Chance or Design?

[Eridor]

Well, first of all, evolution has been modified many, many times to fit new information that is discovered. Common theory now is that if evolution did happen, there was not one common ancestor that turned into one thing, then another, then another. Supposedly, the very first microbes evolved into dozens of different branches, which evolved into more branches, which evolved into even more branches. It would have been sort of like an evolutionary explosion, all at one time. However, if an all-powerful being (i.e. God) had the power to create things, why would he wait around billions of years for it to happen? In all actuality, it would be more convenient to just say the word and 'poof', instant universe.

[navyseal101]

time doesn't exsist to a being that cannot die. Billions of years is nothing to God. Time is only relevant to a creature that ages, like humans.

As a matter of fact, time doesn't really exsist at all. It is just something we invented to justify the fact that we can remember things that are senses experiance. Like, if I say a word, I can remember that I just said that word, so it's in my memory as a "past occurance".

[eyespewgreekfire]

nforcer, read the miller/urey experiment. it created reproductive organic material from nonorganic material under conditions similar to the earth around when life emerged/was created (lots of lightning etc). If organic material able to produce copies of itself are possible, it is not too much of a stretch to say that could lead to life.

[The_Q]

Before this is locked I'm going to have to contribute some. First off, I'd like to point out that Darwin did not propose evolution. Darwin added to the theory of evolution, a theory which stated that animal species changed over time. Darwin added natural selection, the method from which the species changed (although not necessarily into another species).

From this we can conclude that there are other apes around for a rational reason. As I understand, humans were a mistake. A big slip up caused by a change in diet. Our current habitat at the time of our dawn (Northeast Africa) required us to lose our fur coats in order to cope with the warmer weather. Don't get me wrong, we still had an ice age going on up north and the effects of said ice age were being felt in this portion of Africa at the time. Humans were designed to survive comfortably in 98.6 degree Fahrenheit climates and since then we've adapted. As you can imagine, the kind of food that is readily available in climates such as I have described is rather small and often not to hard to eat. This factor in development caused a greater number of humans born with a weak jaw to continue surviving. A side effect of a weaker jaw is greater cranial capacity (from what I understand this is pure incident. I'm no expert on the matter and therefore I cannot fully explain this) which can aid in the search for food. Eventually our jaw weakened enough for us to begin to adapt faster and make tools better than our simian ancestors thus allowing us to thrive in a much better way. Again, I'm no expert so don't slap me if I'm wrong.

Oh, and the theory of evolution does not contradict itself because of the Law of Biogenesis because Biogenesis cannot hold a flame to evolution. Why? If it turns out that life evolved from chemicals wouldn't the Law be disproven? At this point you cannot disprove evolution, we've got experiments proving it's validity (not to mention a whole series of sciences that follow the same rules. See: Economics). Unfortunately for your Law you run into a simple logical flaw. It is impossible to prove something cannot be done. It is only possible to prove that something cannot be achieved by a certain method.

That's all I can think of for now. I might come back later.

Q

MAJOR EDIT: In regards to Squeek's post below I'd like to point out that I'm Christian. I'm also aware that people wrote The Bible. That's why Proverbs and Ecclesiastes are right next to each other. I don't believe most of Genesis. Any Christian with half a brain should know why they shouldn't either.

[Squeek]

After much discussion with Q about how nothing can be impossible, we decided on the following formula.

limit 1/x^x
x->inf

Read as: The limit as X approaches inifinity for 1/x^x.

That's your probability for Genesis being true.

~Squeek

[Eridor]

Yes, but you're missing a major detail here. If the Bible is the word of God, why would we believe only parts of it? Once you start undermining one part of it, people start to say, "Well, if Genesis is only symbolic then this part (such as Jesus actually being divine, etc.) must be symbolic too." Then, they can pick and choose which parts of the Bible they actually want to believe. If they don't agree with something, or they are uncomfortable with a certain verse, they can just slip around it. Besides, if God has the ability to create anything, why could he not create the world (and everything in it) in six days? This applies especially to the post above about God being outside of time because if time means nothing to God, he could easily have done it all in just six days.

Also, if you put evolution before Genesis, then you put death and destruction before man's fall (hence the fossil record). We know from the Bible that the world was perfect when it was created with no death or disease or anything else of that nature.

I also want to point to the fossil record itself. When you look at it, you never see any "intermediary" forms of animals evolving from one species to another. When an animal dies, it goes through stages of decay, and its remains are generally scattered everywhere and are unrecognizable. There have been cases though, where animals have died and then almost immediately covered by sediment. This seems to preserve whole skeletons and keeps them intact. If you apply this to the Flood, you could say that the flood had the ability to do this very easily. There would most likely be currents flowing through the water, much like the oceans today. This would bury animals right where they stood (or lay or whatever) thereby preserving whole skeletons of, not just one or two animals, but whole groups. Plus, with the currents running to and fro, this would lay down layer upon layer of sediment, creating the different layers of rock we see today and the fossil record.

-Eridor

[heidzo63]

The_Q, how can you say that Christians should only believe parts of the Bible and just blow the rest off? That doesnt make sense. The Bible was written as a book that is supposed to be ALL true. What would be the point of writing a bunch of parts if nobody should believe them anyways?

[Afrobean]

Guys, logic tells us that the bible cannot be literally true. The bible is merely a good way to show you how to live your life. Think of it the way you would a greek myth. You don't be like "Wow! Zeus battled his father Chronus after Chronus ate all of Zeus's siblings. Then the Titans came and Zeus kicked their butts too!" No, you simply see it as meaning that tyrany will be punished with a hero who will defeat them. It's the same with the bible.

[nforcer06164]

Guys, logic tells us that the bible cannot be literally true. The bible is merely a good way to show you how to live your life. Think of it the way you would a greek myth. You don't be like "Wow! Zeus battled his father Chronus after Chronus ate all of Zeus's siblings. Then the Titans came and Zeus kicked their butts too!" No, you simply see it as meaning that tyrany will be punished with a hero who will defeat them. It's the same with the bible.

So true, Afro. Everybody knows the story of Moses parting the Red Sea to escape the Egyptians, right? Well, how else could they escape? They couldn't get past the water otherwise, right? Nah. All they had to do was walk through it. The Sea of Reeds, as it is also called, is only a few feet deep, and easy to walk through. So, while people could easily walk through the water, the Egyptian chariots, if THAT even happened (the chase, that is), got stuck in the mud. Nobody drowned.

What about Jesus healing the man born blind in the Gospel of John? Maybe he wasn't physically blind, but "spiritually blind". Jesus "healed his blindness" and brought him to have faith in God. And what about feeding the 5,000? Maybe he "fed" them the Word of God. So, the miracles and signs may never have happened physically as they are portrayed.

It sure makes things a whole lot harder to believe....

[Eridor]

And what about feeding the 5,000? Maybe he "fed" them the Word of God.

Not only does it say that he fed the five thousand, it also says that he used fish and bread to do it. This means that it was a physical feeding, not spiritual. Plus, they were up on that hillside for five days straight. How could they have stayed without physical nourishment?

Also, the Bible was not written by only one person, nor was it written by a group of people who got together and over a beer (just paraphrasing here ) decide what to write down. These men were all from different places and different cultural backgrounds, so how else would all of the books of the Bible be so closely related except that they were God-inspired. This is especially evident in the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) because they all have common elements, but they all have differences as well and are told from different perspectives.Now, you might say, "But how do we know that all of these men actuall existed?" The answer to that is archaelogy.

Based on archaeolgoical finds, mainly historical documents, such as records and censuses (what is the plural of census?), we know for sure that Jesus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul (formerly Saul), Thomas, and Peter actually existed, and I'm not including the burial box that says "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" on it because that is still in the "unauthenticated" stage.

-Eridor

[heidzo63]

Who ever said Jesus couldn't do all that stuff like feeding the 5,000 and about a million other things? Jesus is God, and God CREATED the world....so why is it so hard to believe that he could heal a blind man?

[alainbryden]

^^ignor'd. Although I have much to say on the topic, I will say little so that it is read.

Evolution is not all encompassing, and it has been infinitely misused in this thread. There is microevolution and macroevolution. I will leave it to you to reason out which is which. Either way, microevolution is a proven occurence, but whether or not macroevolution is a reasonable explanation for certain phenomena is still under debate. You have also all ignored the existance of genetic drift and other existing non-'natural selection' methods of species transcendance.

Also, I need not remind you that this is not yet another discussion about whether the bible is to be interpreted literally or even trusted as much as a science fiction novel.

[jewpinthethird]

If Jesus is God, then does that make him also his own father?

Also, I need not remind you that this is not yet another discussion about whether the bible is to be interpreted literally or even trusted as much as a science fiction novel.

Not Science-Fiction...Miricale-Fiction.

---

It's sad to see that the Bible being used as a device which is argued over. Isnt the purpose of the Bible to teach the word of "God" and "Jesus Christ"? And isnt their word one of "unconditional love" and "peace"? Shouldnt we all take this into consideration before we attack it/or attack those who do not believe in it? Whether you believe the Bible literally, or not, isnt it basically a guide to living a good-wholesome life?

Religion is supposed to be something that unites one another, not something tears them apart.

[alainbryden]

It's sad to see that the Bible being used as a device which is argued over.

This surprises you? Have you forgotten that the bible alone has been the sole cause of many wars?

Religion is supposed to be something that unites one another, not something tears them apart.

This is not true. Religion is something that seperates people who have been raised differently. It exists as another prejudicial barrier between humans. Religion is only intended to bring structure and sometimes comfort to it's followers. Although it does not necessarily promote violence and hatred, it induces it more than anything else.

[ayanepuck]

I believe in intelligent design. And I believe in the first thing that eyespewgreekfire said. In the book of Genesis, it may not have said dinosaurs existed, but that does not mean they never did. It never says, 'And God said, let there be platypuses, and there were platypuses' yet we know that they exist. Also, how can all life forms have evolved from prokaryotic single cells? The law of biogenis states that all life comes from other life, and evolutionists also say that the first prokaryotic cells evolved from simple chemicals. Evolution contradicts itself!
Another example that makes evolution hard to believe is just by looking at a cell with a single flagella. The flagella is basically a propeller that moves the cell through liquid. It can turn hunreds of thousands of times each second, then turn in the reverse direction in milliseconds. Some evolutionists say that with random design, simple cells could have evolved into these complex flagellate protists.
Look at a middle school science textbook! There is so much that evolution has no proof for. 'In the Precambian Time, blah blah blah, Eventually these molecules may have joined to form structures such as cells.' Notice the MAY. These textbooks contain many 'may have this, may have that.' I just can't believe in evolution.

And I just can't believe in intelligent design. So textbooks say "may." So what? The Bible is a book of faith...thousands of things from that book have never been proven.
I am a Christian as well....but I believe strongly that the story of creation were like many of the other stories in the Bible...metaphors and fables. Stories that teach lessons rather than actual facts. It is all very faith-based...so your argument doesn't hold much water.