Google Ads
Top 1000
|
|
| laura |
 |
December 01 2007 22:00 PM (Read 20886 times) |
|
|

Admin
Status: online
Registered: 01/20/08
Posts: 3
|
In nature is seems like all of the evolution that we observe goes from a higher order to a lower order. However, the principle of evolving from lower to higher does work - given enough time. The only problem is time. It takes almost no time at all to see something go from a complex state to a less complex state, but it takes a very long time for things to evolve from simple to complex.
It really makes you wonder how something complex comes into being. If things are constantly falling apart, how does anything ever put itself more together (and stay) and become something new AND more complex than previously existed?
There are so many examples of things we find in nature that just make you think how did that happen? How does a snake evolve such that it has poison and a mechanism to deliver it? It seems to go against common sense to think any animal could develop a toxin that it could utilize for it's own benefit. Wouldn't the snake need to have a plan first?
If a thousand monkeys sat at a thousand typewriters how long would it take them to write a book? Who's going to read everything they write to tell them when the book is done? Nature's way is to kill you if you're not writing the book it wants to read. And nature lets you live if you produce a good book (by it's standards). So, nature would require a lot of monkeys.
I think as we study these things we will eternally be able to debate whether it could happen with or without God. Pehaps as we learn more and more about how the snake evolved it will make perfect sense to us how and why the snake was able to evolve a poison. But then why would we think that evolution wasn't set in motion by design?
Personally, I think God is sneaky like this in many of the things he does. I think he gives us room to choose what we want to believe.
It seems like everyone wants to believe that either there is no God and everything evolved, or that God just snapped everything into place and nothing evolved. Why not consider that God used evolution as his mechanism for creating the birds and the fish?
Here's a parting though, what do you think is meant by in it's own kind in Gen 1.25?
[showverse:Gen:1:25]
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| greg |
 |
January 05 2008 15:20 PM |
|
|

Newbie
Status: offline
Registered: 01/06/06
Posts: 3
|
The bombardier beetle has two sacs, one of which contains hydrogen peroxide, and the other contains hydroquinone. When the beetle feels threatened its injects hydrogen peroxide from one sac, hydroquinone from another sac, and an enzyme into a third mixing compartment. The enzyme acts as a catalyst to cause this noxious fluid to heat up to near boiling and to shoot out an outlet duct with amazing accuracy.
This hot, noxious, chemical soup is shot through a sphincter controlled firing mechanism that is in itself quite amazing.
How can something this complex come from nothing?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| laura |
 |
January 20 2008 14:30 PM |
|
|

Admin
Status: online
Registered: 01/20/08
Posts: 3
|
Quote by: gregThe bombardier beetle has two sacs, one of which contains hydrogen peroxide, and the other contains hydroquinone. When the beetle feels threatened its injects hydrogen peroxide from one sac, hydroquinone from another sac, and an enzyme into a third mixing compartment. The enzyme acts as a catalyst to cause this noxious fluid to heat up to near boiling and to shoot out an outlet duct with amazing accuracy.
This hot, noxious, chemical soup is shot through a sphincter controlled firing mechanism that is in itself quite amazing.
How can something this complex come from nothing?
You make an interesting point. On the one hand you're talking about something seemingly impossible for nature to create out of nowhere - without divine intervention, and on the other hand you're talking about something that is.
We know that the beetle does this. But what we don't know is how the beetle learned to do it. Could something like this happen without God? Or is the only way this is possible is that there is a God who has shaped the world into what it is?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| greg |
 |
January 20 2008 15:20 PM |
|
|

Newbie
Status: offline
Registered: 01/06/06
Posts: 3
|
There are a lot of Christians and Non-Christians out there that believe there is either:
1) God
2) No God
And they believe that based on the choice above there is either:
1) No Evolution
2) Evolution
So the choice of evolution and God becomes wrapped up in one logical choice. If you tie your belief of God to evolution then to believe in God you must be able to not believe in evolution. Here is a website which tries to help with that: http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/
Here is a quote from the http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/ website:
Science Against Evolution is a California Public Benefit Corporation whose objective is to make the general public aware that the theory of evolution is not consistent with physical evidence and is no longer a respectable theory describing the origin and diversity of life.
Having said this, I believe the argument against evolution is futile. I have not personally seen any evidence to suggest that evolution is an invalid theory. I cannot however believe that evolution is the only force at work. It would seem unreasonable to think that all of the complexity, diversity, and prosperity of life that we observe today has come to be by mathematical survival of the fittest.
The view of evolution according to wikipedia:
Due to the enormous mainstream scientific consensus in support of modern evolutionary theory, and pursuant to Wikipedia's aforementioned policies, Evolution references evolution as an observable natural process and as the valid explanation for the diversity of life on earth. Although there are indeed opposing views to evolution, such as Creationism, none of these views have any support in the relevant field (biology), and therefore Wikipedia cannot, and should not, treat these opposing views as being significant to the science of evolution. On the other hand, they may be very significant to sociological articles on the effects of evolutionary theory on religious and cultural beliefs; this is why sociological and historical articles such as creation-evolution controversy give major coverage to these opposing views, while biological articles such as evolution do not.
Although many people want to base their faith on this issue, I believe it is errant to do so. Unless there is a reason to deny God one of the ways he could have carried out his master plan, then He should be allowed this tool.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| Content generated in: 0.23 seconds |
|
|