑Mon Jul 23, 2018 11:34 am First off, I'm not arguing for evolution. I'm assuming evolution, for the sake of the argument. In other words, I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of someone who believes in evolution, so I can try to understand what you mean. With that, you said:

So you can say God created. Fine by me. Or you can say that things happened on their own and deny creation. However, you can't say God created evolution or guided it.

I wouldn't say that God created evolution(again, I'm assuming evolution is true for argument sake), only that He created the mechanism for evolution. Or, He created the first life, which had the inherent, God given ability to evolve. Or, God guided evolution, in the sense of the definition of "guide", that He "directed or had an influence on the course of action of" evolution. That cannot be avoided if one believes in evolution and the existence of the Christian God. There's no logical way around that. I'm not saying that logic demands that God had to guide evolution along the way.
See the difference?

These two don't go together. Please, I'd like to reiterate: You can say that God has created everything that exists but you can't use evolution in it or squared circles because evolution's basic premise is that it isn't guided or created. If you change the definition, then evolution and creation basically mean the same thing. However, they aren't really the same thing.

Creation has a purpose and a goal; evolution is literally indifferent, aimless and random.

And this is where you are losing me. Unless you're using some scientific jargon that has a different meaning than the normal meanings of "aimless" and "random", then this goes against scripture. God has a purpose for mankind. However one gets to the existence of man, either some kind of creation, or evolution, then I don't see how you can say as a believer, that getting to the point of biological evolution where the spiritual being of man appears, that it was aimless and random.

So you can believe that life, as it exists, was created by God but you can't say that it also evolved at the same time. Either one or the other happened. Because saying that evolution was also "created" trivialises both creation and the scientific notion of evolution as well.

Of course. Life can both evolve to its current point, and be created the way it is now. That would be absurd. So again, if evolution is true, AND God exists, the mechanism for evolution to work, must have been created.

So, back to my original contention, with what you said here:

Evolution can never be guided.

If God is, and evolution is true, then God must have guided evolution, in the sense that He "directed or had an influence on the course of action of" evolution. As a believer in the God of scripture, you cannot logically avoid that.

Yes, I appreciate your point, Rick. I, however, don't see that. I do say that God has no influence on the course of evolution. Because if he does then it is not evolution. EVOLUTION CAN'T BE DIRECTED. (caps for emphasis).

I do say that man is aimless and random. God chose man to be his creature but I am denying the special creation of man, Im saying that man evolved. And for that matter, the entire universe is random. It is not fine-tuned or precise or intelligently designed - and whatever it might entail. That is the only way it makes sense, to me at least, if it is chaotic and random. When I look out, I don't see design or purpose at all.

I think God created but that was not our universe, I don't know what it was but God didn't actively divine or fine-tuned this universe.

Why do you think I have a problem with science and scriptures not aligning together, this is precisely why. Evidence points elsewhere and scripture to the contrary.

And that is the problem I have with the argument that tries to lump both together. Why evolve at all? Why not simply make man, if that is to be the end result? Which is exactly what scriptures say and I am fine with that. But no one who thinks evolution is the way God created, for the lack of a better word, can also believe that man is special. That is just not fair and logical. It is inconsistent with both the Bible and science.

Evolution and creation don't make any sense together, it's either one or the other. Either this whole universe is intelligently designed, has a purpose, is precise and is made for man, or it completely evolved and is random and chaotic. I think it's the latter.

Genesis 1 King James Version (KJV)
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

In the beginning God "CREATED", not "randomly assembled". This seems to contradict your view.

Do you really believe that all those fine-tuning laws that govern the universe were just random events? Even many atheists acknowledge this and have to appeal to a multiverse to make sense of the intricate fine-tuning.

Yes. I do think that.

So you don't believe that God created the universe and earth?
The earth took form through unguided forces?

Stu wrote: ↑Tue Jul 24, 2018 7:14 am

neo-x wrote: ↑Tue Jul 24, 2018 6:56 am

Stu wrote: ↑Tue Jul 24, 2018 2:26 am

neo-x wrote: ↑Tue Jul 24, 2018 1:09 am

RickD wrote: ↑Mon Jul 23, 2018 11:34 am First off, I'm not arguing for evolution. I'm assuming evolution, for the sake of the argument. In other words, I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of someone who believes in evolution, so I can try to understand what you mean. With that, you said:

I wouldn't say that God created evolution(again, I'm assuming evolution is true for argument sake), only that He created the mechanism for evolution. Or, He created the first life, which had the inherent, God given ability to evolve. Or, God guided evolution, in the sense of the definition of "guide", that He "directed or had an influence on the course of action of" evolution. That cannot be avoided if one believes in evolution and the existence of the Christian God. There's no logical way around that. I'm not saying that logic demands that God had to guide evolution along the way.
See the difference?


And this is where you are losing me. Unless you're using some scientific jargon that has a different meaning than the normal meanings of "aimless" and "random", then this goes against scripture. God has a purpose for mankind. However one gets to the existence of man, either some kind of creation, or evolution, then I don't see how you can say as a believer, that getting to the point of biological evolution where the spiritual being of man appears, that it was aimless and random.


Of course. Life can both evolve to its current point, and be created the way it is now. That would be absurd. So again, if evolution is true, AND God exists, the mechanism for evolution to work, must have been created.

So, back to my original contention, with what you said here:

If God is, and evolution is true, then God must have guided evolution, in the sense that He "directed or had an influence on the course of action of" evolution. As a believer in the God of scripture, you cannot logically avoid that.

Yes, I appreciate your point, Rick. I, however, don't see that. I do say that God has no influence on the course of evolution. Because if he does then it is not evolution. EVOLUTION CAN'T BE DIRECTED. (caps for emphasis).

I do say that man is aimless and random. God chose man to be his creature but I am denying the special creation of man, Im saying that man evolved. And for that matter, the entire universe is random. It is not fine-tuned or precise or intelligently designed - and whatever it might entail. That is the only way it makes sense, to me at least, if it is chaotic and random. When I look out, I don't see design or purpose at all.

I think God created but that was not our universe, I don't know what it was but God didn't actively divine or fine-tuned this universe.

Why do you think I have a problem with science and scriptures not aligning together, this is precisely why. Evidence points elsewhere and scripture to the contrary.

And that is the problem I have with the argument that tries to lump both together. Why evolve at all? Why not simply make man, if that is to be the end result? Which is exactly what scriptures say and I am fine with that. But no one who thinks evolution is the way God created, for the lack of a better word, can also believe that man is special. That is just not fair and logical. It is inconsistent with both the Bible and science.

Evolution and creation don't make any sense together, it's either one or the other. Either this whole universe is intelligently designed, has a purpose, is precise and is made for man, or it completely evolved and is random and chaotic. I think it's the latter.

Genesis 1 King James Version (KJV)
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

In the beginning God "CREATED", not "randomly assembled". This seems to contradict your view.

Do you really believe that all those fine-tuning laws that govern the universe were just random events? Even many atheists acknowledge this and have to appeal to a multiverse to make sense of the intricate fine-tuning.

Yes. I do think that.

So you don't believe that God created the universe and earth?
The earth took form through unguided forces?

I think I made that clear already.

And black really means white; up is actually down!