Would you say you have a plethora of misconceptions?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What's the Deal with Evolution?
- Thread starter Rival
- Start date
I'm not sure about Muslims but the vast majority of Christians world over have no problem incorporating evolution into their beliefs. Both young-Earth creationism and old-Earth creationism that denies common descent is a minority belief, and diminishing, among those who keep literalistic views of Genesis.
I stopped arguing with them about evolution years ago because ultimately they're a tiny, not very powerful minority. If they're going to change their mind, it's not going to be through back-and-forth on the internet, which we mostly do to *entrench* our beliefs, not change them.
I stopped arguing with them about evolution years ago because ultimately they're a tiny, not very powerful minority. If they're going to change their mind, it's not going to be through back-and-forth on the internet, which we mostly do to *entrench* our beliefs, not change them.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
DNA is far more complex than the computer you are using. It's like a computer code for your genes, and we still can't really understand it. Imagine a code that can be read backwards forwards and sideways and still makes sense and maybe you start to get a glimpse of it. But that's just the tip of the iceberg, it seems that the deeper we go the less we understand.
It's not Darwins clumps of cells. Random mutation doesn't explain that level of complexity.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Only the atheists here and on other forums consistently use it as a doctrine to explain away God...
You say that as if you understand it for some reason. It would help me to know that reason.
Being in awe of something that looks complex to me or the fact that we have only begun to learn about something does not seem like evidence of anything except that I do not know and it is really complex. That might tell me something about us, but how is that evidence for the Creator?
I have some familiarity with the theory and I have found nothing in it that mentions God.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Are you asking why everything in our complicated universe cannot come from nothing? Seems pretty self-explanatory.
Obviously such a creator would have to be all powerful, and beyond human comprehension in order to create everything, so doesn't it seem a little simplistic when people propose it all happened by accident?
Is it all being attributed to an accident? Can you post the scientific literature that claims that life adapts over time by accident. I would love to see those papers.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
If something seems to be designed, the most logical, scientific answer is that it was designed.
We apply this to every archaeological discovery, after all. If I find a cut stone wall in the woods I assume it was made by human hands and did not just form there by itself.... but I'm supposed to believe my DNA did just that? Absolutely ridiculous.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Random mutations are accidental.
"Mutations result from errors during DNA or viral replication, mitosis, or meiosis or other types of damage to DNA (such as pyrimidine dimers caused by exposure to ultraviolet radiation), which then may undergo error-prone repair (especially microhomology-mediated end joining[2]), cause an error during other forms of repair,[3][4] or cause an error during replication (translesion synthesis). Mutations may also result from insertion or deletion of segments of DNA due to mobile genetic elements.[5][6][7]
"Mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, providing the raw material on which evolutionary forces such as natural selection can act."
leroy
Well-Known Member
maybe, but that is my personal opinion
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
But random mutation and natural selection does.
No. As far as I know nobody thinks it did come from nothing except for theists who think think god made it from nothing. Regardless, I was actually asking about why you don't apply the same 'reasoning' to your god?
Again, you seemed to have missed the point. What explains the existence of your god, especially given it would have to be far more complex than the universe?
It seems you're applying this "it can't be an accident, so it must have been created" line to the universe and then, something far, far more complicated magically doesn't need any explanation. If we apply your 'reasoning' consistently, then your god must be an accident.
I am sorry. That does not make any sense to me. If I have never seen water- or wind-formed rock formations, then you conclusion is to fall on designed as the answer when I do encounter them. Then you would never look to see how it was really formed wouldn't you? You would remain in ignorance. Do you think God wants us to be ignorant?
We know from evidence that man makes things. We know that man cuts stone and makes walls out of them. We do not know of anyone or anything else that does this. But we do not know this about DNA or know anything like that which is similar to DNA. In your first example there is a bridge of evidence leading to a conclusion. Where is the bridge in your second example?
It is my opinion too. We finally agree on something.
Random mutations are the result of natural processes that do not occur with a detectable pattern. That they occur maybe an accident, but that hardly makes the process of evolution accidental.
We know that mutations occur and we know things that cause mutations. They are random, because we cannot predict where and what kind of mutation will occur in the DNA, or chromosomes.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Evolution is a scientific theory. It has nothing to do with atheism. Literal creationism is not the same as theism, it is just some specific cults.
So having a psyche is what distinguishes humans from animals? That is what the word soul is in the Greek, "psyche". There are several things which distinguishes us a species from the other species, just as a dragonfly is a species with unique qualities too.
As I said, tall people and short people are different, yet they are also the same. Same thing with the other animals. Humans have unique qualities which make them homo sapiens, as opposed to whales. But we certainly do share the same basic biology, right? A whale has blood and bones and a nervous system, which we do too. Doesn't that show a connection biologically in your mind?
Of course there are differences between the species, but humans are clearly biologically the same as other animals. A cat is also not in the same category as a dog, but there is no denying that biologically they are in the same category as each other, as they are with humans, and humans with them.
A cat and a dog and whale and a human, all share the same basic bilateral body plan, have a spine, have a nervous system, have a brain, have ears, nose, mouth, limbs, etc. We are in the same category as all other mammals. We are all vertebrates. We are all mammals, etc.
Surely, you have to acknowledge at least these basic similarities? If you were to show we shared nothing biologically with any other species on earth, that we are extraterrestrial or something, you could make that argument. But clearly, God did create us out of that general biological form, yes?
Evolution does not look at the soul. It is looking at biology. And even without science, it's pretty obvious we are one of many animal species on this planet which shares basic biology with other species. So "In his image", clearly, does not mean, biology.
If it's true of us, then it clearly is true of animals, as humans are an animal species. It may not be true of all animal species, and that's fine. But it certainly doesn't mean humans are not biologically considered an animal species. Correct?
When I was a boy, I found a round, somewhat flat rock about the size of a silver dollar. The base was a white limestone. At the center and on top was a round, slightly domed piece of yellowish brown chert. The thing looked like a fried egg. So it is the most logical, scientific approach for me to assume it was designed to look like that? You do not think this rock could have formed as the result of random natural processes?
leroy
Well-Known Member
That doesn’t change the fact that atheist tend to use evolution as a symbol, it doesn’t change the fact that atheist tend to defend evolution with favor and passion (to the point that they get angry where flaws are presented) it doesn’t change the fact that many atheist become atheist because of evolution
And it doesn’t change the fact that given the truth of evolution, atheism is more likely true, than if evolution where proven wrong.
*obviously with “atheist” I mean atheist that do some kind of activism in forums, social networks, youtube etc., I am not talking about the regular guy who lives across the street that is labels himself as an atheist but doesn’t really care.