[inthebox]

And there you have it. The tornado on it's own is full of order, but if you look at the whole system, there is disorder being created elsewhere.

Exactly the same as evolution and the Sun.

But does a tornado "build" a house ? - unfortunantly recent events here in the South know otherwise.

[Capuchin]

But does a tornado "build" a house ? - unfortunantly recent events here in the South know otherwise.

The tornado example is not very fitting for evolution. Evolution does not work from building from random parts, but from selective and gradual alterations to an organism.

[Synnen]

Why does the tornado HAVE to build a house?

The house was built by man, not nature.

Nature actually DOES replace and replenish in places where disaster happened. Look at Mt. St. Helens, for example. The "experts" thought that it would take a very long time for life to return to the area, yet life was there relatively quickly. Now, 25 years later, the scars are actually somewhat hard to see.

Just because Nature doesn't fix the house for man, doesn't mean that the natural forces that happen are all spiraling towards disarray and disorder. Nature abhors a vacuum, and will fill it.

Out of curiosity--in your philosophy, God created tornadoes, right? Well, does HE build houses?

[michealb]

A tornado would build a house if every time it moved a board by 1 micron in the right direction it gave the board a better chance at surviving the tornado and if it didn't give the board a better chance at surviving the tornado the board was removed and you had a nearly endless supply of boards and 4 billion years to do it in. Humans are not the result of evolution, we are here because as we increased our brain power we increased our survival rate so since more smart humans survived, we got more and smarter humans.

Evolution is not a driving force to reach an end point it is a driving force that causes life to fit the environment better than the life before it.

[Galveston1]

I have a question. If you who say that the (theory!) of evolution does not claim to be a first cause, then what do you think the first cause is? It either has to be chance (evolution) or intellect. What other choices are there?

[Galveston1]

I asked a question in post #79 that I believe is significant to this discussion, and no one has attempted to answer it.

[Synnen]

Why does there HAVE to be a link?

Can't we just take it on faith, like taking the Bible on faith?

I mean, YOU don't have proof that your god created everything, either!

Personally, I DO think it was chance. I've seen some very strange things happen by chance. Ever seen the path of a tornado? Things are strewn everywhere, yet a clutch full of bird's eggs FROM THE SAME PATH will be completely untouched. I've heard of people picked up by a tornado and put down completely unharmed--and completely naked--except for their shoes. Was that god's intervention? Or pure chance? And if god could intervene on behalf of the poor little birdies--why didn't he intervene for the people whose house the nest was on?

Honestly--I really think that every single action has an impact on the world. The wings of a butterfly in Asia could have been what started Hurricane Katrina, for all we know.

The thing is--we don't know everything. How could we? But we learn more in each age of man that helps explain the world around us.

But to me, it sounds more plausible, and more --I don't know. Livable? More sane? More rational? I'm looking for a word here, and it's not coming to me. Anyway, it's more whatever to believe that chance and our own actions influence the world and the creation of NEW worlds than to believe in some all powerful being that stuck us here, punished us for wanting to know more (the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil) because "he said so" (like a capricious parent that is angry because his kid is growing up too fast and starting to have a mind of his own), cast us out of perfection to live in a horrid world where the only chance of survival is to beg His forgiveness every day of our lives. So... I sin because my great-great-great-great-etc-grandparents got in trouble as teens? And *I* get punished for it because he still hasn't just said "oh, all right. You're done being punished. Now go out and play!"? We have choice, but we're punished for choosing the wrong one, hmm? That's really no choice at all, you know. It's kind of like--You can be raped, or I'll just shoot you. Gee... wonder what I'll pick? How can you POSSIBLY consider that to be a kind and benevolent god? He doesn't cause disasters to punish people, yet will save SOME of those people, and not others, and His choice is random, not based on how well you serve Him? Sounds insane to me. No WAY would I follow a leader like that!

I personally like the idea put forth in L'Engel's "Wrinkle In Time" books---there are universes within universes--and for all we know, our universe is the cell of a unicorn's stomach lining, and we will die when the unicorn does, just as the universes that exist within our own cells die when we do.

[michealb]

One current theory on how life can to be.

If you can see the video the link is YouTube - 3 -- The Origin of Life made easy

[ineedhelpfast]

If anyone is intrested I can give you seven good reasons
Why the bible is true.

[ineedhelpfast]

I can give you seven good valid reasons the bible is true, if anyone is intrested or even wants to know.

[ineedhelpfast]

Sorry for the repost, it said it didn't go through or something so I did it again.

[Capuchin]

Really? Then why do we have fossil records of primates BEFORE the assumed link, and fossil records of man AFTER the assumed link but no link? If we accept the assumption of the evolutionist theory, there would have to have been links for how long? A million years? More? Less? We have fossils before and after, but no complete fossils between. There should be millions of them. Sorry, no cigar!

You just seem to be ignorant of the evidence here. We have many fossils that show gradual changes from ape to human starting at around 3 million years ago. The change that is exibited from these fossils is so gradual that scientists (and creationists) argue about where to draw the line between human and ape.

I see no reason to conclude that there should be millions of them either - fossilization is a rare event.

I have a question. If you who say that the (theory!) of evolution does not claim to be a first cause, then what do you think the first cause is? It either has to be chance (evolution) or intellect. What other choices are there?

Evolution does not say anythign about a first cause. It only explains how we got here from the first replicating molecule, and certainly at the beginning of that timeline it has many questions left to answer. As I stated before, evolution is not chance. Not even if you want it to be. Please stop claiming that it is.

I'm unsure what you mean by first cause? Do you mean of the Universe? Or of Life? Or something else?

[Galveston1]

By first cause, I mean what started it all? Regardless of how you explain progression, or for what length of time, there must be a starting point. Either this complex universe (everything included) is carefully engineered, or it is an accident. To me, the idea of an accident exhibiting such ingenuity is preposterous.
So many refuse to read the Bible with an open mind. The first few verses in Genesis give us a wealth of information that could be compared with scientific observations. Are you game?

[Galveston1]

i can give you seven good valid reasons why the bible is true, if anyone is intrested or even wants to know.

I agree with you, but let's see your reasons. I may be the only one here who wants to see them.

[Synnen]

By first cause, I mean what started it all? Regardless of how you explain progression, or for what length of time, there must be a starting point. Either this complex universe (everything included) is carefully engineered, or it is an accident. To me, the idea of an accident exhibiting such ingenuity is preposterous.
So many refuse to read the Bible with an open mind. The first few verses in Genesis give us a wealth of information that could be compared with scientific observations. Are you game?

Are YOU reading it with an open mind? Or with pre-conceived ideas that it's "true"?

I took several Bible study courses, from the religious perspective, the literature perspective and the historical perspective.

I think my mind is pretty open to the possibilities there.

I just don't understand how someone can possibly believe that every minute little piece of this earth was constructed by some all powerful being WITHOUT the possibility of evolution and change. You think god just threw it all out there, and it's all the same as it was when he made it? Or has it "evolved"?

I frankly don't CARE how it all started--but a cosmic sneeze is as good an idea as someone plotting and planning every little detail to make an ecosystem work.

[Capuchin]

By first cause, I mean what started it all? Regardless of how you explain progression, or for what length of time, there must be a starting point. Either this complex universe (everything included) is carefully engineered, or it is an accident. To me, the idea of an accident exhibiting such ingenuity is preposterous.
So many refuse to read the Bible with an open mind. The first few verses in Genesis give us a wealth of information that could be compared with scientific observations. Are you game?

Science has several theories as to what started the big bang. We have no evidence or observations in order to decide which is true yet. God can fit in here if you wish.

[ordinaryguy]

Science has several theories as to what started the big bang. We have no evidence or observations in order to decide which is true yet. God can fit in here if you wish.

Yeah, I like it. I wonder if it was started by God clapping his hands, snapping his fingers, or slapping his forehead?

[inthebox]

Now man builds a house. I believe man is created by God, so indirectly God builds the house. Everything, including the tornado is from God.

I get the impression from those that have posted, that everything that comes from man's intelligence, like building a house, is from evolution or can be attributed to evolution since mankind is part of evolution. Am I correct?

If this is your belief, then we can disagree, but if this is your belief how did man "evolve" from a single cell organism? How did that single celled organism "evolve " from billions of chemicals?

[Galveston1]

Gen 1:1-2
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
(KJV)

1961 hayah (haw-yaw);

a primitive root [compare 1933]; to exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary):

KJV-- beacon, X altogether, be (-come), accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), do, faint, fall, + follow, happen, X have, last, pertain, quit (oneself-), require, X use.

There is a time gap betrween verse 1 and verse 2 of unknown duration. God did not create the Earth without form and void. Verst 2 tells us it became void. (see definition below) Some catastrophe destroyed everything on this planet for an unknown period. You have as much time to account for various fossils of great antiquity as needed without contridicting what the Bible says.


Gen 1:27-28
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
(KJV)

Here is further proof of a prior creation. The word replenish means to replace something that is lost. The Hebrew word can have many meanings, but the Bible defines itself in this case.

Gen 9:1

1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.
(KJV)

Here we have words spoken to Noah & sons. The same Hebrew word for replenish is used here, and we know that it means to re-populate the Earth after that flood.

My point is that any seeming conflict between the Bible and true science is explained by a flawed understanding of either the Bible, or science. There have been instances of both things happening.

[NeedKarma]

Thanks Galveston, but book means nothing to us, scientifically speaking. :)