The theory of evolution(?) Or something else? (genesis, Biblical, beliefs)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Indeed. And very poetic example.
Here's caveat. For cheetah to survive, there has to be an antelope. All features, cheetah evolved, are based on presence of a certain type of prey. Cheetah may live in the most abundant in fruits and vegetables area but, no antelope - no cheetah. For antelope to exist, and be prey for cheetah, something else has to evolve and, evolve exactly so that antelope can survive, so that cheetah can eat it. If you keep going deeper and deeper into immense magnitude of evolutionary traits of a certain animal - or plant - not just superficial jump at a feature - you WILL find that they all depend on each other. And then, suddenly, you WILL see, that it ALL works as one well designed organism, where every feature of every Nature unit is correlated to other units and to there features.
EVERY evolutionary advantage for ANY unit of nature is there because there is its dedicated reason available. Not a single unit of nature, be it plant, or animal or fish, evolved a single USELESS feature just for giggles. They ALL have their purpose. And, if it was just a haphazard play of chance, you'd have had all kinds of useless appendages or else, just because it happened so.
Every evolutionary trait is there because there is its complimentary counterpart. And THAT counterpart has to evolve exactly the way, to complement discussed feature.
So why is it that the pronghorn antelope still exists without the American cheetahs that went extinct? And why are these same pronghorn so poorly adapted to their environment that every time there is a harsh winter there is a great due off, a due off that does not affect the mule deer living in the same region?
According to your way of thinking everything was designed as part of an entire syatem. Entire systems remain relatively the same and yet species come and go, almost like some other species out competed them in that existing environment. Why did some of the flora and fauna from the Arctic steppe survive and other species did not, some species died off 10000 years ago, some evolved into new species and other species remain?
Was North America designed for the day or was the day designed for North America? Neither explains why the day did not occur here in the past or why the day was so successful once it reached here. Neither explains why Alberta was safe from rats on two of its borders. If North America was designed for rats, is the Alberta government going against God by working to keep Alberta rat free. And why were there not rats in Alberta before there even was a government in 1905?
Sorting is a scientific term. At least in Geology and Geomorphology. Sorting does not require intelligence. Your problem is that you can not conceive how natural processes occur without the need of a God to determine that as water that slows down loses the ability to sustain suspended particles. As far as evolution goes again your problem is that you are it as the end product with goals to be achieved that needs a intelligent designer. But there is no goals and small random mutations occur. Most of those mutations fail because they do not make the organism better adapted to its environment. In order for evolution to be forced by an intelligent God, that God must be an absolute incompete bubbling fool to create mostly failures. Does that describe your God? Maybe learn about what evolution actually means and how it works and also how geomorphology and geology as well as physics works . Your lack of understanding and refusal to see anything but a God is your problem not one of the sciences or of other posters.
(a) saying "nature did it" is no different than saying "God did it"
(b) intelligent design created nature
(c) nothing is random
and (d) it's hard to take any post seriously that uses phrases like "God must be an absolute incompete bubbling fool"
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 07-18-2021 at 10:32 AM..
(a) saying "nature did it" is no different than saying "God did it"
(b) intelligent design created nature.
(c) nothing is random.
I can offer evidence that I think its "alive" that created what we see around us.
What the evidence that "it was designed" like I designed a watch.
The hinge point is the base statement "The universe designed the watch." That's the one that I struggle with. But I lean seriously on the not "it is mixing and choosing what we see". I just don't see it on the grand scale. I see it heading in that way, but not it right now.
Indeed. And very poetic example.
Here's caveat. For cheetah to survive, there has to be an antelope. All features, cheetah evolved, are based on presence of a certain type of prey. Cheetah may live in the most abundant in fruits and vegetables area but, no antelope - no cheetah. For antelope to exist, and be prey for cheetah, something else has to evolve and, evolve exactly so that antelope can survive, so that cheetah can eat it. If you keep going deeper and deeper into immense magnitude of evolutionary traits of a certain animal - or plant - not just superficial jump at a feature - you WILL find that they all depend on each other. And then, suddenly, you WILL see, that it ALL works as one well designed organism, where every feature of every Nature unit is correlated to other units and to there features.
EVERY evolutionary advantage for ANY unit of nature is there because there is its dedicated reason available. Not a single unit of nature, be it plant, or animal or fish, evolved a single USELESS feature just for giggles. They ALL have their purpose. And, if it was just a haphazard play of chance, you'd have had all kinds of useless appendages or else, just because it happened so.
Every evolutionary trait is there because there is its complimentary counterpart. And THAT counterpart has to evolve exactly the way, to complement discussed feature.
I am sorry, but that speaks of quite a design.
Please look back at the point we are referring to in when I lay the details of the topic, I think you will find that when I spoke at being a potential victim of a criminal I referred to it in the same way as you are because at that point I referred to the mutations as human evolution and not just one characteristic otherwise my theory would not make any contribution. I did this knowingly because if you look at next time(s) I mentioned evolution/adjustments again I did not say just one particular characteristic, so thank you for confirming that you agree(with at least some part of what I said).
Although I have a feeling you are now going to claim that it is not the same for another assumption. Okay let's say we accept that, the fact that you referred to your theory as 'quite a design' is intending to mean essentially what I have been saying but only taking part into account not Everything. Please can you tell me then why your theory is more likely to imply that there isn't a God, as I described God? If you have a reasonable explanation then what use does your description or the theory of evolution have other than just being a description which I think just reinforces everything I have been saying about assumptions and science?
Indeed. And very poetic example.
Here's caveat. For cheetah to survive, there has to be an antelope. All features, cheetah evolved, are based on presence of a certain type of prey. Cheetah may live in the most abundant in fruits and vegetables area but, no antelope - no cheetah. For antelope to exist, and be prey for cheetah, something else has to evolve and, evolve exactly so that antelope can survive, so that cheetah can eat it. If you keep going deeper and deeper into immense magnitude of evolutionary traits of a certain animal - or plant - not just superficial jump at a feature - you WILL find that they all depend on each other. And then, suddenly, you WILL see, that it ALL works as one well designed organism, where every feature of every Nature unit is correlated to other units and to there features.
EVERY evolutionary advantage for ANY unit of nature is there because there is its dedicated reason available. Not a single unit of nature, be it plant, or animal or fish, evolved a single USELESS feature just for giggles. They ALL have their purpose. And, if it was just a haphazard play of chance, you'd have had all kinds of useless appendages or else, just because it happened so.
Every evolutionary trait is there because there is its complimentary counterpart. And THAT counterpart has to evolve exactly the way, to complement discussed feature.
I am sorry, but that speaks of quite a design.
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander
So why is it that the pronghorn antelope still exists without the American cheetahs that went extinct? And why are these same pronghorn so poorly adapted to their environment that every time there is a harsh winter there is a great due off, a due off that does not affect the mule deer living in the same region?
According to your way of thinking everything was designed as part of an entire syatem. Entire systems remain relatively the same and yet species come and go, almost like some other species out competed them in that existing environment. Why did some of the flora and fauna from the Arctic steppe survive and other species did not, some species died off 10000 years ago, some evolved into new species and other species remain?
Was North America designed for the day or was the day designed for North America? Neither explains why the day did not occur here in the past or why the day was so successful once it reached here. Neither explains why Alberta was safe from rats on two of its borders. If North America was designed for rats, is the Alberta government going against God by working to keep Alberta rat free. And why were there not rats in Alberta before there even was a government in 1905?
Sorry, even though there was sense mixed with no sense, but genuinely that's funny, although we should not mock another for their point of view.
Query 1: If evolution is a theory where there is no 'intelligence' driving the selection process, taking into consideration trial and error, then how is the selection process occurring.
Evolution can be explained in the science section.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhandharayam
If somebody calls it nature, what do they really mean, because to many people nature is a divine creation?
The same can be asked what they mean by divine?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhandharayam
Is it not right that even if it is not divine that it has at least some amount of intelligence for it to be selective, because otherwise we are making an assumption on the same level as the assumption of God.
No, we are not presuming anything, we are concluding it is not intelligent based on what we know, that intelligence requires a brain.
If you want to argue another type of intelligence, you need to provide evidence for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhandharayam
Query 2: If we accept that there is no intelligence involved then, just the same as everything else in this existence or 'creation', does that not infer that everything is by chance and hence the argument that the probability of that is so improbable that in fact almost, if not actually, impossible? Which in itself is evidence that God exists, whether just an intelligence, energy, being or other form? Therefore also that there is (definitely) no concrete proof to be sure about all the convincing arguments based around the theory of evolution, almost the same as those of (many, if not all) previous arguments for existance of God or maybe worse.
No, chance does not always imply improbable. Heads or tails, as an example. And even a very small probability becomes more probable over time or if more chances are taken. 1 in a billion becomes very probable if you have 1 trillion chances.
And we know that intelligence requires complexity, so an intelligent being just knowing things must be even more complex, and therefore less probable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhandharayam
Query 3: If we accept there is intelligence involved, surely that means that there is a 'force' that we cannot assume we know(about) or understand, just like many other aspects of anything, or at least existance/creation. This again only points(people) to the idea of God.
Why would intelligence be a force? Our intelligence is a process.
I understand what you are saying, however even after showing you my thoughts which haven't occurred at any time, it is a feeling but not just a hinch?
If one plays 11-a-side football, as an example, would anybody in a match be able to be restricted in movement if there was no management? The teams, if they interacted verbally, would have to decide. Now if we look at the same scenario with management do you think the players would be less restricted or more or not know, etc?
I know you and others have used the term nature many times. Could you define for me what nature is, in your mind? Why is a theory of evolution only being applied to certain forms of existance when actually it's very basics started from one? The big bang theory being the best starting place for someone who might not believe in a God? I said that the basics started from one because I have already shown that existance by chance is almost, if not actually impossible, unless you have a reasonable rejection of this.
Evolution theory starts with the assumption of a single cell, can you tell me what that single cell was doing on a planet where there was nothing else that, supposedly, had this property of being able to 'mutate'? If we accept that this was possible, then why is another theory based on a God being the cause of existance, whose properties overall have been the same, less probable? If we take a view that God is All in other words Everything why is this more controversial than people who would prefer there not to be God, or more still, blame him because he created Everything and he did not give anything to the poor? Even when there are rules placed by man in order to cause judgement on others?
There are infinite theories for most, if not Everything. Can we afford to choke each other for the answers before we stop and realise does it matter. Oh I could choose to stop or make no judgement on another because whether God or not, as a minimum I can choose to stop. Why is God blameable for crimes he did not commit while those who intentionally committed crimes known as sin find it luxurious to have the latested everything but still not happy? Is that not hypocrisy? Please refrain from answering, this is just food for thought, as the English call it.
In my mind I know what I know although do I know even the first characteristic of anything? Yes I do because it is confirmed when I experience restrictions imposed on me by The Devil. I have avoided mentioning him. It is seen worse than the idea of God. However everybody knows there is such thing as good and evil, which means there must be 'some entity in human form' who is good in this creation opposed by his opposite number. This means everybody else are a spectrum in the in-between, or they are also either good or bad. It may seem like I have assumed but I think if you could see Everybody in this lifetime, at each stage there will be this evident. Just like the richest person and the poorest person, assuming we base this on everything, like food etc.
I understand what you are saying, however even after showing you my thoughts which haven't occurred at any time, it is a feeling but not just a hinch?
If one plays 11-a-side football, as an example, would anybody in a match be able to be restricted in movement if there was no management? The teams, if they interacted verbally, would have to decide. Now if we look at the same scenario with management do you think the players would be less restricted or more or not know, etc?
I know you and others have used the term nature many times. Could you define for me what nature is, in your mind? Why is a theory of evolution only being applied to certain forms of existance when actually it's very basics started from one? The big bang theory being the best starting place for someone who might not believe in a God? I said that the basics started from one because I have already shown that existance by chance is almost, if not actually impossible, unless you have a reasonable rejection of this.
Evolution theory starts with the assumption of a single cell, can you tell me what that single cell was doing on a planet where there was nothing else that, supposedly, had this property of being able to 'mutate'? If we accept that this was possible, then why is another theory based on a God being the cause of existance, whose properties overall have been the same, less probable? If we take a view that God is All in other words Everything why is this more controversial than people who would prefer there not to be God, or more still, blame him because he created Everything and he did not give anything to the poor? Even when there are rules placed by man in order to cause judgement on others?
There are infinite theories for most, if not Everything. Can we afford to choke each other for the answers before we stop and realise does it matter. Oh I could choose to stop or make no judgement on another because whether God or not, as a minimum I can choose to stop. Why is God blameable for crimes he did not commit while those who intentionally committed crimes known as sin find it luxurious to have the latested everything but still not happy? Is that not hypocrisy? Please refrain from answering, this is just food for thought, as the English call it.
In my mind I know what I know although do I know even the first characteristic of anything? Yes I do because it is confirmed when I experience restrictions imposed on me by The Devil. I have avoided mentioning him. It is seen worse than the idea of God. However everybody knows there is such thing as good and evil, which means there must be 'some entity in human form' who is good in this creation opposed by his opposite number. This means everybody else are a spectrum in the in-between, or they are also either good or bad. It may seem like I have assumed but I think if you could see Everybody in this lifetime, at each stage there will be this evident. Just like the richest person and the poorest person, assuming we base this on everything, like food etc.
no, not everything has "an opposite."
that is duality.
however it is not unity. it is not Oneness. In oneness there is no opposite. The Source of everything has no opposite.
good evil, right wrong, rich poor, failure success, those are duality.
that is not Oneness. that is not unity.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
