Evidence of God-Guided Evolution vs Scientific Evolution

[steven lloyd]

Um, something hit the earth and caused chunks to break off and form the moon? Okay, this was how long ago, and it didn't leave a dent?

Uumm, - and the Pacific Ocean would be a ...? (just as one billion year old possibility)

[nolanrh]

Unless you want to debate god guided evolution vs scientific evolution please create a new thread.

DoubleBarrel clearly needs some education in modern scientific theory but this is not the place for it.

[mclure]

Um, something hit the earth and caused chunks to break off and form the moon? Okay, this was how long ago, and it didn't leave a dent? Any impact hard enough to break off enough material to form the moon, would have left major problems for earth. Not to mention, that even after millions of years, the tidals caused by the moon being that close would have drowned everything daily on the planet.

It was about 4.5 billion years ago. It didn't leave a dent since this was very early in earths formation, the earth was molten to begin with but was cooling and had formed a crust when the object hit, the impact caused the earth to become wholly molten again, then for a new crust as it cooled. So as you can see there would be no missing chunks from the earth because gravity pulled everything back into shape. The earth gained mass since it gained some of the material from the mars sized object that hit it, and the rest of the material formed the moon. There was nothing living on the planet at this time to worry about being drowned by large tides, not to mention they would have bigger things to worry about than water, like a molten planet.

Okay, how do they know how much of an isotope there should have been? This is all made up. They have no way of knowing how much there should be.

They know how much of the isotope there is when rock is created because we can measure it when we study new rock being created now days. Since we can measure the half-life of these isotopes by measuring their decay rate it becomes a matter of simple math. ie. say there was a 100 atoms of isotope A when a sample was created, and then you measure there to be 50 atoms after some period of time. The time passed = the half life of that isotope. So you can conclude that the the sample is the same age as the half life of isotope A. Half-lives can range from a fraction of a second to billions of years. They are unique to each isotope of each radioactive element.

As for Biblical evidence, first I would like to know how old people here would date the Bible to be. Second, start adding up the years of lineage recorded, and use other recorded events to confirm it. You will discover that it comes out to roughly 6,000 years.

Well which version of the Bible? I have a bible that is roughly 10 years old. My parents have one thats about 50 years old. No English Bible is more than a couple hundred years old. Before 1466 I believe it was, there was no Christian Bibles written in anything but Latin or Greek, and before that the old testament was in Hebrew. So as you can see the Bible has bin translated many many times. But I have no idea how old the oldest surviving Bible is. I would love to read it and compare it to our current Bibles, since often times things get lost in translation. When translating there is often never a direct way to translate words, just a "best" fitting word. This brings me to using lineages recorded in the bible as a sole source for the age of the world. Not only do you have to assume that every person was recorded, you have to assume their idea of a year was the same as our 365 day year and a extra day every 4 years. You have to assume the Bible was started by Adam and Eve, and that they knew how to write. You have to assume that people were put on the earth the same day as the creation of the Earth. You have to assume that when God said he created the world in seven days, that his idea of a "day" is the same as what we consider a 24 hour revolution of the earth. There is just too many assumption to base any real scientific argument on the Bible alone.

I am still waiting to be told then about how Evolution started. If you think that I don't know, then fine. But I want it spelled out here on the board, by a self-proffessed evolutionist.

Science to my knowledge has no conclusive answer as to how life started, there is just theory. Not gonna go into the details of those theories since there is no way to validate them as of now.

Also, still waiting for some non-biased sites.

What do you mean by non-biases sites? This is pretty widely accepted stuff by the scientific community. Scientists accept these theories because they are the most scientifically proven theories. If you don't want these theories accepted then prove a different theory using the scientific method, if you don't use the scientific method then its not science its philosophy. As for non-biased information, open up an encyclopedia.

Check into how much salt is moved between fresh water and salt water bodies every year. Then maybe do some back checking comparing 6,000 years to billions of years.
Co-incidentally, this is something that I found humorous. We are apparently evolving right? Well, according to chromosome counts, we should soon be evolving into tobacco plants along the way, as they have more chromosomes than humans. According to the "tree", we started with next to nothing, and then slowly added on, until we have reached where we are now. So face it, as we evolve, we will soon become tobacco plants.

I'm not sure what your talking about with salt being moved between fresh water and salt water. Please be more clear.

As for chromosome counts, more chromosomes doesn't necessarily mean better survival of a species. Remember evolution isn't a direction, there is not such thing as more evolved, evolution is just a process. The process of evolution is just changes in DNA that help a species survive its current conditions better. Those changes are a result of the species being able to survive better with the changes than without. Survival doesn't care whether you got more or less chromosomes, its just cares about surviving. Typically from the beginning of life creatures have gone from less to more chromosomes just because more complex organisms are generally able to take advantage of their environments better than less complex ones. ie. A man who has no arms is less likely to survive than one who does have arms, so the man with arms is more likely to pass his DNA down and create children with arms.

[steven lloyd]

Well which version of the Bible? I have a bible that is roughly 10 years old. My parents have one thats about 50 years old. No English Bible is more than a couple hundred years old. Before 1466 I believe it was, there was no Christian Bibles written in anything but Latin or Greek, and before that the old testament was in Hebrew. So as you can see the Bible has bin translated many many times. But I have no idea how old the oldest surviving Bible is. I would love to read it and compare it to our current Bibles, since often times things get lost in translation.

I find it a bit ironic that people will continue referring to passages from the Bible as literal truth. One would assume these people must have read the Bible from cover to cover many times, however, it would seem they skipped reading the preface. Not only does the preface refer to the difficulties in translation, it also states outright that many of the stories (pretty much all from the Old Testament) contained within were passed down from generation to generation by oral tradition. The history contained within the Bible only goes back as far as the storytellers, and the story has been changed many times through translation and for political purpose.

[AlanH]

Isn't God guided evolution really just Creationism? I have heard the term "Intelligent Design" but that theory lacks specific mention of who the "Creator" or "Designer", is.
By titling this thread "God Guided Evolution" everyone is actually talking about another term for Creationism. Unless this is something new, where everything is created already, and God himself is guiding Evolution right at this moment...

[bdbnkr]

Been gone for a while... I see things have gotten a bit off topic....

Alan, yes God guided evolution is creationism. But it is substancially different from the "Young Earth" version of creation which takes the Bible's creation story as being factual.

The evidence that exists does not support a young earth model. It is pretty obvious to anyone with any scientific knowledge that the Earth is far older than the 6000 or so years proclaimed by the proponents of the "Young Earth" theory.

The question here is "How did life begin and develop on Earth?"

The two therories that have been put forward are Natural Selection and Theistic Evolution. The first claims that life formed and evolved on its own with no guidance from a higher intelligence. The second puts forward that life formed and evolved with the guidance of a higher intelligence.

Evolution means change through time. There is no denying that life has changed since it initial formation. However, IMHO, the chance that life formed on its own and through natural selection evolved to its present form is too remote to be considered as a possibility.

I have made several posts to this string putting forward arguments that I believe show how unlikely natural selection is as a theory. When I have time I will add some more that show why I believe a "Creator" is a far more likely alternative to natural selection. I encourage anyone to comment on them.... either for or against.

By the way Nolan.... it is called a debate. That means both sides put forward arguments. I know I have been away for awhile but there is nothing stopping you from putting forward arguments that either support your side or discredit mine. I will get some more stuff posted here in the next week or so.

[nolanrh]

By the way Nolan.... it is called a debate. That means both sides put forward arguments. I know I have been away for awhile but there is nothing stopping you from putting forward arguments that either support your side or discredit mine. I will get some more stuff posted here in the next week or so.

I'm not entirely sure what inspired your condescending explanation of a debate. I have posted arguments supporting my cause, responded to your attempts to discredit them and asked you to elaborate on certain points. I look forward to hearing arguments supporting your side of this debate.

[AlanH]

Been gone for a while... I see things have gotten a bit off topic....

Alan, yes God guided evolution is creationism. But it is substancially different from the "Young Earth" version of creation which takes the Bible's creation story as being factual.

The evidence that exists does not support a young earth model. It is pretty obvious to anyone with any scientific knowledge that the Earth is far older than the 6000 or so years proclaimed by the proponents of the "Young Earth" theory.

The question here is "How did life begin and develop on Earth?"

The two therories that have been put forward are Natural Selection and Theistic Evolution. The first claims that life formed and evolved on its own with no guidance from a higher intelligence. The second puts forward that life formed and evolved with the guidance of a higher intelligence.

Evolution means change through time. There is no denying that life has changed since it initial formation. However, IMHO, the chance that life formed on its own and through natural selection evolved to its present form is too remote to be considered as a possibility.

I have made several posts to this string putting forward arguments that I believe show how unlikely natural selection is as a theory. When I have time I will add some more that show why I believe a "Creator" is a far more likely alternative to natural selection. I encourage anyone to comment on them.... either for or against.

By the way Nolan.... it is called a debate. That means both sides put forward arguments. I know I have been away for awhile but there is nothing stopping you from putting forward arguments that either support your side or discredit mine. I will get some more stuff posted here in the next week or so.

So, (Forgive me if I am in error), what I think you are stating are arguments from the Intelligent Design area of thinking? Or is God Guided Evolution yet another of the many offshoots of Creationism, with a new twist?

[bdbnkr]

I'm not entirely sure what inspired your condescending explanation of a debate. I have posted arguments supporting my cause, responded to your attempts to discredit them and asked you to elaborate on certain points. I look forward to hearing arguments supporting your side of this debate.

Inspired by your declaration of yourself as winner.... unfortunately tone is sometimes hard to get just right when typing. Meant it to be mildly insulting not condescending.

Cheers

[bdbnkr]

So, (Forgive me if I am in error), what I think you are stating are arguments from the Intelligent Design area of thinking? Or is God Guided Evolution yet another of the many offshoots of Creationism, with a new twist?

Alan I always forgive you when you are wrong. With all the opportunity you provide I am starting to get pretty good at it.
(couldn't resist)

In the case you are not wrong. Intelligent Design = Creator = God.

That being said the Intelligent Design theory encompases all of the universe. In this thread we are looking at one little part of it... Life.

[AlanH]

OK, that helps. Thanks.

[steven lloyd]

That being said the Intelligent Design theory encompases all of the universe. In this thread we are looking at one little part of it... Life.

Do you think this discussion can be seperated that way? In other words, can we talk about God as being the Intelligence behind the creation and evolution of life while ignoring or dismissing the question of where the universe came from? If so, wouldn't God then be something that was created when the universe was created?

[bdbnkr]

Do you think this discussion can be seperated that way? In other words, can we talk about God as being the Intelligence behind the creation and evolution of life while ignoring or dismissing the question of where the universe came from? If so, wouldn't God then be something that was created when the universe was created?

I do not see a problem with it. Scientists addressing the origin of life do not address the origin of the universe in their theories. Natural selection has been used as an argument that shows that a higher intelligence is not required for the creation of life but does not address the formation of the universe. I argue that it natural selection cannot explain the orgins of life and that there is far more evidence for higher intelligence than for natural selection (and yes nolan, I am getting to it). Whether or not that intelligence was the creator of the universe or was created after the universe is not relavent to the topic at hand.

I believe that God did create the universe but that is actually another discussion for another string.

[nolanrh]

5 months later and no evidence. Lets get something small and digestable posted.

[friedemann]

I will agree there is holes in the story whether it be belief or scientific.
In the beginning God "magically makes things appear"
The same is said scientifically "if nothing exists long enough, something will appear" Mathmatics proves it.

In both cases I go "Huh?"

There is no clean answer there as God is not suppose to use magic. But he is.



2nd point.
Is this evolution?....a donkey and a horse "make out" resulting in a mule(which if mated to another mule(as it cannot be mated with a donkey or a horse again to produce viable living offspring) produces a mule)-not a horse or a donkey....those 2 lines are totally gone.

If you have ever been to the bad lands of Alberta you will have seen all the fossils in the ground. Explain them.
There are also fossils in Labrador.

Science does not have the answers yet, but they are working on it.