Evolution Isn't At Odds With God

[Checkmate]

(I don't usually discuss evolution since I don't know what the hell I'm talking about. HOWEVER, I have something to say to the religious set out there, cowering in fear behind their shield of faith...)

 

 

Many religious people are afraid of science. They always have been. Since the beginnings of religious belief, the god-boys have viewed science as a threat to belief in god. One must ask the question: WHY?

 

What are theists so afraid of? What are they trying to tell the world? That if people (the sheep) get educated they won’t believe in god any longer? Intelligence is equated with atheism, while ignorance is beneficial to theism? Is that the message here?

 

Apparently so.

 

What got me stirred up about this was the constant barrage evolution receives from Christians. (Evolution and the Big Bang Theory.) Many Christians are running around spouting fearful rhetoric against any advances in science, obviously panic-stricken that their “god” is in danger of being phased out of existence. Just like the Roman Catholic Church was terrified of the knowledge that the Earth was NOT the center of the universe, today’s Christian is terrified of the knowledge that “God” did not create man or the Earth.

 

But therein lies the comedy.

 

Neither evolution, nor the Big Bang theory, are attacking God! Evolution and the Big Bang merely depict MECHANISMS for creation and changes. Neither idea have even remotely identified the SOURCE for these mechanisms. Ergo: there is STILL room for “God” in this equation.

 

Let me make it simple for you believers. IF there was some Big Bang, then where did IT come from? Maybe this “God” creature, that you love to fantasize about, snapped “his” fingers, or farted, and BIG BANG!, here we are!

 

MAYBE this “God” creature “intelligently designed” the evolutionary and natural selection processes? Maybe THAT is the source for all things. Who knows? Not even scientists know these answers. Science is NOT even remotely addressing the question of “god.” That is not the function of science. To believe that evolution disproves “god” is like believing that math disproves language or art. It’s apples and oranges time. Mutually exclusive subjects.

 

My point is this: Many of you religious people need to get a grip on reality, and step out of the tiny confines of your minds. There is a wide, wide universe out here, and it is just POSSIBLE that your “God” is still part of all of it. (Maybe even the REASON for all of it.) You don’t need to be afraid of scientific discovery. If you’d stop being petulant little primitive children, you MIGHT begin to see your “God” in this glorious panorama that the rest of us call Life. Stop being so myopically black and white about these issues. Widen your mind and your field of vision. It doesn’t HAVE to be “either/or.” It COULD be both.

 

So remove your feet from the brakes on the Wheels of Progress. Scientists are not trying to take your “God” away from you. They’re just trying to learn how things work around here. Asking a few questions and getting a few answers. Why don’t you just return to church, make yourselves useful and pray to your “God” that the scientists possess enough grace and wisdom to discover what they need for mankind, so that they don’t fuck things up?

 

Who knows? Maybe “He” is listening.

 

~ Checkmate

 

P.S. - All is not lost. There is a growing movement of clergy who support and accept evolution. Click this link Clergy Letter Project. Now all we need to do is get this message to filter down to the sheep, so that they can quit bleating in terror every time Darwin's name is mentioned.

[Lycorth]

Hah - good post

 

Certainly, an all-powerful, all-knowing god can control the evolutionary process, in theory. It would have the infinite wisdom to do so and the unlimited power to make it so.

 

Though of course, such a god would understand that just creating beings at the peak of what their evolutionary development would be is the more logical way to go about building an ideal creation, but if said deity wants only to watch one develop and doesn't want to create one right off the bat, it could certainly control the process whereby being develop into higher life-forms.

 

And an all-loving god would be too desirous of his beings' welfare and happiness to waste time putzing around with evolution, but that's another topic

 

However, the theory of evolution is certainly dangerous to the Xian deity, or to any deity with the same attributes of being all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful. No god like that would even bother with evolution, I'd think.

[ChibiQ]

This theory is flawed. It's the subject of the book "The Language of God" which is also flawed.

[dr_funkenstein]

So let me get this straight.

 

Get set up the whole big bang, cosmology, abiogenesis, evolution thing just so that our species - Homo Sapiens would spring into existence so that we could have a relationship with him.

 

Ok. The bible is what... 6000 years old? Maybe?

 

Homo Sapiens has been around for at least 100,000 years.

 

So for 94,000 years this god of yours allowed us to roam around killing and raping one another, presumably watching all of this complete barbarism unfold. 94,000 years... and then he stepped in and said "ok I better put a stop to this".

 

Does it make any sense to you?

[ChibiQ]

So let me get this straight.

 

Get set up the whole big bang, cosmology, abiogenesis, evolution thing just so that our species - Homo Sapiens would spring into existence so that we could have a relationship with him.

 

Ok. The bible is what... 6000 years old? Maybe?

 

Homo Sapiens has been around for at least 100,000 years.

 

So for 94,000 years this god of yours allowed us to roam around killing and raping one another, presumably watching all of this complete barbarism unfold. 94,000 years... and then he stepped in and said "ok I better put a stop to this".

 

Does it make any sense to you?

 

Not at all. I'm a young earth believer, and if you've been here a while, you know our stance. Evidence found by science is almost always interpreted 2 ways when it's applicable, and both theories have their points; however, young earth, from what I gather, has little or no flaws.

[dr_funkenstein]

Not at all. I'm a young earth believer, and if you've been here a while, you know our stance. Evidence found by science is almost always interpreted 2 ways when it's applicable, and both theories have their points; however, young earth, from what I gather, has little or no flaws.

 

Ok, I call sock puppet.

[RedPillAddict]

however, young earth, from what I gather, has little or no flaws.

 

Bwahahahahha!

Ok...this guy has to be joking.

 

No flaws? Seriously?!

 

How about every single field of science over the past couple hundred of years disproving the young earth theory?

Young Earth theory - 100% impossible. Without a doubt.

[Monk]

Not at all. I'm a young earth believer, and if you've been here a while, you know our stance. Evidence found by science is almost always interpreted 2 ways when it's applicable, and both theories have their points; however, young earth, from what I gather, has little or no flaws.

 

 

So, I guess you also believe that "god" put all those fossils and other types of geologic evidence showing an OLD earth there just to trip us up? See who was REALLY faithful and believing to him?

 

Let's assume for a second that you are right: they earth is only 6000 years old AND god put the contradictions I mentioned here on the earth just to mess with us. Why, in the name of all that's holy, would you WANT to worship something like that? If he lies about simple stuff like that, what else might he have lied about?

 

A little common sense, please.

[mwc]

Why, in the name of all that's holy, would you WANT to worship something like that? If he lies about simple stuff like that, what else might he have lied about?

 

A little common sense, please.

Well, I wasn't supposed to say anything, but just to keep you from going to hell...

 

God told all those little white lies because he was planning something really great for your birthday.

 

Now try to act all surprised when you see jesus fly down from the clouds with your cake.

 

mwc

[Monk]

Why, in the name of all that's holy, would you WANT to worship something like that? If he lies about simple stuff like that, what else might he have lied about?

 

A little common sense, please.

Well, I wasn't supposed to say anything, but just to keep you from going to hell...

 

God told all those little white lies because he was planning something really great for your birthday.

 

Now try to act all surprised when you see jesus fly down from the clouds with your cake.

 

mwc

 

 

I've never had a real birthday party, since my birthday is so close to CHRISTMAS...so that joker, Jeebus, ruined it for me a long time ago. But here he was going to make up for it by throwing me a surprise party, and now you've blown it.

 

I am unconsolably sad.

[Grandpa Harley]

Taking the existence of a creator god as an a priori assumption

 

Evolution posits the method a creator may have used

 

Creationism tell God how he had to have done it...

[Monk]

Taking the existence of a creator god as an a priori assumption

 

Evolution posits the method a creator may have used

 

Creationism tell God how he had to have done it...

 

 

But they would NEVER be arrogant, would they?

[crazy-tiger]

however, young earth, from what I gather, has little or no flaws.

Only if you leave out a little thing called Reality...

[ChibiQ]

Not at all. I'm a young earth believer, and if you've been here a while, you know our stance. Evidence found by science is almost always interpreted 2 ways when it's applicable, and both theories have their points; however, young earth, from what I gather, has little or no flaws.

 

 

So, I guess you also believe that "god" put all those fossils and other types of geologic evidence showing an OLD earth there just to trip us up? See who was REALLY faithful and believing to him?

 

Let's assume for a second that you are right: they earth is only 6000 years old AND god put the contradictions I mentioned here on the earth just to mess with us. Why, in the name of all that's holy, would you WANT to worship something like that? If he lies about simple stuff like that, what else might he have lied about?

 

A little common sense, please.

 

 

"Let's assume for a second that you are right: they earth is only 6000 years old AND god put the contradictions I mentioned here on the earth just to mess with us. Why, in the name of all that's holy, would you WANT to worship something like that? If he lies about simple stuff like that, what else might he have lied about?"

 

The Flood would have buried large amounts of carbon from living organisms (plant and animal) to form today’s fossil fuels (coal, oil, etc.). The amount of fossil fuels indicates there must have been a vastly larger quantity of vegetation in existence prior to the Flood than exists today. This means that the biosphere just prior to the Flood might have had 500 times more carbon in living organisms than today. This would further dilute the amount of 14C and cause the 14C/12C ratio to be much smaller than today.

 

If that were the case, and this C-14 were distributed uniformly throughout the biosphere, and the total amount of biosphere C were, for example, 500 times that of today’s world, the resulting C-14/C-12 ratio would be 1/500 of today’s level....

When the Flood is taken into account along with the decay of the magnetic field, it is reasonable to believe that the assumption of equilibrium is a false assumption.

 

Because of this false assumption, any age estimates using 14C prior to the Flood will give much older dates than the true age. Pre-Flood material would be dated at perhaps ten times the true age.

 

(from http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/n...rove-the-bible)

[dr_funkenstein]

Do you think creationists know, on some level, that they're fucktards? It's an interesting question and one I'd like to explore in greater detail.

[crazy-tiger]

"Let's assume for a second that you are right: they earth is only 6000 years old AND god put the contradictions I mentioned here on the earth just to mess with us. Why, in the name of all that's holy, would you WANT to worship something like that? If he lies about simple stuff like that, what else might he have lied about?"

 

The Flood would have buried large amounts of carbon from living organisms (plant and animal) to form today’s fossil fuels (coal, oil, etc.). The amount of fossil fuels indicates there must have been a vastly larger quantity of vegetation in existence prior to the Flood than exists today. This means that the biosphere just prior to the Flood might have had 500 times more carbon in living organisms than today. This would further dilute the amount of 14C and cause the 14C/12C ratio to be much smaller than today.

Oh dear...

 

Sonny, if there was 500x the amount of carbon floating about, the amount of C14 would still have the same ratio thanks to the way C14 is formed.

If that were the case, and this C-14 were distributed uniformly throughout the biosphere, and the total amount of biosphere C were, for example, 500 times that of today’s world, the resulting C-14/C-12 ratio would be 1/500 of today’s level....

Nope, it would be about the same ratio as it is now... which demolishes this little pile of garbage you're pushing.

When the Flood is taken into account along with the decay of the magnetic field, it is reasonable to believe that the assumption of equilibrium is a false assumption.

Uh-huh... pity the ages C14 dating comes out with matches dates given by other methods.

 

You must be getting this from a shoddy source for them to "forget" all those other dating methods...

Because of this false assumption, any age estimates using 14C prior to the Flood will give much older dates than the true age. Pre-Flood material would be dated at perhaps ten times the true age.

Only 10x? There's stuff there showing ages of around 4 BILLION! Are you suggesting that it's only going to be 400 Million?

 

Sure shows how the Earth is only 6000 years old, doesn't it?

(from http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/n...rove-the-bible)

Figures... you're getting your argument from a site that states very clearly that it will ignore ANY evidence that goes against a literal reading of Genesis. (or can't be "twisted" to support it) Heck, if you wanted to show you were ignorant you couldn't have picked a better way to do it.

[crazy-tiger]

Do you think creationists know, on some level, that they're fucktards? It's an interesting question and one I'd like to explore in greater detail.

No... they think they're the clever ones.

[Kuroikaze]

Little or no flaws? perhaps you care to explain how light from a star 10 billion light years away is viewable to us when the universe is less than 10,000 years old?

 

Carbon dating is only used on things younger than 20,000 to 30,000 years old anyway, older things are dated using radiometric isotopes, and usually dated with multiple methods.

 

Then there is the small fact that there were actually human civilizations such as Egypt that were already flourishing before the universe even existed according to you. The earliest permanent human settlements can be traced back at least 10,000 years.

 

Your quote from AIG is utter crap...not a shred of evidence to back it up. Does a larger number of plants equal a larger amount of carbon in said plants? Because that is the argument presented. Where is the experemental data to back up that claim? I'll give you a hint...there isn't any because "creation scientists" never TEST their claims, lest they find out how stupid the claims actually are. They want to attack evolution for having "assumptions" but from what I can see the whole article is one big assumption. It is full of words like "might" or "could have" and not one shred of experimental data to back up anything.

[Grandpa Harley]

As an addendum, it's interesting to note that coal and oil formation stop after micro-organsims adapted/evolved to decay(digest) the material... we find their remains as micro fossils in some rock types...

[Kuroikaze]

Something else to consider that I just now thought of, for those who take the genesis story literally.

 

Adam and his sons are farmers. We are supposed to believe that the earliest humans were farmers, even though archaeologists have found that that the earliest humans were hunter gather communities, and farming developed later during the agrarian revolution.

 

So the earliest humans could not have been farmers.

[Monk]

The Flood would have buried large amounts of carbon from living organisms (plant and animal) to form today’s fossil fuels (coal, oil, etc.). The amount of fossil fuels indicates there must have been a vastly larger quantity of vegetation in existence prior to the Flood than exists today. This means that the biosphere just prior to the Flood might have had 500 times more carbon in living organisms than today. This would further dilute the amount of 14C and cause the 14C/12C ratio to be much smaller than today.

 

If that were the case, and this C-14 were distributed uniformly throughout the biosphere, and the total amount of biosphere C were, for example, 500 times that of today’s world, the resulting C-14/C-12 ratio would be 1/500 of today’s level....

When the Flood is taken into account along with the decay of the magnetic field, it is reasonable to believe that the assumption of equilibrium is a false assumption.

 

Because of this false assumption, any age estimates using 14C prior to the Flood will give much older dates than the true age. Pre-Flood material would be dated at perhaps ten times the true age.

 

(from http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/n...rove-the-bible)

 

 

Thank you, but I'm aware of the apologetic's argument. You are obviously a bright individual (no sarcasm), so I find it hard to believe that you can't see that the people from which you are getting your sources are working in a manner that is incongruous with science and are making a shameless effort to deceive you. Some offer blatantly inaccurate findings (such as what you just posted) designed to fit what they think would fit their slanted christian world view, while others take REAL findings from REAL scientists and twist those findings to make them fit their own distorted personal views. Either method is intellectually dishonest and is completely lacking any sense of ethics.

 

Further, it sincerely pains me to watch you unsuccessfully try to pass the bible off as an accurate precursor of science. It simply cannot be done. If it could, many of us here would still be christians. I would suggest you try another, more intellectually honest, tactic. Otherwise, you run the risk of being so soundly refuted as to be embarrassed.

[Ouroboros]

ChibiQ,

 

SN1987A

 

It's distance from us calculated by using basic trigonometry and basic observed facts about the speed of light.

 

The time for the light to reach us, approximately 150-170,000 years.

 

If you come up with the "changed speed of light" argument, I've read articles that take that into account and the triangulation formulas will even out and the resulting time is still the same.

 

This is no hypothesis. This is a FACT. Now if the supernova happened that long ago, why did God wait 140,000 years to create the rest of the Universe and the planet Earth?

 

And again, why do you think that Augustine, Origin and many other Church fathers are heretics? They believed in the Genesis story as an allegory, but of course you know better than then early Christians since you're a fundamentalist, and they must be wrong. Isn't it beautiful to be so ignorant and self-centered? No one else can ever be right, and you can always be right. Christianity breed self-admiring and arrogant people. It's rotten from inside.

[Fweethawt]

There had to be some evolutionary changes along the way...

 

After all, serpents don't talk anymore.

 

And they ain't wise'n crafty no more, either.

[HuaiDan]

The whole premise of the OP is classic god of the gaps. The funny thing that happens is that god always gets smaller and smaller, and only rears his head where there are gaps of ignorance, which keep shrinking as our knowledge grows. I predict everytime we close a gap, the god therein will just disappear, an ephemeral illusion.

[Ouroboros]

There had to be some evolutionary changes along the way...

 

After all, serpents don't talk anymore.

 

And they ain't wise'n crafty no more, either.

Yup. And there were only one kind of dogs on the Ark, and now we have all the different sub-kinds of dogs.

 

And what about genetic defects in humans? All the 8 or 12 (or whatever) members on the boat couldn't have been carriers of all genetic defects (or traits) to account for all the diversity right now.