Evolution and Genesis

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

Is your opinion of God so low that you don't think He could know in advance the result of a process which He started?

No, my opinion is high enough of God that he isn't limited by such processes; planting single-celled seeds on innumerable planets and keeping tabs on which one of them actually produces the end product that he actually wanted to begin with.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by creekster

Gravity is a law? What does that mean? There is no book of laws for the physical world. Gravity is an observed phenomenon. Newton didn't invent gravity, he described it, using a scientific theory which has been revised over time but which odes not mean that gravity no longer exists or was changed.

Similarly, based upon the fossil record and even more so on the DNA related molecular evidence, evolution and nat. selection are the laws of biology, the laws of life and the laws of speciation and adaptation as observed in the world around us. The evidence supporting these thoeries is very solid and substantial. While some aspects of these theories may be revised over time, this will not mean that evoution no longer exists, it just means we will understand it differently.

Can the law of gravity be proved with methods other than observed phenomenon?

Can evolution be proved as a law of speciation and adaptation by any method other than observed phenomenon?

And before you retreat to the notion that we do not live on the earth long enough to connect all of the dots so to speak, carefully consider the actual evidence as compared to the current theories. (ironically) How must the theories evolve before you get to the same point of certainty in regards to the law of gravity?

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

No, my opinion is high enough of God that he isn't limited by such processes; planting genetic seeds on innumerable planets and keeping tabs on which one of them actually produces the end product that he wanted to begin with.

Planting genetic seeds? What are you talking about?

Again, mutations are random.

Selection for certain mutations is not random, but the circumstances that lead to selection could be construed as random.

Either way, the important point is that God could have started this process and that God most certainly would have known the result in advance. So what's the problem?

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

I'm not talking about controlling mutations. You and I are both completely full of mutations. That's just a fact.

I'm talking about the fact that mutations are constantly happening randomly, and that this is the basic process which allows variation.

Yet you speak of these mutations in terms of good and bad ... from an eternal perspective they are neither good or bad.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

No, my opinion is high enough of God that he isn't limited by such processes; planting single-celled seeds on innumerable planets and keeping tabs on which one of them actually produces the end product that he actually wanted to begin with.

Why are you assuming that God started with a single cell? There is no reason to think that.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

Planting genetic seeds? What are you talking about?

You and/or Archaea suggested that God's many creations were an attempt to eventually produce a living organism that bore some resemblance.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

Why are you assuming that God started with a single cell? There is no reason to think that.

That's what the Theory of Evolution says.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Yet you speak of these mutations in terms of good and bad ... from an eternal perspective they are neither good or bad.

I'm talking about evolutionary science and whether a mutation allows survival and reproduction. And I'm talking about whether the facts of evolutionary science are consistent with the existence of God (which they are).

You're talking about eternal families and the celestial kingdom or something.

We're talking about different things.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

You and/or Archaea suggested that God's many creations were an attempt to eventually produce a living organism that bore some resemblance.

I don't think it was just an attempt. I think he was successful. I don't know what the problem is.

Explain to me why you feel a need to deny facts in order to reconcile the world with your belief in God.

I can only conclude that you deny the facts because you don't really understand them, based on your discussion of mutations and randomness.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

I don't think it was just an attempt. I think he was successful. I don't know what the problem is.

Explain to me why you feel a need to deny facts in order to reconcile the world with your belief in God.

I can only conclude that you deny the facts because you don't really understand them, based on your discussion of mutations and randomness.

Many creations, meaning many different worlds. Is God really that inefficient?