Bryn Mawr:-6
Good post.
Shalom
Ted:-6
does evolution rule out God's existance
does evolution rule out God's existance
*katchink*
My thoughts precisely... it's a non-question. Besides, the only method of proving a negative is through exhaustive examination of every possibility. Is there anything more impossible than the task of searching all of Creation to rule out G_d's existence?
My thoughts precisely... it's a non-question. Besides, the only method of proving a negative is through exhaustive examination of every possibility. Is there anything more impossible than the task of searching all of Creation to rule out G_d's existence?
Signature text removed at the request of a member.
Participate in The unOfficial Forum Garden Scavenger Hunt 2009!
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
does evolution rule out God's existance
Bryn Mawr;682208 wrote: I always felt that this was a non question.
Of course evolution exists - we can see it happening.
In no way does it reflect on the existence of God - God created the universe and everything in it, including the conditions leading to evolution.
As long as you do not see Genesis as a literal seven days and believe that the universe was created in 4638BC exactly as it is today, then Genesis stands as a good timeline for the creation of current conditions :-
Heaven & Earth (Void) Big Bang
Light Formation of Sun
Water Early Earth after condensation
Dry Land
Grass Should be after sea life - first life on dry land was vegetation
Sea life First life in sea
Birds A stretch but representing the age of dinosaurs
Mammals Reasonable enough
Man A relative newcomer
Why constrain God? Why say (s)he must have made the world exactly as it is now? Creating a dynamic system that evolves over time and remains stable is far more impresive that creating a fixed system that just sits there.
Exactly my thoughts, Bryn.
Of course evolution exists - we can see it happening.
In no way does it reflect on the existence of God - God created the universe and everything in it, including the conditions leading to evolution.
As long as you do not see Genesis as a literal seven days and believe that the universe was created in 4638BC exactly as it is today, then Genesis stands as a good timeline for the creation of current conditions :-
Heaven & Earth (Void) Big Bang
Light Formation of Sun
Water Early Earth after condensation
Dry Land
Grass Should be after sea life - first life on dry land was vegetation
Sea life First life in sea
Birds A stretch but representing the age of dinosaurs
Mammals Reasonable enough
Man A relative newcomer
Why constrain God? Why say (s)he must have made the world exactly as it is now? Creating a dynamic system that evolves over time and remains stable is far more impresive that creating a fixed system that just sits there.
Exactly my thoughts, Bryn.
does evolution rule out God's existance
Bryn Mawr;682208 wrote: I always felt that this was a non question.
Of course evolution exists - we can see it happening.
In no way does it reflect on the existence of God - God created the universe and everything in it, including the conditions leading to evolution.
As long as you do not see Genesis as a literal seven days and believe that the universe was created in 4638BC exactly as it is today, then Genesis stands as a good timeline for the creation of current conditions :-
Heaven & Earth (Void) Big Bang
Light Formation of Sun
Water Early Earth after condensation
Dry Land
Grass Should be after sea life - first life on dry land was vegetation
Sea life First life in sea
Birds A stretch but representing the age of dinosaurs
Mammals Reasonable enough
Man A relative newcomer
Why constrain God? Why say (s)he must have made the world exactly as it is now? Creating a dynamic system that evolves over time and remains stable is far more impresive that creating a fixed system that just sits there.
good post as ever Bryn
i was thinking more of the fossil they found being the missing link buddy two skulls found in africa that are as near as dammit the smoking gun of ape/man evolution
Of course evolution exists - we can see it happening.
In no way does it reflect on the existence of God - God created the universe and everything in it, including the conditions leading to evolution.
As long as you do not see Genesis as a literal seven days and believe that the universe was created in 4638BC exactly as it is today, then Genesis stands as a good timeline for the creation of current conditions :-
Heaven & Earth (Void) Big Bang
Light Formation of Sun
Water Early Earth after condensation
Dry Land
Grass Should be after sea life - first life on dry land was vegetation
Sea life First life in sea
Birds A stretch but representing the age of dinosaurs
Mammals Reasonable enough
Man A relative newcomer
Why constrain God? Why say (s)he must have made the world exactly as it is now? Creating a dynamic system that evolves over time and remains stable is far more impresive that creating a fixed system that just sits there.
good post as ever Bryn
i was thinking more of the fossil they found being the missing link buddy two skulls found in africa that are as near as dammit the smoking gun of ape/man evolution
does evolution rule out God's existance
jimbo;682345 wrote: good post as ever Bryn
i was thinking more of the fossil they found being the missing link buddy two skulls found in africa that are as near as dammit the smoking gun of ape/man evolution
When it gets to human evolution it gets a bit controversial because religion gets in the way
Even once evolution had been accepted it took a long time for science to move beyond a single line of descent for humans. Every other species has branched lines of descent but humans still had to be "special" so all the theories had only a single line.
It's only in the last ten years that it has been accepted that at least two species of proto-humans existed at the same time (about 3.5 million years ago). Both clearly related but different, only one of which could be a direct ancestor.
Once this was accepted, other branches, which hadn't been allowed to exist before, were recognized. The question then became, did we evolve a big brain then start to walk upright or vice verce?
It appears to be settling on the side of bipedalism first leading to brain later but the jury's still out.
So the dot and comma, absolute definitive, we know for sure line of descent for homo sapiens (allegedly) is not there yet but, now we're approaching the problem using the same rules as every other species, we're getting there at a fair rate of knots.
i was thinking more of the fossil they found being the missing link buddy two skulls found in africa that are as near as dammit the smoking gun of ape/man evolution
When it gets to human evolution it gets a bit controversial because religion gets in the way
Even once evolution had been accepted it took a long time for science to move beyond a single line of descent for humans. Every other species has branched lines of descent but humans still had to be "special" so all the theories had only a single line.
It's only in the last ten years that it has been accepted that at least two species of proto-humans existed at the same time (about 3.5 million years ago). Both clearly related but different, only one of which could be a direct ancestor.
Once this was accepted, other branches, which hadn't been allowed to exist before, were recognized. The question then became, did we evolve a big brain then start to walk upright or vice verce?
It appears to be settling on the side of bipedalism first leading to brain later but the jury's still out.
So the dot and comma, absolute definitive, we know for sure line of descent for homo sapiens (allegedly) is not there yet but, now we're approaching the problem using the same rules as every other species, we're getting there at a fair rate of knots.
does evolution rule out God's existance
Bryn Mawr;682554 wrote: When it gets to human evolution it gets a bit controversial because religion gets in the way
Even once evolution had been accepted it took a long time for science to move beyond a single line of descent for humans. Every other species has branched lines of descent but humans still had to be "special" so all the theories had only a single line.
It's only in the last ten years that it has been accepted that at least two species of proto-humans existed at the same time (about 3.5 million years ago). Both clearly related but different, only one of which could be a direct ancestor.
Once this was accepted, other branches, which hadn't been allowed to exist before, were recognized. The question then became, did we evolve a big brain then start to walk upright or vice verce?
It appears to be settling on the side of bipedalism first leading to brain later but the jury's still out.
So the dot and comma, absolute definitive, we know for sure line of descent for homo sapiens (allegedly) is not there yet but, now we're approaching the problem using the same rules as every other species, we're getting there at a fair rate of knots.
thanks Bryn :-6:-6
Even once evolution had been accepted it took a long time for science to move beyond a single line of descent for humans. Every other species has branched lines of descent but humans still had to be "special" so all the theories had only a single line.
It's only in the last ten years that it has been accepted that at least two species of proto-humans existed at the same time (about 3.5 million years ago). Both clearly related but different, only one of which could be a direct ancestor.
Once this was accepted, other branches, which hadn't been allowed to exist before, were recognized. The question then became, did we evolve a big brain then start to walk upright or vice verce?
It appears to be settling on the side of bipedalism first leading to brain later but the jury's still out.
So the dot and comma, absolute definitive, we know for sure line of descent for homo sapiens (allegedly) is not there yet but, now we're approaching the problem using the same rules as every other species, we're getting there at a fair rate of knots.
thanks Bryn :-6:-6