Evolution
- Thread starter matt182
- Start date
lol...................
No I didn't! All I said is that it gives a very, satisfactory, explanation without needing to evoke a God. That is, it gives an alternative explanation which is Godless. That doesn't imply it disproves God. Surely you understand now?
By you saying "godless" what you're attempting to say is that it disproves god. For example, if I'm driving my car, and suddenly the window fogs up because I have the ac on, you're saying there's one of two possible answers:
1) I can say "God wills it."
or
2) I can say, "No, it's condensation you idiot"
Using your example, if you explain 1, you're considered "religious." However, if you explain #2, you're atheist.
Basically by someone saying evolution why is it that it automatically disproves god? How can it prove a god or how can it disproves a god?
I guess what I'm attempting to ask what are the primary differences between creationism and evolution? For creationism, it states that god made everything, but evolutionist just remove the "god" statement and simply say it was purely by chance that it happened. Personally, I see no difference between a creationist and a evolutionist, with the exception that one states god and another states a "godless." Of course, you can add the seven day as an argument, but then again, a lot of things in the bible makes no sense.
Um, Catholics believe in God and accept evolution.
You hear that said sometimes, but seldom by scientists. The "theory" of evolution is the principle of survival of the fittest. Since scientific theories make predictions, what predictions does this theory make? That the fittest will survive? But "fit" in evolution just turns out to mean "survive to reproduce", so it's a tautology that the fittest will survive -- otherwise they wouldn't be the fittest. There is no scientific theory here at all.
No, evolution is the theory that measurable genetic changes to a population occur over time. Of which there is are mountains and mountains of evidence to support this claim.
"Survival of the fittest" is a phrase that has been taken out of context and applied to everything in a rather sensationalist manner. That's not what evolution is. At all.
"Survival of the fittest" is a phrase that has been taken out of context and applied to everything in a rather sensationalist manner. That's not what evolution is. At all.
Of course genetic changes occur. That's not a theory; it's merely an observation. Scientific theories make predictions -- that's what makes them scientific theories. Your formulation is theoretically empty, and doesn't say anything about whether there is evolution, since genetic changes needn't be evolutionary changes. No creationist could possibly take issue with the fact that genetic changes can be observed.
Genetic changes in populations IS evolution. Genetic changes that are so significant that various lifeforms require new taxonomic classification is definitely something people take qualms over. "God made this, it did not emerge from X". But yes, there really isn't anything to fight about, since evolution is not much of a discussion. The problem occurs when people do not understand evolution, nor do they realize the necessary distinction between faith and science.
If you want to take the correct definition of evolution to it's logical conclusion, it's that lifeforms today evolved from previous, genetically different lifeforms.
Let's take your definition. If the fittest did not survive and reproduce, will evolution still occur? That is, will genetic change within populations still occur? The answer is yes.
Let's take mine. If genetic change never occurred, could a population evolve? No.
Therefore, my definition is certainly more causal than yours and therefore valid.
If you want to take the correct definition of evolution to it's logical conclusion, it's that lifeforms today evolved from previous, genetically different lifeforms.
Let's take your definition. If the fittest did not survive and reproduce, will evolution still occur? That is, will genetic change within populations still occur? The answer is yes.
Let's take mine. If genetic change never occurred, could a population evolve? No.
Therefore, my definition is certainly more causal than yours and therefore valid.
I will conclude this on Isiah 53-4:6, Isiah predicts Jesus' entrance... Isiah was written in the old testament, so this was 600years before the son came before us, perfect prediction.
Words written above are my thoughts exactly.
GB
Last edited:
I just read your post PB...I was diggin everything you said until
Why can't you live with love in your heart for others if you believe the latter? The two (Following Jesus and believing in the latter) aren't inversely related. I hesitate to use the term "evolution" here, because evolution, as you can see above, is not what you are suggesting.
Really, though, I think this universe, or at least our world, runs best on compassion. If that was by design or by random chance, it doesn't matter. Live with love for others in your heart, and things should be okay. Only when the issue of heaven or hell comes up do things get dicey. But really, if you're doing what can be seen as compassionate acts for the expectation of racking up brownie points with God, that's not really compassion, that's a business transaction.
Why can't you live with love in your heart for others if you believe the latter? The two (Following Jesus and believing in the latter) aren't inversely related. I hesitate to use the term "evolution" here, because evolution, as you can see above, is not what you are suggesting.
Really, though, I think this universe, or at least our world, runs best on compassion. If that was by design or by random chance, it doesn't matter. Live with love for others in your heart, and things should be okay. Only when the issue of heaven or hell comes up do things get dicey. But really, if you're doing what can be seen as compassionate acts for the expectation of racking up brownie points with God, that's not really compassion, that's a business transaction.