will someone please explain to me why

[+Link of Hyrule]

lets not knit pick. point still stands. if you said to the greeks that zeus didnt infact control lightning and wasnt king of the gods im sure they would have thought you were crazy

I think it's more the fact that for the ancient Greeks, it was completely anathema to their belief to even question the gods. How can a mortal being to even fathom the minds of the gods? Even were such a discussion to take place, the response would be that gods were gods and men were men and men were unable to discern the understandings of the gods. Gods did what they did for their own reasons, and it was not for man to understand or comprehend.

Just a thought.

~ Paranoid Android

[IamsSon]

Evolution and creationism have to conflict with each other.

It seems that no body or at least very few people on here or in real life will accept that both could have happened.

God created the planet knowing that the environment was going to change from what he had designed. Meaning that the animals that he created would also need to be able to change to coop with it.

The only creature that didn't have to change was humans who would be able to change the environment to their needs. Or at the very least build a fire to fight off the cold.

On this forum there has been at least one person who stated that if you believe in both you have to be a hypocrite. I do not think that I am a hypocrite just because I believe that God could design animals and plants to evolve to keep up with the environmental changes that would take place.

I have no links.

A few things to keep in mind daniel:

I think you will find that the majority of us who are not "The Earth is 6,000 years old, and Creation took 6 24-hour days" Creationists accept that evolution occurs, and from there our ideas/beliefs vary wildly. I am a firm believer that God did not go into detail about creation in the Bible because He intended for us to use our imagination and observation skills to explore and learn as much as we want about His creation. Since our ideas about Creation and Evolution do vary so much even among the Christians on UM, I only feel qualified to explain my views.

I disagree with abiogenesis because although I don't take an ultra-literal view of Genesis 1, I do believe that God created life and created it in various stages, not from one single organism. I believe God was actively involved in the process of creating life, and the "6 days" of creation explain various stages of a process which could have taken, tens, hundreds, thousands, millions, or even billions of years (Some people use the verses where God says that a thousand years is like a day to Him, to try to pin this process down to 6,000 years, but the thing is that I think God could just as easily have said, "a trillion years is like a day", because after all, He is eternal. He just used "thousand" because the people He was speaking to at that time were part of a civilization in which a thousand was a HUGE number and saying "thousand" was the same as saying "something less than infinity, but still a lot.")

I do not believe that plants can change into fish, mammals, reptiles, or birds, no matter how much time you allow. I do believe that God planned for life to occupy every possible niche on the planet... and maybe beyond, and that He created life in such a way that populations will adapt to fill certain niches, but no matter how much time goes by a fish will still be a fish, it may be a fish that looks and acts very different from it's ancestors and is incapable of successfully mating with it's ancestors or even other fish that came from the same ancestor, but a fish it will still be.

I am NOT opposed to the theory of evolution, after all, it is a tool scientists use to try to understand what we observe in nature, and as such it has allowed us to gain a great deal of knowledge. I am opposed to the attempt to use science, especially evolutionary theory, to try to claim it proves a particular world view. I also disagree with the idea that evolution is proven fact, and my main opposition to this is that it is a misuse of science, since science cannot prove anything, nor is it intended to.

Hope that helps.

Edited February 21, 2008 by IamsSon

[I Am Will]

I think it's more the fact that for the ancient Greeks, it was completely anathema to their belief to even question the gods. How can a mortal being to even fathom the minds of the gods? Even were such a discussion to take place, the response would be that gods were gods and men were men and men were unable to discern the understandings of the gods. Gods did what they did for their own reasons, and it was not for man to understand or comprehend.

Just a thought.

~ Paranoid Android

my point was that they wouldnt question their existence despite the fact they didnt exist. as daniel lost refuses to acknowledge there is a chance god didnt create anything.

[I Am Will]

I do not believe that plants can change into fish, mammals, reptiles, or birds, no matter how much time you allow. I do believe that God planned for life to occupy every possible niche on the planet... and maybe beyond, and that He created life in such a way that populations will adapt to fill certain niches, but no matter how much time goes by a fish will still be a fish, it may be a fish that looks and acts very different from it's ancestors and is incapable of successfully mating with it's ancestors or even other fish that came from the same ancestor, but a fish it will still be.

I totally respect your beliefs i just wanted to know how you yourself would explain certain oddities within the human body that you believe god would have created.

namely the fact that humans methods of respiration use haemoglobin. Now haemoglobin in the prescence of oxygen and carbon monoxide will readily and easily combine with haemoglobin making it potentially deadily. Why would God create us to be like this?

you also said 'He created life in such a way that populations will adapt to fill certain niches' what if those niches change gradually forcing the populations to adapt? the organisms wont directly change but over time the species will alter and with enough time will eventually create new species with the prior species being no longer present in that area or even extinct. Surely this is evidence that species could eventually change into something seemingly different when looking at them seperately?

[capeo]

A few things to keep in mind daniel:

I think you will find that the majority of us who are not "The Earth is 6,000 years old, and Creation took 6 24-hour days" Creationists accept that evolution occurs, and from there our ideas/beliefs vary wildly. I am a firm believer that God did not go into detail about creation in the Bible because He intended for us to use our imagination and observation skills to explore and learn as much as we want about His creation. Since our ideas about Creation and Evolution do vary so much even among the Christians on UM, I only feel qualified to explain my views.

I disagree with abiogenesis because although I don't take an ultra-literal view of Genesis 1, I do believe that God created life and created it in various stages, not from one single organism. I believe God was actively involved in the process of creating life, and the "6 days" of creation explain various stages of a process which could have taken, tens, hundreds, thousands, millions, or even billions of years (Some people use the verses where God says that a thousand years is like a day to Him, to try to pin this process down to 6,000 years, but the thing is that I think God could just as easily have said, "a trillion years is like a day", because after all, He is eternal. He just used "thousand" because the people He was speaking to at that time were part of a civilization in which a thousand was a HUGE number and saying "thousand" was the same as saying "something less than infinity, but still a lot.")

I do not believe that plants can change into fish, mammals, reptiles, or birds, no matter how much time you allow. I do believe that God planned for life to occupy every possible niche on the planet... and maybe beyond, and that He created life in such a way that populations will adapt to fill certain niches, but no matter how much time goes by a fish will still be a fish, it may be a fish that looks and acts very different from it's ancestors and is incapable of successfully mating with it's ancestors or even other fish that came from the same ancestor, but a fish it will still be.

I am NOT opposed to the theory of evolution, after all, it is a tool scientists use to try to understand what we observe in nature, and as such it has allowed us to gain a great deal of knowledge. I am opposed to the attempt to use science, especially evolutionary theory, to try to claim it proves a particular world view. I also disagree with the idea that evolution is proven fact, and my main opposition to this is that it is a misuse of science, since science cannot prove anything, nor is it intended to.

Hope that helps.

Oh, Iam... evolution is a proven fact. Science can prove things and does all the time. The scientific method doesn't seek to prove things but scientific research results in proofs. You're using a semantic argument that makes no sense. Your idea of evolution is not a fact though, as it would leave evidence, of which there is none.

As for the OP. Biology has nothing to do with religion. They only conflict when fact flies in the face of a dogma which some people can't let go of. There's nothing stop people from reconciling them, really, so long as one errs towards reality.

[IamsSon]

I totally respect your beliefs i just wanted to know how you yourself would explain certain oddities within the human body that you believe god would have created.

Good questions Will, here are my answers:

namely the fact that humans methods of respiration use haemoglobin. Now haemoglobin in the prescence of oxygen and carbon monoxide will readily and easily combine with haemoglobin making it potentially deadily. Why would God create us to be like this?

I think God created us to fit His purpose perfectly. This is very different from saying He created the human body perfectly, since it actually defines that perfection.

you also said 'He created life in such a way that populations will adapt to fill certain niches' what if those niches change gradually forcing the populations to adapt? the organisms wont directly change but over time the species will alter and with enough time will eventually create new species with the prior species being no longer present in that area or even extinct. Surely this is evidence that species could eventually change into something seemingly different when looking at them seperately?

I think there are points at which particular life forms can no longer adapt to changing conditions and thus become extinct. As conditions become untenable for one type of life form, say a fish, they may become viable for another type of life form, such as a reptile, so the fish population will reach a point of extinction while a reptile population will "find" the new niche and thrive.

[IamsSon]

Oh, Iam... evolution is a proven fact. Science can prove things and does all the time. The scientific method doesn't seek to prove things but scientific research results in proofs. You're using a semantic argument that makes no sense. Your idea of evolution is not a fact though, as it would leave evidence, of which there is none.

As for the OP. Biology has nothing to do with religion. They only conflict when fact flies in the face of a dogma which some people can't let go of. There's nothing stop people from reconciling them, really, so long as one errs towards reality.

I think the Science Department at Indiana University disagrees with you.

I invite you to take it up with them.

[churchanddestroy]

I think God created us to fit His purpose perfectly. This is very different from saying He created the human body perfectly, since it actually defines that perfection.

Wow Iams, usually I disagree with you but you've had two good posts in a row.

Though I am non-theistic, I do feel the "if God made us then why are our bodies so inefficient" argument has been a little... over done. I think its a moot point on both sides of the board, and I think you explained it well from the theistic side.

Good job

[IamsSon]

Wow Iams, usually I disagree with you but you've had two good posts in a row.

Though I am non-theistic, I do feel the "if God made us then why are our bodies so inefficient" argument has been a little... over done. I think its a moot point on both sides of the board, and I think you explained it well from the theistic side.

Good job

*takes a bow*

Thanks, church!

[Eieam Wun]

At what point was that built in? We've figured out how planets form, and nothing suggests god was involved. We've figured out how stars form, and nothing suggests god is involved. God has really been pushed back to the darkness before the big bang. You can believe that god caused the big bang yes, but to believe that he created this universe with us in mind is, to me, incredibly arrogant. Why would there be billions of years of giant hot stars with no planets that had to fuse the elements to make the planets? It's a wasteful system, and this cycle of star birth and death has left us in a tiny corner where we've got a high chance of being killed off by a local supernova. To me that rules out all but the most detatched deistic god.

We figured out how planets were form?

We figured out how stars were formed?

I don't think so, scientific theories yes, figured out no, heres something for ya, suppose a creator create this system for share pleasure of experience. To watch stars and planets be born, however they do, to watch life come about however it did and experience everything that is taking place, an ultimate feed back experience, set up a system that goes on its own and watch to see the outcome. I could definitely buy that.

Edited February 21, 2008 by Eieam Wun

[danielost]

I totally respect your beliefs i just wanted to know how you yourself would explain certain oddities within the human body that you believe god would have created.

namely the fact that humans methods of respiration use haemoglobin. Now haemoglobin in the prescence of oxygen and carbon monoxide will readily and easily combine with haemoglobin making it potentially deadily. Why would God create us to be like this?

you also said 'He created life in such a way that populations will adapt to fill certain niches' what if those niches change gradually forcing the populations to adapt? the organisms wont directly change but over time the species will alter and with enough time will eventually create new species with the prior species being no longer present in that area or even extinct. Surely this is evidence that species could eventually change into something seemingly different when looking at them seperately?

Key sentence, Key word.

[danielost]

I think everyone has missed one important thing about the creation story in genesis.

The first chapter does not say that a day was 24 hours or a 1000 years. It says that God did this thing, what ever that thing for that day was, when he got through doing that thing THEN HE CALLED IT A DAY. So that day could be a few hours or a few billion years long. That is of our hours and years.

Edited February 21, 2008 by danielost

[capeo]

I think the Science Department at Indiana University disagrees with you.

I invite you to take it up with them.

It's semantics. When a probability is 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% you can call it proven. Science proves things all the time, hence scientific laws and the ability for science to be predictive. Science has proved living organisms are made of cells which are made of molecules which are made of atoms which are made of electrons protons and nuetrons. Science has proved the speed of light is 299792458 m/s and that the speed of sound in dry air is 344 m/s. Science has proved that combining elements can produce a whole myriad of functional medications, materials and such. Science has proved that DNA controls how an organism physically develops. Science has proved that this DNA mutates. Science has proved that every living thing on this planet shares some level of genetic commonality. Science has proved that this commonality breaks down into trees of development in species. Science has proved that fossils breakdown into these developmental lineages. Science has proved that the fossil record shows a progression from single celled life starting in the ocean to life becoming more complex in the ocean to life spreading onto land and further diversifying. Science has proved that earth orbits the sun and that the moon orbits the earth. Science has proven that the earth that our solar system resides in a galaxy we call the Milky Way. Science has proven that earth is billions of years old. Etc.

While science must leave that .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance open that something may be overturned only a fool would actually entertain that as being possible. All of the above I mentioned is the kind of thing that allows science to function. There must be a given to test a hypothesis. These givens are what allow predictions that bear out to be true to be made.

A better way to think of it is this. Take the theory of gravity. Could it be overturned completely with some new form of physics that better explains everything from the quantum level to newtonian levels? Sure could. Gravity could be a function of something we are not yet aware of. But the measurable and observable effects of gravity would be exactly the same. Only the theory would change. Evolution is the same thing. The theory is constantly evolving as we figure out what factors of genetics and environment effect the fact of evolution. Something we're making huge strides in. If evolution actually happens is not even in question though, no matter how the theory changes to explain the observed result of it.

[I Am Will]

Good questions Will, here are my answers:

I think God created us to fit His purpose perfectly. This is very different from saying He created the human body perfectly, since it actually defines that perfection.

I think there are points at which particular life forms can no longer adapt to changing conditions and thus become extinct. As conditions become untenable for one type of life form, say a fish, they may become viable for another type of life form, such as a reptile, so the fish population will reach a point of extinction while a reptile population will "find" the new niche and thrive.

well i guess thats the great thing about human variety, you get different ideas and views

i still dont see why God would purposefully create us to have these seemingly odd flaws which are more like unlucky coincidences through evoultion than poor design by a creator. Similarily why design us to create lactic acid as a bi product during anaerobic respiration when surely a God would create a more efficient method of repiration?

i do believe there are connecting animals between species or at least evidence for connections between species, namely fish that can breathe out of water, mammals living in water but breathing air? seems an odd or even ironic creation by a God that a whale lives in water but would breath air.

can i clarify do you believe God created us and animals as we are now or that he created us originally and we have changed/evolved slightly since then?

[I Am Will]

Key sentence, Key word.

it is a key sentence and a key word but i guess for the wrong way your interpreting it. Animals that look completely different will be seemingly seperate yet will infact have similar evolutionary ancestors perhaps even the same ancestors.

[danielost]

well i guess thats the great thing about human variety, you get different ideas and views

i still dont see why God would purposefully create us to have these seemingly odd flaws which are more like unlucky coincidences through evoultion than poor design by a creator. Similarily why design us to create lactic acid as a bi product during anaerobic respiration when surely a God would create a more efficient method of repiration?

i do believe there are connecting animals between species or at least evidence for connections between species, namely fish that can breathe out of water, mammals living in water but breathing air? seems an odd or even ironic creation by a God that a whale lives in water but would breath air.

can i clarify do you believe God created us and animals as we are now or that he created us originally and we have changed/evolved slightly since then?

I would have to say yes to your last question.

as for the lactic acid and poor design. perhaps the original design ie in the garden didn't include these poor design concepts.

[I Am Will]

I think everyone has missed one important thing about the creation story in genesis.

The first chapter does not say that a day was 24 hours or a 1000 years. It says that God did this thing, what ever that thing for that day was, when he got through doing that thing THEN HE CALLED IT A DAY. So that day could be a few hours or a few billion years long. That is of our hours and years.

sorry who were the witnesses to this happening again?

[I Am Will]

I would have to say yes to your last question.

as for the lactic acid and poor design. perhaps the original design ie in the garden didn't include these poor design concepts.

my last question had two possible answers so yes isnt really very helpful haha

so where do you feel these poor designs came from? it wouldnt be evolution as they wouldnt be advantageous to any human to have these traits?

[danielost]

it is a key sentence and a key word but i guess for the wrong way your interpreting it. Animals that look completely different will be seemingly seperate yet will infact have similar evolutionary ancestors perhaps even the same ancestors.

going by your theory here. The nine different races are different species but since any male human can mate with any female human we are all the same species. but seemingly we are different. Wolves and dogs are the same. Dogs are man's attempt at controlled evolution.

[I Am Will]

going by your theory here. The nine different races are different species but since any male human can mate with any female human we are all the same species. but seemingly we are different. Wolves and dogs are the same. Dogs are man's attempt at controlled evolution.

no once again your misunderstanding or interpreting what i mean. i did not say humans as they are the same species. i said animals that look completely different. do any humans look completely different? No, misinterpretation on your part, i wish you would at least ask what i mean before putting words into my mouth.

[capeo]

going by your theory here. The nine different races are different species but since any male human can mate with any female human we are all the same species. but seemingly we are different. Wolves and dogs are the same. Dogs are man's attempt at controlled evolution.

The nine races? Did we just transport to Middle Earth or something?

[IamsSon]

well i guess thats the great thing about human variety, you get different ideas and views

i still dont see why God would purposefully create us to have these seemingly odd flaws which are more like unlucky coincidences through evoultion than poor design by a creator. Similarily why design us to create lactic acid as a bi product during anaerobic respiration when surely a God would create a more efficient method of repiration?

Will, you sort of ignored the point I made in answering this question. If God has a specific purpose for man, and He creates the human body to perfectly address that purpose then almost by definition there will be other situations for which the design of the human body is not perfect.

i do believe there are connecting animals between species or at least evidence for connections between species, namely fish that can breathe out of water, mammals living in water but breathing air? seems an odd or even ironic creation by a God that a whale lives in water but would breath air.

I believe there are/were populations of animals which were completely separate and unrelated to others although they shared similar traits with them and that we may be assuming that these similarities indicate that they are descendants/ancestors when all they really indicate is that they had the same Creator and that He actually did the same thing many programmers do today, use the same bit of code in more than one application because it accomplishes what you need it to accomplish.

can i clarify do you believe God created us and animals as we are now or that he created us originally and we have changed/evolved slightly since then?

I think we have changed since the moment of Creation because we were intended to change. I think there are more varieties of animals now than what were present at the moment of Creation. I guess the idea I have is that God created THE base model for each type of animal, and this "base" model then began to diversify as the population separated and moved into various different environments.

[Eieam Wun]

It's semantics. When a probability is 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% you can call it proven. Science proves things all the time,

Yeah I think when you actually read that list of what science does NOT do then read what you just wrote...? Science is a method it's unbias it doesn't prove anything only attempts to show the cause and effects of things. Quick question exactly how can you say anything is proven 99.999etc, you'd have to had explored 99.999etc paths, alternatives, tests and so on which is an impossiblity to say anything is 99.999%etc.

[I Am Will]

Will, you sort of ignored the point I made in answering this question. If God has a specific purpose for man, and He creates the human body to perfectly address that purpose then almost by definition there will be other situations for which the design of the human body is not perfect.

I believe there are/were populations of animals which were completely separate and unrelated to others although they shared similar traits with them and that we may be assuming that these similarities indicate that they are descendants/ancestors when all they really indicate is that they had the same Creator and that He actually did the same thing many programmers do today, use the same bit of code in more than one application because it accomplishes what you need it to accomplish.

I think we have changed since the moment of Creation because we were intended to change. I think there are more varieties of animals now than what were present at the moment of Creation. I guess the idea I have is that God created THE base model for each type of animal, and this "base" model then began to diversify as the population separated and moved into various different environments.

i didnt ignore it, it just didnt really answer my question. answering with a vague reasoning, in my opinion, surely you agree haemoglobin readily combining with carbon monoxide is a bit of an odd oversight on any creators part?

my point is not why doesnt he create us to be perfect rather why do we have such odd flaws to us which seem to go against a creator for me.

Do you not think it is odd or even ironic God would create animals to live in water yet breath air? or do you believe God didnt create these animals and they evolved into these environments

[capeo]

Yeah I think when you actually read that list of what science does NOT do then read what you just wrote...? Science is a method it's unbias it doesn't prove anything only attempts to show the cause and effects of things. Quick question exactly how can you say anything is proven 99.999etc, you'd have to had explored 99.999etc paths, alternatives, tests and so on which is an impossiblity to say anything is 99.999%etc.

So you're saying things don't fall when dropped nor does the earth orbit the sun nor does all life on earth share a common genetic lineage? Sorry, some things are factual. That is cause and effect. The method of science and it's aim doesn't negate observed causality. It's the basis of logical pursuit. Hence my seperating the method and theory from the observable conclusions.

Edited February 21, 2008 by capeo