Who Created Evolution?

[Polymath257]

We don't know and it is too difficult for us to comprehend infinity. Suppose God has always existed..it's hard to imagine.

You realize that mathematicians deal with infinity on a daily basis? It really isn't that difficult to comprehend the basics. As for 'always existed', why assume it for a deity that we don't know exists and not for the universe, which we do?

 

[McBell]

You can't afford to take me seriously.

*Climbs Up Onto Pontoon Boat*
Did I get any of it on me?

 

[Jumi]

Hmm... somehow I think Pythagoras would laugh out loud at your little "proof."

Pythagoras was a pagan. The Bible didn't even exist in his time and I doubt he would have thought it was right just because it was most translated.

 

[Jumi]

Last time I checked my reference book was and still is the best selling, most read, most translated book on the planet. No other book even comes close.

I find it hard to follow this kind of thinking. Is popularity the measure of trustworthiness? How was it before it was widely translated and read?

 

[QuestioningMind]

I understand what you're saying. The TOE is 100% dependent on the first life form whether God created it or not. So I don't understand why atheists don't think it's important. Without abiogenesis you have zero life and zero evolution.

Supposedly, all of the life on this planet evolved from the first life form. If I were an atheist I'd be very worried that no version of abiogenesis is viable.

Scientists don't 'worry' that they have not yet found answers to questions. They simply keep investigating until new information is uncovered. What would be completely ridiculous would be for them to simply insert 'God Did It' every time they come to a point where the answer isn't yet clear. If scientists were to do that then scientific advancements would come to a halt. Science would never have determined that natural geological phenomenon are responsible for erupting volcanoes if everyone had accepted without question that volcanoes erupt simply because God is angry.

As for the TOE being 100% dependent on determining how life first began, that's 100% false. We may NEVER determine how life began, but that won't change one iota the reality that less developed lifeforms evolve into more complex life forms over time. That's like saying the theory that the Earth orbits around the sun is 100% dependent upon knowing how the Earth and sun came to be. If GOD DID IT or the big bang is responsible does not change in any way shape or form the reality that the Earth DOES orbit the sun.

 

[Kemosloby]

You realize that mathematicians deal with infinity on a daily basis? It really isn't that difficult to comprehend the basics. As for 'always existed', why assume it for a deity that we don't know exists and not for the universe, which we do?

Why not both. If God existed he must have had a place to live since forever. But since God is Spirit it wouldn't necessarily have to be a physical realm. Anything that can be destroyed is not infinite, which narrows it down some.

 

[Kemosloby]

One of the worst atrocities to be done to mankind is to attribute to a nonexistent deity that which man achieved on his own.

And here I thought it was your sentence structure.

 

[Polymath257]

Why not both. If God existed he must have had a place to live since forever. But since God is Spirit it wouldn't necessarily have to be a physical realm. Anything that can be destroyed is not infinite, which narrows it down some.

I'm not sure why anything that 'can' be destroyed is not infinite. The potential for destruction doesn't mean the fact.

In this, we are not necessarily talking about infinite power, but rather merely infinite duration.

 

[osgart]

I'm no creationist, but I do believe evolution. I also believe evolution has intelligent cause in it.

Why does evolution exclude intelligent cause? I see that as presumption and illogical.

 

[Mister Silver]

Why does evolution exclude intelligent cause?

It might have something to do with the fact that there is no evidence supporting the existence of an intelligent "first cause".

 

[McBell]

I'm no creationist, but I do believe evolution. I also believe evolution has intelligent cause in it.

Why does evolution exclude intelligent cause? I see that as presumption and illogical.

What reason is there to include "intelligent cause"?

 

[osgart]

well a lousy eyeball still functions and has purposes. anything that functions must have some intelligent purpose to it. even if that intelligence is error ridden.

I mean my thumbs don't exist where my pinkies go, there's a grabbing purpose to the hand.

 

[DavidFirth]

Pythagoras was a pagan. The Bible didn't even exist in his time and I doubt he would have thought it was right just because it was most translated.

So? He would have wadded up your little proof and chucked it into the dung pile.

 

[McBell]

well a lousy eyeball still functions and has purposes. anything that functions must have some intelligent purpose to it. even if that intelligence is error ridden.

I mean my thumbs don't exist where my pinkies go, there's a grabbing purpose to the hand.

Hopefully you can do better than that.

Argument from incrudelity is no reason to include an "intelligent cause"?

 

[osgart]

Hopefully you can do better than that.

Argument from incrudelity is no reason to include an "intelligent cause"?

well a multifunctional hand, and an eyeball is not incredulous evidence.

a simple knife has intelligent cause.

I thought an evolutionist would have explanation of evidence of no intelligent cause in evolution other than a blanket statement, and just saying no way. and that's it.

 

[Jumi]

So? He would have wadded up your little proof and chucked it into the dung pile.

I didn't present a proof. I just don't believe truth is a popularity contest. You may believe so, I doubt Pythagoras would have agreed. Mathematicians tend to look things differently.

 

[LukeS]

What about evolution within a multiverse, or a theoretical superposition of world states? If I potentially survive in one, and die in another - what does evolution make of my fitness from that overall perspective? A superposition of lives and deaths? If God created us with real choice (I can choose from doing A and not - A, really not just hypothetically), then maybe our souls navigate quantum space and our bodily actions are signatures of non classical physics.

 

[Jose Fly]

I thought an evolutionist would have explanation of evidence of no intelligent cause in evolution other than a blanket statement, and just saying no way. and that's it.

Science doesn't work that way. It's not a process where someone imagines something (e.g., an "intelligent cause") and then it's up to scientists to show that it isn't a factor. If you think there is an "intelligent cause" driving evolution, then it falls on you to show it to be so.

 

[McBell]

well a multifunctional hand, and an eyeball is not incredulous evidence.

a simple knife has intelligent cause.

I thought an evolutionist would have explanation of evidence of no intelligent cause in evolution other than a blanket statement, and just saying no way. and that's it.

Fact is you have not shown that an "intelligent cause" is needed, let alone required.
You have merely presented reasons why you think it is.
Take your time.

 

[osgart]

wow, total opposite reasoning to me. I find it necessary to prove why an unguided, blind chance cause is required and is responsible and needed for intelligence in living creatures to become.