How could the universe and life come into existence without God? How could life evolve without God?

[Eric_Hyom]

No. It’s monstrously ridiculous to suggest that there are an actual number of specific changes.

Whether the number is a thousand or three thousand is immaterial. 1829 incremental steps just suggests a lot of change.

If you don’t understand the reason behind the use of using a number such as that then…you simply don’t understand the concept at all.

I can’t see the point in publishing a paper that says how a lens could evolve, if the lens on its own has no benefit.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

No. It’s monstrously ridiculous to suggest that there are an actual number of specific changes.

Whether the number is a thousand or three thousand is immaterial. 1829 incremental steps just suggests a lot of change.

If you don’t understand the reason behind the use of using a number such as that then…you simply don’t understand the concept at all.

I can’t see the point in publishing a paper that says how a lens could evolve, if the lens on its own has no benefit.

So my son has no advantage in having better sight. But that his brain can seem to cope quite well with these additional benefits remains a mystery to you.

Maybe next you’ll be asking how come both eyes got better at seeing at the same time. And he’s taller as well. That both legs are the same length is nothing short of divine intervention!

Please, Eric - don’t rely on random people on a religious forum for details of the evolutionary process. For heaven’s sake do some investigation of your own so the questions you ask will reflect some basic understanding of the process.

 

[rossum]

Natural Selection unto itself - represents a loss in Bio-Info in the Genome.

Ergo, whatever one thought ‘evolution’ was supposed to mean? Isn’t.

Correct, natural selection reduces information in the population genome, weeding out information that does not match the environment and increasing the proportion of matching information in the population.

The initial variation is due to random mutations, which can be neutral (most of them) deleterious or beneficial. Natural selection reduces the information by weeding out the deleterious mutations and increasing the proportion of beneficial mutations. It ignores neutral mutations.

Natural selection alone is not evolution.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

God wasn’t the start of humanity. That would either be Adam or the begining of life a few billion years ago on this planet.

Fair enough, I won’t argue with that. From my perception, if I acknowledge Adam, then I acknowledge God.

 

[Freddy]

The claim was humans and microbes have a common ancestor.

And we know why you think that’s not possible. If the planet was a few thousand years old then I’d agree with you.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

God wasn’t the start of humanity. That would either be Adam or the begining of life a few billion years ago on this planet.

Fair enough, I won’t argue with that. From my perception, if I acknowledge Adam, then I acknowledge God.

But you fail to see that you can acknowledge God in either case. But hey, that’s not my problem. But please don’t expect me to spend time explaining things that you claim are impossible.

As I said upstream…a waste of both our time.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

But please don’t expect me to spend time explaining things that you claim are impossible.

You have said you don’t know how the universe and life came to be. I get the feeling there is no real evidence to show how life could evolve without God either. So that would also go down as I don’t know.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

But please don’t expect me to spend time explaining things that you claim are impossible.

You have said you don’t know how the universe and life came to be. I get the feeling there is no real evidence to show how life could evolve without God either. So that would also go down as I don’t know.

Eric, you believe in God so there is no doubt whatsoever that you would consider everything to be a direct result of God’s work. I don’t believe in Him so the opposite holds - that it’s all entirely natural.

The fact that you could have started such a thread as this has me perplexed. Because what other answer could you have possibly envisaged?

 

[o_mlly]

And we know why you think that’s not possible. If the planet was a few thousand years old then I’d agree with you.

Fred, we know you haven’t any actual evidence for microbes to me and that wouldn’t change if the planet was X billions years old. (Fill in the X and give some actual evidence for X).

 

[o_mlly]

The fact that you could have started such a thread as this has me perplexed. Because what other answer could you have possibly envisaged?

I think he may have envisaged some actual evidence, you know Rossum’s Rule for elevating mere speculation to science. So far, nada.

 

[stoplooklisten]

You can’t put the past or the future through the scientific method. You can only test in the current, present moment.

 

[rossum]

Fred, we know you haven’t any actual evidence for microbes to me

We do. See DNA sequences.

 

[o_mlly]

We do. See DNA sequences.

We don’t. See Cherry Picking DNA sequences.

 

[Macino]

Eric, you believe in God so there is no doubt whatsoever that you would consider everything to be a direct result of God’s work. I don’t believe in Him so the opposite holds - that it’s all entirely natural.

The fact that you could have started such a thread as this has me perplexed. Because what other answer could you have possibly envisaged?

If I believe in the American way, does that mean that it is impossible for me to discuss the French way? Beliefs should be a natural consequence of thinking rightly. And yet, you criticize right thinking as biased. Odd and illogical.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

And we know why you think that’s not possible. If the planet was a few thousand years old then I’d agree with you.

Fred, we know you haven’t any actual evidence for microbes to me and that wouldn’t change if the planet was X billions years old. (Fill in the X and give some actual evidence for X).

And waste both of our time? I think not.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Eric, you believe in God so there is no doubt whatsoever that you would consider everything to be a direct result of God’s work. I don’t believe in Him so the opposite holds - that it’s all entirely natural.

The fact that you could have started such a thread as this has me perplexed. Because what other answer could you have possibly envisaged?

If I believe in the American way, does that mean that it is impossible for me to discuss the French way? Beliefs should be a natural consequence of thinking rightly. And yet, you criticize right thinking as biased. Odd and illogical.

Welcome to the forum, Macino.

I’m not sure where you get that I’m criticising thinking. I’m sure Eric has reached his position after much thought. As have I. We’ve just come to different conclusions is all.

But I keep emphasising that whatever one accepts as being the process that resulted in us being here, it never excludes God (unless you don’t believe He exists in the first place).

 

[EndTimes]

God’s creation has many mysteries that I expect science can’t fully explain. How do trees seem to “see” nearby trees? Why do trees shed their leaves in the fall? Why do birds migrate?

How come flowers in our gardens always face us?

 

[otjm]

Where is the science to show how the universe and life came into existence without God?

Science has no objective to try to determine how the universe and life came about in reference to God, which is a mistake people make in getting involved in the question. Whether one accepts the “Big Bang” theory or not, the theory in itself does not posit an answer either for or against creation by God.

Science discovers laws which rule the universe; it does not engage itself in the question of who or what gave those laws. That is the filed of theology, not science.

 

[otjm]

How come flowers in our gardens always face us?

You must have a different garden than I do; some flowers follow the sun (sunflowers perhaps being one of the better known for following); and others face up to the sky; and still others face in different directions.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

The fact that you could have started such a thread as this has me perplexed. Because what other answer could you have possibly envisaged?

I have often been told that if you believe in God, then you carry the burden of proof. This thread places the burden on those who say there is no God.

The best answers to how did the universe come to be without God is; " I don’t know". Likewise for abiogenesis. So that just leaves evolution. how could it happen without God.

I can understand how chemical changes in the oceans could form shell and bone in a natural way, no problem. But I struggle to understand how the intricate workings of a vertebrata could evolve purely by natural means. Same goes with the eye lens.