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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eric_Hyom
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rossum said:
The designer is making it appear that evolution happened. Why do you disagree with what the designer wants you to see?
Click to expand...
I can understand that evolution could happen if God was in control. That is not the point of this thread, how could evolution happen without God?
 
Noose001 said:
Abiogenesis has never been demonstrated so it is not Chemistry but a speculation.
Click to expand...
Creation of a living organism by any deity has never been demonstrated,; another speculation. Creation of purines and pyrimidines by chemistry has been demonstrated. That puts chemistry two up over theology.
Noose001 said:
There’s no evidence so far that speciation comes through mutations and natural selection
Click to expand...
False. Your sources are lying to you again. We have evidence of mutation and natural selection causing speciation since 1905. 1905! Your Rip van Winkle sources have been asleep for at least 115 years.
 
Eric_Hyom said:
That is not the point of this thread, how could evolution happen without God?
Click to expand...
  1. Vishnu, or some deity other than the Abrahamic God.
  2. Imperfect reproduction of heritable characteristics in a situation of resource constraint.
  3. Some other explanation.
Currently #2 has the overwhelming bulk of the evidence.
 
rossum said:
Creation of a living organism by any deity has never been demonstrated,; another speculation. Creation of purines and pyrimidines by chemistry has been demonstrated. That puts chemistry two up over theology.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t have to be demonstrated because such things as faith and trust work well with understanding and not with evidences and demonstrations.
I trust my wife loves me; i don’t need to isolate and weigh the love she has for me.

By faith i understand that God made purines and pyrimidines. Chemistry is nothing more than the study of what has been created.
rossum said:
We have evidence of mutation and natural selection causing speciation since 1905. 1905! Your Rip van Winkle sources have been asleep for at least 115 years.
Click to expand...
Then why the debate, that evidence should be used to settle this debate.
 
Noose001 said:
By faith i understand that …
Click to expand...
By faith million of people understand that there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is His prophet. Are those people right?
Noose001 said:
Then why the debate, that evidence should be used to settle this debate.
Click to expand...
Because the title of this thread includes both the origin of the universe and the origin of life, where evidence is incomplete. There is ample evidence for evolution, dating back to 1905 and earlier. Abiogenesis and cosmogenesis have less evidence, particularly for cosmogenesis before the Big Bang.
 
Noose001 said:
It doesn’t have to be demonstrated because such things as faith and trust work well with understanding and not with evidences and demonstrations.
I trust my wife loves me; i don’t need to isolate and weigh the love she has for me.
Click to expand...
Are there people out there right now who trust that their spouse loves them, and are in fact wrong?
 
rossum said:
By faith million of people understand that there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is His prophet. Are those people right?
Click to expand...
Yes, they are right and true to their faith but they are wrong in the deeds that their faith leads them to because faith is obedience to the inner voice from whom we all derive our being and not the outer voice from where many people get their beliefs and that includes evolution.
rossum said:
Because the title of this thread includes both the origin of the universe and the origin of life, where evidence is incomplete.
Click to expand...
No such thing as incomplete or partial evidence, it is either a go or a no go, evidence or no evidence.
 
Last edited:
Noose001 said:
No such thing as incomplete or partial evidence, it is either a go or a no go, evidence or no evidence.
Click to expand...
So, since we have incomplete and partial evidence that Jesus existed…

… or do you have His birth certificate and a complete original copy of His autobiography?
 
rossum said:
Because the title of this thread includes both the origin of the universe and the origin of life, where evidence is incomplete.
Abiogenesis and cosmogenesis have less evidence, particularly for cosmogenesis before the Big Bang.
Click to expand...
Up until today; we cannot use science to prove or disprove the existence of God; on these two big questions.
rossum said:
There is ample evidence for evolution, dating back to 1905 and earlier.
Click to expand...
I think evolution is a great theory to explain how life adapts and survives in changing environments. Darwin’s observation of thousands of specimens was to be admired. Concluding how finch beaks adapted to their surroundings was a breakthrough.

But Darwin saw a possible flaw in the theory, he wondered how the eye could evolve. The real evidence for eye evolution is no clearer today. We know there are millions of species, we know there are a variety of eyes. But there is not the quality of evidence that Darwin had; to show how the eye could evolve from no eye three billion years ago.

More to the point, there is not the evidence to show how it could happen naturally without God.
rossum said:
since we have incomplete and partial evidence that Jesus existed…
Click to expand...
We don’t look for evidence to show that Jesus existed; we take that on faith and trust.
 
Last edited:
Eric_Hyom said:
Up until today; we cannot use science to prove or disprove the existence of God; on these two big questions.
Click to expand...
We can use science to prove that God is not a sufficient cause of the material universe. If He were then the universe would be as old as God. Since the universe is younger then God alone is insufficient. There must have been some other non-eternal X which was not present before the Big Bang, but which was present for the Big Bang. The cause of the Big Bang was (God and X), not God alone.
40.png
Eric_Hyom:
But Darwin saw a possible flaw in the theory, he wondered how the eye could evolve.
Click to expand...
I suspect you have been reading creationist quotemines. Some of them do not post the full quote from “Origin”.

Here is the part creationist sites frequently quote:
“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”
Click to expand...
All to often they leave out what Darwin said immediately following:
“When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.”
Click to expand...
Darwin was not pointing out a flaw in the theory; he was showing that what some people might see as a flaw was in fact no such thing.
More to the point, there is not the evidence to show how it could happen naturally without God.
Click to expand...
Very easily corrected. Work on your ‘Goddidit’ hypothesis and find a place where your hypothesis makes a different prediction to evolution. Einstein’s hypotheses made different predictions to Newton, and Eddington’s observations confirmed Einstein’s predictions over Newton’s. What does your hypothesis predict that is different from standard evolutionary theory? If there is no difference then your hypothesis does not add anything useful to science. To be useful it must make different predictions to current science.
 
Last edited:
Science fiction? shows you limited science mind its not real wake up. I follow astro physics and particle physics what does watch scifi super hero movies have to do with a scientific mind.
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
So, since we have incomplete and partial evidence that Jesus existed…

… or do you have His birth certificate and a complete original copy of His autobiography?
Click to expand...
Jesus is a historic figure.
 
Abrosz said:
The name “Jesus” was and is a very common name. Any evidence for the miracles he allegedly performed?
Click to expand...
No evidence, but Jesus is a historic figure nevertheless. By faith we understand he did what is ascribed to Him but there’s no question that he existed.
 
rossum said:
Very easily corrected. Work on your ‘Goddidit’ hypothesis and find a place where your hypothesis makes a different prediction to evolution. Einstein’s hypotheses made different predictions to Newton, and Eddington’s observations confirmed Einstein’s predictions over Newton’s. What does your hypothesis predict that is different from standard evolutionary theory?
Click to expand...
I can think of one logical difference between the predictions of ID and Evolution. The difference is that an intelligent designer, who is expecting his creation to make a rational choice concerning their eternal salvation, would find it of paramount importance to make certain that His creation is indeed rational. Otherwise such a choice…and judging them on that choice…would be impossible. Whereas evolution would have no such concern. It would have no qualms about creating beings who act irrationally. Because evolution only cares about who survives here and now, not about some eternal salvation.

Even a casual examination of humanity will reveal that humans are for the large part, irrational beings. Therefore the most logical conclusion is, that there is no intelligent designer.
 
Noose001 said:
Jesus is a historic figure.
Click to expand...
And like most historical figures we only have partial evidence. Both science and history are used to working with partial evidence. Your requirement for complete evidence destroys a great deal of human knowledge.
 
rossum said:
And like most historical figures we only have partial evidence. Both science and history are used to working with partial evidence. Your requirement for complete evidence destroys a great deal of human knowledge.
Click to expand...
Again, no such thing as partial evidence, we either have evidence that confirms a fact or we don’t have evidence therefore it can not be a fact. Historical evidence about the man Jesus confirms the fact that Jesus lived.

We can argue on what Jesus did but we can not argue about his existence.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top