Does God Exist? (2 Viewers)

[physician]

I agree to an extent.... and if u'd like to know...i wanna share an interesting fact with u.. that is....an interesting fact that i happened to discover through research. Did u know that Hitler was inspired by natural selection and survival of the fittest. He thought that the blonde haired blue eyed Germans were the superior race and that they were the fittest, and he believed that if he killed and killed eventually hitlers army would prosper, and be the fittest. (lol) very interesting if u ask me, i was amazed when i discovered this valuable fact thats been hidden from us........ or at least from me...

 

[physician]

see the thing is natural slection doesnt produce a new organism, its just the increase in number of one that existed, nothing new is being formed.

By the way is mutation considered as evidence for evolution?

 

[joujou_84]

see the thing is natural slection doesnt produce a new organism, its just the increase in number of one that existed, nothing new is being formed.

By the way is mutation considered as evidence for evolution?

mutations cause a change in DNA info and are a source of new alleles in organisms....u must have mutations to have new species....if their mutation assists them in their environment then they will survive and reproduce and the rest will die out.....if their mutation disadvantages them then they will die out......evolution is the process by which an organism changes to suit its environment....therefore mutation and evolution r linked....i dont get wat u mean by natural selection dosent produce new animals and only increases the number of one that existed....

 

[snapperhead]

Please explain why the Bible claims the Earth is only a few thousand years old, yet Carbon 14 dating has proven fossils over 50 000 years old exist.

it doesnt...

unfortunately some people interpret it as such but just cause some say it does doesnt mean that it does ....does it!

much like many of the opinions here re religion (in general) are based on small facets and sometimes they fail to see the big picture....and yes, you can take that anyway you want (as I know some will!!)
LOL

 

[loquasagacious]

Natural selection is intrinsicaly linked to evolution - Physician you say that you acknowledge natural selection and see that it involves the elimination of the weak and the prospering of the strong.

What amkes one strong what makes one weak?

If your answer is god then why are we not living in a monoculture as by now surely there would be quite few species left.

We have seen evolution within the last two hundred years - it has been recorded scientifically over time. One example is the moth (i apologise as I have forgotten it's name) anyway this one species of moth used to be composed of white moths. This was because white moths camofluaged well against trees like birch. However industrial revolution and associated pollution occurs - trees are blackened and over a relatively short time the moth species evolves and now they are virtually all black.

I havn't read the entire thread though have seen this mentioned in other such threads:

The second or third law of thermodynamics (again the memory): entropy - under which it is said that any system deteriotes over time. Te extension being that this disprovews evolution as evolution involves improvemnet over time.

However that is merely a cursory evaluation as: whilst it appears logical on the surface when examined more closely it can in fact be said to prove evolution. In that entropy involves the deteriation of a system from its initial state - when DNA deteriates in some way and a mutation eventuates. However if by some chance this mutation enables the creature to better compete then it's numbers may increase and evolution has occured. So in reality entropy means that over time a system will change from it's original state to a less ordered one. However in the case of evolution this new system may be better able to compete. This can also be used to explain the large ammounts of 'junk DNA' that we possess.

 

[Keen]

Umn, ok I think you're a little confused as if I remember correctly entropy is used to describe energy etc not humans - but yeah interesting theory all the same great to see your thinking.

I think some of you anti-evolution guys are a little confused as you see humans as creating baby humans therefore there is no change. Two humans go in, one comes out. BUT this isn't entirely true the species is slowly changing and if different areas segment themselves from others then we may form (over hundreds of thousands of years) different 'species' of 'humans' which may not be able to interbreed - therefore a new species. This is becoming a little less likely with the increasing number of interbreeding but may be applicable to cultures which isolate themselves.

But it's easier to see in animals as they can be isolated easily (i.e. sheep haven't discovered planes to go between New Zealand and England yet), it's happening in animals as we speak and can be seen easily (to keep the sheep example, sheep in cold areas have found the wolly sheep trait advantageous so those that don't have it have a lesser amount of mating opportunities, therefore the wolly ones become more prominant until that's the main trait - which can be seen in sheeps in different areas (and this is only across a few hundred years).

Anyway, keep talking I've been having this discussion (Does god really exist, not whether evolution exists as it really doesn't disprove or prove anything towards the argument) and would love to hear some intelligent arguments (I'll put some of mine up later I think).

Keen

 

[lukebennett]

i dont think anyone can really prove for or against this with theories since none of the theories have been proven to be correct

 

[acmilan]

I believe in God...I believe evolution is the best explanation for how we came to being...but i cant accept evolution as complete fact and definite explanation of how species arise. Homology, the prime evidence for evolution is riddled with contradictions, inadequate explanations and examples of scientists picking and choosing aspects of science to suit their theory.

 

[lukebennett]

I believe in God...I believe evolution is the best explanation for how we came to being...but i cant accept evolution as complete fact and definite explanation of how species arise. Homology, the prime evidence for evolution is riddled with contradictions, inadequate explanations and examples of scientists picking and choosing aspects of science to suit their theory.

yeah similar to me. i believe in god but i only really believe in natural selection not so much how we apparetly come from apes or rats or something.

 

[loquasagacious]

Well evolution and God NOT existing makes alot more logical sense than the reverse - in fact scientific evidence vastly favours it. However the key is BELIEF in God, for the christian no ammount of scientific evidence or logical thinking will change their mind as they do not logically reason God to exist but believe that he does.

For a scientist seeing is believing - for a christian believing is seeing.

 

[loquasagacious]

Oh and Keen the rason what I posted makes little sense is that about two years ago I was participating in a similar thread on a different site anyway it got closed after another person had pointed to entropy disproving evolution and before I had a chnace to reply so its essentially been lurking in my head ever since lol.

 

[lukebennett]

Well evolution and God NOT existing makes alot more logical sense than the reverse - in fact scientific evidence vastly favours it. However the key is BELIEF in God, for the christian no ammount of scientific evidence or logical thinking will change their mind as they do not logically reason God to exist but believe that he does.

For a scientist seeing is believing - for a christian believing is seeing.

there are different levels of evolution like natural selection which still leave room for God. that is still logical. there is no sufficient proof that humans came from apes. just cause we are genetically similar doesnt mean we actually diverged from each other. there is just a huge amount of speculation and scientists who have been getting ahead of themselves.

 

[loquasagacious]

As I said.....

Are you a protestant? (no this isn't leading to an insult a dissertation possibly).

Well the way my mother explains it all away (quite neatly actually) We evolved - God did/planned it that way, Genesis is vastly simplified for uneducated people eg the early christians (that wasn't meant to offend - at the time the vast number of people were un-educated what i mean is that Genesis is a simple rudimentary explanation for simple rudimentary times). So God didn't really create the world in seven days (though he could have with fast-foreward on) or create animals individually but rather engineered the who,e process - he then just explained it in laymsn terms for us simpletons the problem being that we are now smarter and laymans terms no longer suffice.

Make sense? My mothers way of explaining it - pretty neat really. I personally don't believe the whole thing but it does make for a more plausible argument from christians.

 

[physician]

if u agree with evolution, and also agree with the complexity of DNA, and the way it is structured in such a profound way, ur contradicting yourself, because DNA disproves evolution. Plus when the theory of evolution was developed, there were no microscopes or any knowledge about the double helix and its amazing construction, Darwins theory was not stupid, i mean think of it psychologically however, it doesnt mean its right, after all a theory is a theory. Einstein said " science without religion is blind, and religion without knowledge is crippled" dont ask where, look it up urself, those are his exact words.

 

[lukebennett]

As I said.....

Are you a protestant? (no this isn't leading to an insult a dissertation possibly).

Well the way my mother explains it all away (quite neatly actually) We evolved - God did/planned it that way, Genesis is vastly simplified for uneducated people eg the early christians (that wasn't meant to offend - at the time the vast number of people were un-educated what i mean is that Genesis is a simple rudimentary explanation for simple rudimentary times). So God didn't really create the world in seven days (though he could have with fast-foreward on) or create animals individually but rather engineered the who,e process - he then just explained it in laymsn terms for us simpletons the problem being that we are now smarter and laymans terms no longer suffice.

Make sense? My mothers way of explaining it - pretty neat really. I personally don't believe the whole thing but it does make for a more plausible argument from christians.

yeah it is a good way of explaining it. im not protestant. im just christian really. non denominational basically.

 

[acmilan]

As I said.....

Are you a protestant? (no this isn't leading to an insult a dissertation possibly).

Well the way my mother explains it all away (quite neatly actually) We evolved - God did/planned it that way, Genesis is vastly simplified for uneducated people eg the early christians (that wasn't meant to offend - at the time the vast number of people were un-educated what i mean is that Genesis is a simple rudimentary explanation for simple rudimentary times). So God didn't really create the world in seven days (though he could have with fast-foreward on) or create animals individually but rather engineered the who,e process - he then just explained it in laymsn terms for us simpletons the problem being that we are now smarter and laymans terms no longer suffice.

Make sense? My mothers way of explaining it - pretty neat really. I personally don't believe the whole thing but it does make for a more plausible argument from christians.

That's close to what I belive, unless you are fundamentalist it is accepted by Christians that creation story is a myth. A myth is not true but has some meaning to it

 

[loquasagacious]

Physician how exactly does DNA disprove evolution? By being really purty?

Yes and Einstein was a physicist NOT a biologist. So the only thing of use which can be derived from that quote is that science and christianity are not mutually exclusive something I had already pointed out and that the denomination called christian scientists should ahve made fairly blatant.

 

[acmilan]

Perhaps he refers to the way in which DNA evidence conflicts with homology

 

[physician]

who said anything about christianity, religion is not christianity, religion refers to religion, we dont say that einstenis theories are related to christianuty because (i think he was christian) but we say they are theories in physics. No one said anuthing about christianity.

 

[loquasagacious]

We are in a thread realtinng to the christian god - Einstein was a Jew by the way. So he did beleive in the same god and presumably to some extent in genesis.