# Evolution Logic?



## fireman32 (Oct 13, 2013)

So you don't believe in God, I can accept that.  It's evolution that baffles me.  I'm not highly educated, but I like to learn how others think.  Believing that energy was, and then acted upon itself or with another element to create what we are now, seems illogical to me.  Wouldn't energy have to self generate multiple times to account for the variety of life we currently have.  Taking humans into account, even with asexual reproduction, wouldn't inbreeding be a problem. Which is also a problem some have with the Bible.  And what about different races, if we all came from one cell, why would one race have slanted eyes, dark skin, light skin.  I can't prove to anyone that God exists, but by MY logic He seems more credible than the theory of evolution.  It seems there are too many variables that would have to act and react perfectly with each other to gt to where we currently are.
I realize science has proven a lot, but it hasn't created new matter or proven where it came from.  Or are some of you satisfied being left in wonder?
No agenda, just trying to learn.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 13, 2013)

fireman32 said:


> So you don't believe in God, I can accept that.  It's evolution that baffles me.  I'm not highly educated, but I like to learn how others think.  Believing that energy was, and then acted upon itself or with another element to create what we are now, seems illogical to me.  Wouldn't energy have to self generate multiple times to account for the variety of life we currently have.  Taking humans into account, even with asexual reproduction, wouldn't inbreeding be a problem. Which is also a problem some have with the Bible.  And what about different races, if we all came from one cell, why would one race have slanted eyes, dark skin, light skin.  I can't prove to anyone that God exists, but by MY logic He seems more credible than the theory of evolution.  It seems there are too many variables that would have to act and react perfectly with each other to gt to where we currently are.
> I realize science has proven a lot, but it hasn't created new matter or proven where it came from.  Or are some of you satisfied being left in wonder?
> No agenda, just trying to learn.



If you are truly interested in learning these things, you should do as much research as you can. If you cannot wrap your head around it now, having "us" explain it to you will do you no good. The simple explanation is not so simple and the detailed explanation is very complicated. It cannot be summed up here in a few posts. It really needs to be researched by you. The process took Billions of years. Literally Billions. A solid day or twenty reading up on these things, by simply typing in the questions you want to know on a search engine, will get you started in the right direction and then you can narrow it down from there.
It really is much more complicated than "God did it" and even if it turns out a God did do it, it is much more complicated than any religious book will have you believe. It took Billions of years with a God or not.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 13, 2013)

fireman32 said:


> So you don't believe in God, I can accept that.  It's evolution that baffles me.  I'm not highly educated, but I like to learn how others think.  Believing that energy was, and then acted upon itself or with another element to create what we are now, seems illogical to me.  Wouldn't energy have to self generate multiple times to account for the variety of life we currently have.  Taking humans into account, even with asexual reproduction, wouldn't inbreeding be a problem. Which is also a problem some have with the Bible.  And what about different races, if we all came from one cell, why would one race have slanted eyes, dark skin, light skin.  I can't prove to anyone that God exists, but by MY logic He seems more credible than the theory of evolution.  It seems there are too many variables that would have to act and react perfectly with each other to gt to where we currently are.
> I realize science has proven a lot, but it hasn't created new matter or proven where it came from.  Or are some of you satisfied being left in wonder?
> No agenda, just trying to learn.



And something to think about>>>>
Many of us are not sure about a God/Creator. Many of us have found enough proof that we are comfortable believing that all the organized religions versions of a God are not enough for us to get on board with. Actually most of us were Christians at one time and now are not.
Right now, me personally, I cannot say with 100% accuracy that there is a God or a Creator or not. What I am 99.9% sure about it IF there is a God(s) it is not the exact one portrayed in the Torah, Koran, Bible(both testaments) and every other religion that I have been introduced to or have looked into.


----------



## swampstalker24 (Oct 13, 2013)

fireman32 said:


> So you don't believe in God, I can accept that.  It's evolution that baffles me.  I'm not highly educated, but I like to learn how others think.  Believing that energy was, and then acted upon itself or with another element to create what we are now, seems illogical to me.  Wouldn't energy have to self generate multiple times to account for the variety of life we currently have.  Taking humans into account, even with asexual reproduction, wouldn't inbreeding be a problem. Which is also a problem some have with the Bible.  And what about different races, if we all came from one cell, why would one race have slanted eyes, dark skin, light skin.  I can't prove to anyone that God exists, but by MY logic He seems more credible than the theory of evolution.  It seems there are too many variables that would have to act and react perfectly with each other to gt to where we currently are.
> I realize science has proven a lot, but it hasn't created new matter or proven where it came from.  Or are some of you satisfied being left in wonder?
> No agenda, just trying to learn.




The theory of evolution does not attempt explain how life itself came to be, but rather how very simple lifeforms changed over time, becoming better suited to survive in the environment of their time.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 13, 2013)

Look into Super Novas and Neutron Stars to get an understanding on how energy creates atoms , matter, and elements. Every person alive and that has ever lived is made up of the exact same matter that our stars are made of.


----------



## Melvin4730 (Oct 13, 2013)

How did planets and/or stars bang into one another and create life that can physically reproduce itself? 


No one is questioning that we are made of atoms, matter and/or elements. Everything in and around us is science. 

Look into the process involved in having a baby. The whole thing is a miracle...amazing. Something most of us take for granted, because it happens so often. Its done through a long and complicated list of chemical processes.

I think everything in the world must evolve to survive. Its a natural process.

Inbreeding happens in nature everyday. Packs of wolves, herds of deer, flocks of geese...have inbreeding in them. Why wouldn't humans do the same think thousands of years ago, when the population and access to other mates was very limited. This seems to be a very logical process for that time period.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 13, 2013)

How do you explain rainbows? After I hear your answer on rainbows I can understand better if you can except science and religion co-existing.


----------



## Cris (Oct 13, 2013)

*Not quite but yeah*



swampstalker24 said:


> The theory of evolution does not attempt explain how life itself came to be, but rather how very simple lifeforms changed over time, becoming better suited to survive in the environment of their time.



Where as you are correct that ToE does not explain how life began, but does take up the task of answering where all species came from once life began, it is used to explain how life began. Sounds convoluted but it's true. Anyone who is an atheist will say that we no longer need God to explain how stuff happens. We now have ToE that is capable of explaining everything. Of course, ToE is not capable but is used in such a way. You have cosmic evolution, chemical evolution and biological evolution. None proven by the same standard that evolutionists would want you to believe nor by the same standard that they often request for proof of God's existence.


----------



## Cris (Oct 13, 2013)

*And inversely*



bullethead said:


> Look into Super Novas and Neutron Stars to get an understanding on how energy creates atoms , matter, and elements. Every person alive and that has ever lived is made up of the exact same matter that our stars are made of.



Sure, I am made of the same stuff that stars are made of because all stars came from me.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 13, 2013)

Cris said:


> Where as you are correct that ToE does not explain how life began, but does take up the task of answering where all species came from once life began, it is used to explain how life began. Sounds convoluted but it's true. Anyone who is an atheist will say that we no longer need God to explain how stuff happens. We now have ToE that is capable of explaining everything. Of course, ToE is not capable but is used in such a way. You have cosmic evolution, chemical evolution and biological evolution. None proven by the same standard that evolutionists would want you to believe nor by the same standard that they often request for proof of God's existence.





> it is used to explain how life began


Not accurate


> Anyone who is an atheist will say that we no longer need God to explain how stuff happens.


Not accurate


> We now have ToE that is capable of explaining everything.


Not accurate


> Of course, ToE is not capable but is used in such a way


Not accurate


> None proven by the same standard that evolutionists would want you to believe nor by the same standard that they often request for proof of God's existence.


Not accurate
Is it possible you are just saying what YOU THINK all atheists believe?


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 13, 2013)

fireman32 said:


> So you don't believe in God, I can accept that.  It's evolution that baffles me.  I'm not highly educated, but I like to learn how others think.  Believing that energy was, and then acted upon itself or with another element to create what we are now, seems illogical to me.  Wouldn't energy have to self generate multiple times to account for the variety of life we currently have.  Taking humans into account, even with asexual reproduction, wouldn't inbreeding be a problem. Which is also a problem some have with the Bible.  And what about different races, if we all came from one cell, why would one race have slanted eyes, dark skin, light skin.  I can't prove to anyone that God exists, but by MY logic He seems more credible than the theory of evolution.  It seems there are too many variables that would have to act and react perfectly with each other to gt to where we currently are.
> I realize science has proven a lot, but it hasn't created new matter or proven where it came from.  Or are some of you satisfied being left in wonder?No agenda, just trying to learn.


Personally Im much more comfortable being left in wonder than attributing it to a God just so I can have an answer.
If this true -


> It's evolution that baffles me


You cant honestly determine this -


> more credible than the theory of evolution


An Atheist doesn't believe in deities. I don't think Atheists believe the Theory of Evolution answers all questions.


----------



## fireman32 (Oct 13, 2013)

I did a little reading today, nothing really earth shattering came to light about the stars, I'll read further as time permits.
On inbreeding, if I'm not mistaken, in humans it makes the inbred person more susceptible to disease, retardation etc. kinda goes against survival of the fittest and to me leans more to Divine Intervention for the race to thrive.
Rainbows= Gods promise to not destroy the world by a flood again,  Webster, light refracting off or through water making a visible spectrum of light.  Understanding what it is doesn't change how or why I believe in it.
And I try not to think of my belief as a religion, just my belief.


----------



## Cris (Oct 14, 2013)

Here is the main thing to understand about this discussion. People believe what they believe and rarely change their minds regardless of reason or evidence. That being said....

Science is not exactly what most people think. It is not empirically undeniable facts that we are taught. If we were only taught such rock solid facts we would have very tiny books and short classes. Science is a process that begins with a person. So, it begins with the subjective point of the human mind. For whatever end, this person collects facts, like bones in the dirt. These are undeniable facts. Then the scientist makes up a story to explain the facts that he has. An example of this is the evolutionary theory. It is a made up story. Made up by men. I am sure we have all seen the charts in books that show lines that connect different fossils to show which ones came first and which ones are the ancestor to the other. This is the chart that shows how chimps and modern humans come from a common ancestor. What you need to keep in mind is that whereas the bones are facts, evidence if you will, dug up out of the dirt, those lines that connect the bones of one species to another are not. The dates are not. No bone has been found with a manufacturer's date. No bone has been found that has a made by sticker nor do they come with a plaque that says I am so and sos daddy. All that info is made up by a person to explain something. And this story comes loaded from the gate with the person's preconceived notions of what is true and what is false. And it is this way for all of the sciences of origins. And no one here who believes in evolution has ever been the one who collected the data or performed an experiment or made up the story. Everything that an evolutionist believes he believes by faith. 

The point of all this is to say that this is not a debate between science and faith. It is a debate between two faiths or world views or philosophies. And with the same method that one "proves" something like dark matter or dark energy, one can "prove" the existence of God. But the person who believes in a naturalistic world will not accept the same kind of evidence for the existence of God that he accepts for the existence of evolution or dark matter.


----------



## Cris (Oct 14, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Not accurate
> 
> Not accurate
> 
> ...



I am not saying anything about what all atheists believe. But I know what all the ones I know say. And we have had this discussion many times about what evolution does and does not say. And in the end all of my friends who are atheists say that evolution explains how how life began. So, as I said, it is accurate that ToE does not have anything to say about how life began, it is not accurate to suggest that it is not used to explain how life began. What was Stanley Urey doing with his experiment?


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 14, 2013)

Cris said:


> Here is the main thing to understand about this discussion. People believe what they believe and rarely change their minds regardless of reason or evidence. That being said....
> 
> Science is not exactly what most people think. It is not empirically undeniable facts that we are taught. If we were only taught such rock solid facts we would have very tiny books and short classes. Science is a process that begins with a person. So, it begins with the subjective point of the human mind. For whatever end, this person collects facts, like bones in the dirt. These are undeniable facts. Then the scientist makes up a story to explain the facts that he has. An example of this is the evolutionary theory. It is a made up story. Made up by men. I am sure we have all seen the charts in books that show lines that connect different fossils to show which ones came first and which ones are the ancestor to the other. This is the chart that shows how chimps and modern humans come from a common ancestor. What you need to keep in mind is that whereas the bones are facts, evidence if you will, dug up out of the dirt, those lines that connect the bones of one species to another are not. The dates are not. No bone has been found with a manufacturer's date. No bone has been found that has a made by sticker nor do they come with a plaque that says I am so and sos daddy. All that info is made up by a person to explain something. And this story comes loaded from the gate with the person's preconceived notions of what is true and what is false. And it is this way for all of the sciences of origins. And no one here who believes in evolution has ever been the one who collected the data or performed an experiment or made up the story. Everything that an evolutionist believes he believes by faith.
> 
> The point of all this is to say that this is not a debate between science and faith. It is a debate between two faiths or world views or philosophies. And with the same method that one "proves" something like dark matter or dark energy, one can "prove" the existence of God. But the person who believes in a naturalistic world will not accept the same kind of evidence for the existence of God that he accepts for the existence of evolution or dark matter.


Once again you are assuming "what most people think". 
For things that are not be proven to be fact, science doesn't just take as you say undeniable facts and then "make up a story". They take those facts and head in a direction that those facts points to. Note I said head in a direction. The direction might be correct, the direction might change and the direction might lead to nowhere. That's the great thing about science, it constantly seeks to self correct. It doesn't make a claim and just stop there. 
As for the Theory of Evolution, you are ignoring the first word THEORY. It is science taking undeniable facts and heading in a direction or theory of where those facts point to. It is not called the Fact of Evolution for a reason. However it is theory based on facts. Then you add in new facts as they are proven or discovered. Thats how you determine where the road is going. Of course different scientists come up with different theories or stories as you seem to prefer. But through testing and self correction some of those theories are proven false and scrapped. Some are not. Some are scrapped and replaced with new ones. That whole self correcting thing.
And you continue to make false statement such as - 


> Everything that an evolutionist believes he believes by faith.


Faith by definition is belief in something despite a lack of proven facts. Are you actually claiming that it is false that some things have evolved?


> the person who believes in a naturalistic world will not accept the same kind of evidence for the existence of God that he accepts for the existence of evolution or dark matter


The same kind of evidence or FACTS doesn't exist for a God as does for evolution so that standard phrase is nonsense. Lay out your facts (not beliefs) for God and we'll see if they are accepted.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 14, 2013)

Cris said:


> I am not saying anything about what all atheists believe. But I know what all the ones I know say. And we have had this discussion many times about what evolution does and does not say. And in the end all of my friends who are atheists say that evolution explains how how life began. So, as I said, it is accurate that ToE does not have anything to say about how life began, it is not accurate to suggest that it is not used to explain how life began. What was Stanley Urey doing with his experiment?





> I am not saying anything about what all atheists believe.


My mistake. When you said this I thought you meant anyone who is an atheist. You know like all of them -


> Anyone who is an atheist will say





> it is accurate that ToE does not have anything to say about how life began


Agreed. There has to be some type of life before it can evolve.


> it is not accurate to suggest that it is not used to explain how life began.


I don't know anybody who says evolution is how life began. See above. However I don't deny that somebody might say that.


> What was Stanley Urey doing with his experiment?


Experimenting with chemical reactions based on his theory that that may be how life began. Nothing to do with evolution.

The Miller–Urey experiment[1] (or Urey–Miller experiment)[2] was an experiment that simulated the conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth, and tested for the occurrence of chemical origins of life. Specifically, the experiment tested Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors. Considered to be the classic experiment concerning the experimental abiogenesis, it was conducted in 1953[3] by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the University of Chicago and later the University of California, San Diego and published the following year.[4][5][6]
After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in life.[7] Moreover, some evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have had a different composition from the gas used in the Miller–Urey experiment. There is abundant evidence of major volcanic eruptions 4 billion years ago, which would have released carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen (N2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere. Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the original Miller–Urey experiment have produced more diverse molecules.[8]


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 14, 2013)

fireman32 said:


> I did a little reading today, nothing really earth shattering came to light about the stars, I'll read further as time permits.
> On inbreeding, if I'm not mistaken, in humans it makes the inbred person more susceptible to disease, retardation etc. kinda goes against survival of the fittest and to me leans more to Divine Intervention for the race to thrive.
> Rainbows= Gods promise to not destroy the world by a flood again,  Webster, light refracting off or through water making a visible spectrum of light.  Understanding what it is doesn't change how or why I believe in it.
> And I try not to think of my belief as a religion, just my belief.


Like you, I find it interesting how and why what people think. So I have a few questions if you don't mind. You have just stated one example of where what the Bible says is not accurate. Is there a certain number of examples that it would take for you to change what you believe? Do you have any thoughts as to why the truth/facts about how a rainbow is created doesn't much up with what the Bible says?


----------



## fireman32 (Oct 14, 2013)

WaltL1,  I didn't intend to imply the Bible was inaccurate about rainbows. It can be replicated by man, but this doesn't discount God making it possible. You know, by creating all of the elements.  
On a side note, I know everyone has a choice of what to believe and why, the stickler is, why does one choose one mans theory over another's. especially since its Theory.
I won't bore you with details, but I have every right to hate God, but I accepted him instead.  I know this can be discounted by anyone but me, but I didn't go looking for him.
Next question, if you don't have a soul, to what do you credit the voice in your head?
And judging by other threads, thanks for the polite reply's.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 14, 2013)

fireman32 said:


> WaltL1,  I didn't intend to imply the Bible was inaccurate about rainbows. It can be replicated by man, but this doesn't discount God making it possible. You know, by creating all of the elements.
> On a side note, I know everyone has a choice of what to believe and why, the stickler is, why does one choose one mans theory over another's. especially since its Theory.
> I won't bore you with details, but I have every right to hate God, but I accepted him instead.  I know this can be discounted by anyone but me, but I didn't go looking for him.
> Next question, if you don't have a soul, to what do you credit the voice in your head?
> And judging by other threads, thanks for the polite reply's.





> It can be replicated by man, but this doesn't discount God making it possible. You know, by creating all of the elements.


Yes I agree if you believe in a God that would make sense to you.


> Next question, if you don't have a soul, to what do you credit the voice in your head?


For me personally, they are not voices they are thoughts produced by the brain. They are not actually heard they are thought. A deaf person still has thoughts and makes decisions, actions etc. based on those thoughts even though they have no ability to hear a voice. Those thoughts are based on the information stored in the brain. Also the brain can and does produce conflicting thoughts. We can do something bad even though we know its bad. Their is no evidence or fact that says there is a whole other person or soul inside you telling you its bad. Its the same brain.
Your beliefs also require you to believe there is a soul, so you do, not because it is actually a fact that a soul exists. If having a soul was a fact we wouldn't be having this conversation or you would be pointing me to the facts/proof. True?


----------



## HawgJawl (Oct 14, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> For me personally, they are not voices they are thoughts produced by the brain.
> 
> Those thoughts are based on the information stored in the brain.



An example of this is when Jesus' face makes an appearance to a Caucasian Christian, whether in a dream or on a piece of toast, He looks just like Leonardo da Vinci's depiction of Jesus.

I've had conversations with people who tell me about seeing Jesus in a dream.  I always ask if He looked more Middle Eastern or African?


----------



## fireman32 (Oct 14, 2013)

True, I can't prove there is a soul, along with a lot of other things that are held to be true. And this conversation is really a lot of hypotheticals we deem as true or not based on what makes since to us as individuals.  I often wonder as others have asked, if no one told you about God would he himself reveal himself to you?  An argument for this is someone in history thought about a God. Why did they think about such a being?  Their soul? Lack of knowledge of science, maybe God spoke to them? I believe we wonder, because this universe is to great not to contribute it to a higher power. And I know you don't accept this as proof, just my thoughts.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 14, 2013)

fireman32 said:


> True, I can't prove there is a soul, along with a lot of other things that are held to be true. And this conversation is really a lot of hypotheticals we deem as true or not based on what makes since to us as individuals.  I often wonder as others have asked, if no one told you about God would he himself reveal himself to you?  An argument for this is someone in history thought about a God. Why did they think about such a being?  Their soul? Lack of knowledge of science, maybe God spoke to them? I believe we wonder, because this universe is to great not to contribute it to a higher power. And I know you don't accept this as proof, just my thoughts.


All good questions. And as you said people will believe what makes sense to them. For some the Christian God makes sense, for some Allah makes sense, for some all the different Gods throughout history makes sense for them and for some, saying "God (whichever one you believe) did it" makes no sense at all given what we are learning through science.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 14, 2013)

HawgJawl said:


> An example of this is when Jesus' face makes an appearance to a Caucasian Christian, whether in a dream or on a piece of toast, He looks just like Leonardo da Vinci's depiction of Jesus.
> 
> I've had conversations with people who tell me about seeing Jesus in a dream.  I always ask if He looked more Middle Eastern or African?


Exactly.


----------



## fireman32 (Oct 14, 2013)

HawgJawl, this world is full of Sunday Christians.  They do a great disservice to the faith by speaking truths that aren't neccessarily true to the doctrine.  Many of whom also try to push Christianity onto others, when you should let others see Christ in you, not ram it down their throat.
I feel the biggest gap between me and some of you is who or what to credit this behavior too.  You hold it to be learned via evolution, me as Divine, correct?
Behavior= empathy, love, do unto others, share, hate, etc, etc.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 14, 2013)

fireman32 said:


> HawgJawl, this world is full of Sunday Christians.  They do a great disservice to the faith by speaking truths that aren't neccessarily true to the doctrine.  Many of whom also try to push Christianity onto others, when you should let others see Christ in you, not ram it down their throat.
> I feel the biggest gap between me and some of you is who or what to credit this behavior too.  You hold it to be learned via evolution, me as Divine, correct?
> Behavior= empathy, love, do unto others, share, hate, etc, etc.



All the "Be Good,Do Good,Love,Compassion,Empathy" things were being done LONG before Christ was born. He preached nothing new except rewards from a God for worshiping a God through Christ by believing in Christ. The whole rewards for worship thing was done before Christ got here and really in 2000+ years since Christ is gone there is not a single person that can vouch for any of the promises. You must die to see if it is true. Kinda like the Health Care Bill, they had to pass it to see what is in it and we have found out it is 22,000 pages of Garbage. I feel the same way about religious promises.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Oct 18, 2013)

fireman32 said:


> So you don't believe in God, I can accept that.  It's evolution that baffles me.  I'm not highly educated, but I like to learn how others think.  Believing that energy was, and then acted upon itself or with another element to create what we are now, seems illogical to me.  Wouldn't energy have to self generate multiple times to account for the variety of life we currently have.  Taking humans into account, even with asexual reproduction, wouldn't inbreeding be a problem. Which is also a problem some have with the Bible.  And what about different races, if we all came from one cell, why would one race have slanted eyes, dark skin, light skin.  I can't prove to anyone that God exists, but by MY logic He seems more credible than the theory of evolution.  It seems there are too many variables that would have to act and react perfectly with each other to gt to where we currently are.
> I realize science has proven a lot, but it hasn't created new matter or proven where it came from.  Or are some of you satisfied being left in wonder?
> No agenda, just trying to learn.



The Theory of Evolution is, as we have seen, a theory that cannot be disproved, because it absorbs all evidence, even evidence that should contradict it.    Evolution explains how men came from single-celled animals over millions of years, and also explains how 100s and 1000s of organisms have remained unchanged for 100s of millions of years.       Evolution is also a slow process, unless it needs to be fast.        No amount of contradictory evidence (soft tissue in dinosaur bones, blood-filled mosquitoes, etc) will tear down the theory, because the theory HAS TO EXPLAIN everything.   In the realm of science, there is no other player...only Darwinism.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 18, 2013)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> The Theory of Evolution is, as we have seen, a theory that cannot be disproved, because it absorbs all evidence, even evidence that should contradict it.    Evolution explains how men came from single-celled animals over millions of years, and also explains how 100s and 1000s of organisms have remained unchanged for 100s of millions of years.       Evolution is also a slow process, unless it needs to be fast.        No amount of contradictory evidence (soft tissue in dinosaur bones, blood-filled mosquitoes, etc) will tear down the theory, because the theory HAS TO EXPLAIN everything.   In the realm of science, there is no other player...only Darwinism.


Just nonsense.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Oct 18, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Just nonsense.



Is that an attempt at rebuttal, or are you saying that what I said is nonsense?

Bandy


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 18, 2013)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Is that an attempt at rebuttal, or are you saying that what I said is nonsense?
> 
> Bandy


Nonsense doesn't require a rebuttal. It stands on its own.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Oct 18, 2013)

lol


----------



## David Parker (Oct 18, 2013)

fireman32 said:


> but by MY logic



I got to here and although flimsy up to this point, this is exactly where it went off the rails.  One cannot personalize logic.  It is or it is not, but it is never in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## fireman32 (Oct 19, 2013)

Had another evolution thought. If we are just beings, with our main purpose being to adapt and survive our current world. And our body unknowingly to us, presumably changing our and our offsprings makeup to better survive current conditions.  What/whom or why do we nourish those of diminished health.  This runs counter to the best advancement of the human race.
I know this sounds harsh, but anyone with an illness,(cancer, aids, take your pick) would lessen the strength of the human race.  One could think we would be hardwired to destroy the weak, or abandon it.  But we don't, and I'm glad we take care of the sick and weak. I just dont see how evolution could cause this behavior.  How can love and empathy stem from survival of the fittest.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 19, 2013)

fireman32 said:


> Had another evolution thought. If we are just beings, with our main purpose being to adapt and survive our current world. And our body unknowingly to us, presumably changing our and our offsprings makeup to better survive current conditions.  What/whom or why do we nourish those of diminished health.  This runs counter to the best advancement of the human race.
> I know this sounds harsh, but anyone with an illness,(cancer, aids, take your pick) would lessen the strength of the human race.  One could think we would be hardwired to destroy the weak, or abandon it.  But we don't, and I'm glad we take care of the sick and weak. I just dont see how evolution could cause this behavior.  How can love and empathy stem from survival of the fittest.



You don't take the time to research human evolution because you don't want to understand it. Humans DID weed out the sick and weak. We E-V-O-L-V-E-D to where we are now. You have overlooked millions of years of evolution and you are overlooking the millions of people in  primitive cultures that still exist today and STILL let the weak and sick perish. There are humans that still kill baby girls when they are born because they cannot take care of them/the village cannot take care of them. History and current times are full of examples. You really need to to take off your blinders and actually see what really goes on and has gone on.
If you are serious then do yourself a favor and take the time to research these things.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 19, 2013)

fireman32 said:


> Had another evolution thought. If we are just beings, with our main purpose being to adapt and survive our current world. And our body unknowingly to us, presumably changing our and our offsprings makeup to better survive current conditions.  What/whom or why do we nourish those of diminished health.  This runs counter to the best advancement of the human race.
> I know this sounds harsh, but anyone with an illness,(cancer, aids, take your pick) would lessen the strength of the human race.  One could think we would be hardwired to destroy the weak, or abandon it.  But we don't, and I'm glad we take care of the sick and weak. I just dont see how evolution could cause this behavior.  How can love and empathy stem from survival of the fittest.


In addition to what Bullet said, I think you are not considering some things.


> What/whom or why do we nourish those of diminished health.


Here in the US (and other countries) our capabilities have advanced to the point that saving a person isn't going to make one bit of difference on how much you have to eat tonight.


> I know this sounds harsh, but anyone with an illness,(cancer, aids, take your pick) would lessen the strength of the human race.


They would only lessen the strength of the human race if the human races survival depended on those individuals. 


> One could think we would be hardwired to destroy the weak, or abandon it.


One could think that but obviously we aren't. While it still exists in places its done out of necessity or cultural beliefs etc.


> How can love and empathy stem from survival of the fittest


Is your family stronger or weaker or will you work harder or less or will you protect each other more or less if you love and empathise with each other or if you don't?


----------



## ted_BSR (Oct 19, 2013)

fireman32 said:


> I did a little reading today, nothing really earth shattering came to light about the stars, I'll read further as time permits.
> On inbreeding, if I'm not mistaken, in humans it makes the inbred person more susceptible to disease, retardation etc. kinda goes against survival of the fittest and to me leans more to Divine Intervention for the race to thrive.
> Rainbows= Gods promise to not destroy the world by a flood again,  Webster, light refracting off or through water making a visible spectrum of light.  Understanding what it is doesn't change how or why I believe in it.
> And I try not to think of my belief as a religion, just my belief.



Winner Winner! Chicken Dinner!!!


----------



## David Parker (Oct 21, 2013)

I tend to think that the culling of weaker traits is something we would be doing on a more broad scale if there was no mix of religion and government.  

Atheist aren't incapable of love and compassion so I'm not sure if there is some suggestion in the thread that without religion we'd all be haterz.  If there is, you're way off.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 21, 2013)

David Parker said:


> I tend to think that the culling of weaker traits is something we would be doing on a more broad scale if there was no mix of religion and government.
> 
> Atheist aren't incapable of love and compassion so I'm not sure if there is some suggestion in the thread that without religion we'd all be haterz.  If there is, you're way off.




I'll tell you something even dumber.  Two floors up someone said that if an Atheist (or a Buddhist for that matter), does good things: feeding the poor, helping the sick, they aren't 'actually' good because they aren't doing it for Jesus.


----------



## David Parker (Oct 21, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> I'll tell you something even dumber.  Two floors up someone said that if an Atheist (or a Buddhist for that matter), does good things: feeding the poor, helping the sick, they aren't 'actually' good because they aren't doing it for Jesus.



case in point for eliminating the weakest link.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 21, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> I'll tell you something even dumber.  Two floors up someone said that if an Atheist (or a Buddhist for that matter), does good things: feeding the poor, helping the sick, they aren't 'actually' good because they aren't doing it for Jesus.



In their minds there must not have been any "Doers of Good" before Jesus either.

Much of the problem stems from people trying to compare themselves with Jesus. If they are right, no one CAN compare to Jesus so why even try, they just feel better trying to prove that as an individual they are slightly more Jesus like(in their own mind) than someone else...forgetting about all the very un-Jesus like things they do on a daily basis.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 21, 2013)

bullethead said:


> In their minds there must not have been any "Doers of Good" before Jesus either.
> 
> Much of the problem stems from people trying to compare themselves with Jesus. If they are right, no one CAN compare to Jesus so why even try, they just feel better trying to prove that as an individual they are slightly more Jesus like(in their own mind) than someone else...forgetting about all the very un-Jesus like things they do on a daily basis.



I would never allow someone to burn in He11 for eternity if could help it.  I would have never even made He11.  What kind of jerk does that make me?


----------



## panfried0419 (Oct 21, 2013)

Evolutionary creationist here. I believe that evolution is God's way of making things better.


----------



## HawgJawl (Oct 21, 2013)

panfried0419 said:


> Evolutionary creationist here. I believe that evolution is God's way of making things better.



Do you believe that it has worked.  Do you think that God's "evolution process" has made mankind closer to what the Bible says God wants man to be?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 21, 2013)

HawgJawl said:


> Do you believe that it has worked.  Do you think that God's "evolution process" has made mankind closer to what the Bible says God wants man to be?



I'm an Evolutionary creationist too. God's evolutionary process has made us better but "man's" process (free will) has interfered.


----------



## panfried0419 (Oct 22, 2013)

Evolutulion is God's Intelligent Design;-)


----------



## HGUNHNTR (Oct 25, 2013)

Cris said:


> Sure, I am made of the same stuff that stars are made of because all stars came from me.



lol


----------



## HGUNHNTR (Oct 25, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> I'm an Evolutionary creationist too. God's evolutionary process has made us better but "man's" process (free will) has interfered.



And a god gave man free will, all the while knowing he would be rejected and have to cleanse the Earth of their filth.  If this god were a scientist, he'd be fired after day 1.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 26, 2013)

HGUNHNTR said:


> And a god gave man free will, all the while knowing he would be rejected and have to cleanse the Earth of their filth.  If this god were a scientist, he'd be fired after day 1.



Pretty amazing Creator in my book. If I were the creator, I would have scrapped the whole project and moved on to another Galaxy.
Let's just say everything  was just chance. Was chance a better scientist?


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 27, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Pretty amazing Creator in my book. If I were the creator, I would have scrapped the whole project and moved on to another Galaxy.
> Let's just say everything  was just chance. Was chance a better scientist?



I had some climbing rope in the back of my truck for a couple of weeks.  During which I had filled the bed with building materials, trash, camping equipment and a dead deer (not mine).  I went to clean the truck out the other day and found a very neat Bowline knot at the end of the climbing rope.  it looked just like the photo in this animation:

http://www.animatedknots.com/bowline/

Proof of god?  Evil spirits?


----------

