Why do you hate God?

---

_______________________________________________

Why does believing in evolution make someone a God hater?

Who says that God didn't allow evolution to shape things?

Does the Bible say, "God created everything just like you see is right now and did not allow things to evolve."

Why do Christians (myself being one) spend so much time worrying about evolution. If science proves things evolve will it destroy your faith? I hope not.

I would much rather spend my time trying to love my neighbor and pull the log out of my eye then getting upset about evolution. I don't care how God made it happen, because I know that God made it happen one way or another.


Just my two cents

"I say, I say, it's a joke son, a joke."
-- Foghorn Leghorn

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

He hates America too.

not to mention freedom....

---

_______________________________________________

...and (french) fries.

Excellent thread fellas.

Why do you hate God?

I can't stop laughin'. Classic.

I'm the kind of jagoff that would put that on a t-shirt.

The whole "Why do you hate America?" replies in other threads are equally funny.

----------------------------

Spidey ... a lot of the replies are inside jokes or sarcastic comments among people that have had many religoius, evo-cre discussions in the past.

Most are in agreement that evolution-creationism is not a faith determining issue.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

Most are in agreement that evolution-creationism is not a faith determining issue.


Says you, you stinking pagan heretic.

---

_______________________________________________

"Says you, you stinking pagan heretic."

Keep the t-shirt ideas coming. I may retire by 40.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

You better cut me in for some of the profit ;)

---

_______________________________________________

A little more subtle than your upcoming line of bas couture, but I quite like these guys' t-shirts:

http://www.cafepress.com/landoverbaptist/101898

I'm not sure why I looked at the "holy thongs", but oh my.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

Those shirts are nothing compared to their website http://www.landoverbaptist.org/

---

_______________________________________________

"Have a nice lunch, Pastor!"

hahahahahahahahahaha

hohohohohohohohohoho

hehehehehehehehehehe

thunk. ow.

---

---
"You'll find a slight squeeze on the hooter an excellent safety precaution, Miss Scrumptious."

"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong." -- Richard Feynman

I thought the original post was rather interesting. In the probably hopeless task of getting the thread back on track, I ask the following:

Who is Dr. Behe, and why would he think the development of a new trait in bacteria reproduction would provide important evidence supporting evolution?

By evolution I mean the term in the common sense of man having an unbroken line of ancestry from some virus or whatever from a billion years or so ago, not some butterfly changing color over a period of generations.

Now had the lab bacteria evolved into a rose or something, it would be a different story.

Well actually I think the point is that if a strain of E-coli can develope new 'function' as the scientist put it, then it could develope another new function, and over a period of time be a completely different organism.

I'm curious, do the people who are skeptical of evolution believe that every creature was created as it is, and that we have no common lineage with other primates?

---

-Erik

"I don't half-ass anything. For me its either whole-ass or nothing." -elake

I don't claim to speak for others at all. For myself I don't believe that every creature was created as is. Over time, any population will develop diversity. We have short and tall people for example.

Personally, I don't buy what I will call macro evolution mostly because of the sharp delineation of separate species that is so evident in every aspect of living things. A gradual change model such as you describe doesn't lend itself to such development in any obvious fashion.

Does man have some common lineage with other primates? Maybe. My take would be that some outside intelligence periodically stirred the broth to effect the major changes that produced the various species.

The idea that a bacteria can develop a new "function," whatever that means is not interesting to me unless that new function is something major. If it grew roots and bloomed, you would have my attention.

I looked at the "Holy Thongs" because it just seemed like the right thing to do. And it was!

You expect that in 15 years?

Behe is one of the main proponents of ID, and whose examples of supposed irreducible complexity have been shown to be incorrect. He doesn't think that really complex biological systems can evolve, hence his view that observing a new inheritable trait would support evolution.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

How about if the bacteria can build a completely new protein that gives it some competitive advantage? The scientist in question implies that something significant has occurred.

As for macro-evolution, consider a gallon of blue paint. Add a single drop of yellow paint, mix well. It's still blue. Add another drop of yellow paint, mix well. Still blue. Continue. At every iteration, the change is so small as to be indiscernable. Yet, eventually, the paint will no longer be "blue", and be markedly different from the original blue. Finally, you will have two gallons of green paint.

Species have had *millions* of years to change. Wrap your head around the concept of millions of years, and you'll realize how much change can occur. Or maybe not.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

In other words, you want to see thousands or millions years of evolution happen in a few years.

That would be the equivalent of someone saying "I'd believe in a creator if He came into my living room and created a whole new family of mammals right in front of me".

There are some fossils that do represent significant changes from amphibian to reptile, etc.

No. there are not chains of fossils that string together every small change ... but the intermediate fossils (characteristics of both major classes) that are there are hard to ignore. Technically they are classified as one class or another, but that can be misleading b/c science is not going to start adding classes like Amphibianiles or reptirds or repmals, etc.

These were all things I was forced to look when questioning my own opinions, ideas, beliefs, etc.

------------------------------

My take would be that some outside intelligence periodically stirred the broth to effect the major changes that produced the various species.

I read a Christian evolutionists describe it like this, using a pool analogy ...

Your God breaks the balls and sinks all 15 balls, one after another in 15 shots.

My God breaks the balls and all 15 balls go in, one after another, in sequential order.

I believe the point of the analogy is to show that it is equally, if not more impressive for a God to use evolution as a creative and sustaining means than it is for God to always have to meddle in the process.

In his book, Dr. Miller refers to this as "God the Mechanic", where God is always needing to tinker with His creation in order to get it how he wants it.

------------------------

Back to the OP ... if the bacteria show some huge leap in evolutionary process, both sides will claim victory.

[1] The punk-eeks (punctuated equilibrium, allopatric speciation) folks will have an example of a "huge leap" ijn evolution and suggest that indeed, everything need not be gradual (i.e., slow and steady).

[2] The YEC's and the like will also say "see evolution can be so quick that kinds of animals could have distiniguished into all the species we have now within the time frame of 6K to 12K years."

That's the part of YECism that surpised me the most ... they believe in the most rapid-paced evolution of anyone. They just don't accept "macroevolution", if you use their def of macro ... basically anything above the family distinction.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

Yes, and you would also have lots and lots of samples of paint with continuous gradations from blue to green. If the fossil records showed that, I would "believe in" evolution. They do not.

A bacteria building a new protein doesn't sound like all that big a deal to me, though maybe it should. I don't quibble with natural selection.

Except that the fossil records do show that. Look at the whale fossil record, and you'll see many species of whale with land animal features that diminish as time passes. If you expect a complete record, showing every change in DNA, forget it. As TripleThreat pointed out, there are fossils that have been classified in one class and which show features distinctive of another class (reptiles with feathers?).

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

The paint analogy doesn't work. By adding the yellow you are changing the color or the diversity but it is still paint. What the ID people want to see is the paint turn into aluminum siding. Don't get me wrong, evolution is the real deal, there are plenty of examples of changes in animal lines to show evolution. This notion that you cannot prove it because we don't have a fossil record for every single year of a 200 million year span is just plain unreasonable. And the "eye is too complex" argument drives me nuts. It starts with cells that are more sensitive to a shadow or preditor moving overhead. These cells grow more sensitive over time. It makes sense for the cells to develop close to the brain for speed of response. It further makes sense for the cells to evolve so that they can sharpen their response to the light. Being able to see in different light conditions and levels makes you less likely to get blind sided and eaten, so now yiu have an iris. After a few 100 million years you get the whole eye.

Sorry, but I just don't know enough to discuss at that level. I wish I did.

If the fossil records showed that, I would "believe in" evolution.

Two things that are interesting ...

[1] What the fossil record does show.

[2] How rare it is for something to actually fossilize (and even more rare for us to discover it. Very little [comparatively] of the world has been explored for fossils).

Seriously, for as rare as fossilization is, and given the amount of area still unexplored, the fossil record says quite a bit.

It is one of those things that you almost cannot ignore.

-----------------------------

Helpful link ...

Transitional fossils: http://www.talkorigins.org/...sitional/part1a.html

Amphibians to Amniotes: http://www.talkorigins.org/...sitional/part1b.html

(Amniotes are reptile like, determined by laying eggs that have an amniotic sac, hence "Amniotes":.

Overview of the Cenozoic: http://www.talkorigins.org/...sitional/part2a.html

Mammals, Part 2: http://www.talkorigins.org/...sitional/part2b.html

More Mammals: http://www.talkorigins.org/...sitional/part2c.html

(THe Good models, bad models at the end of 2C is interesting.

-----------------------------

I asked around for a "Fossil" book that had sequential pictures of the fossils as they are presented in order. I will likely have to get a graduate level book. It's not as simple as I would like, since there are whole books written on "Amphibian fossils", "Invertebrates", etc. Incidently, from a fossil perspective, humans are the most well documented, which isn't suprising ... since we're the youngest.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

As a side note to this discussion, and addressed to you as the originator (Originator?) of the thread, but hoping to get a response from all parties: some people believe in a/the Creator; how was that Creator created?

some people believe in a/the Creator; how was that Creator created?

For me ... Either [1] always existed (infinite), or [2] came from outside of our universe, or [3] both.

Not sure if your question is on a serious note, or not (I answered if it were). This discussion has occourred once, twice or 27 times previously. If you are interested, a quick search should do the trick.

There are also other ideas such as aliens, etc ... I believe Francis Crick (DNA dude) that thought aliens had started life on this planet.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

Yes, I was asking seriously (thank you for answering) and yes I am guilty of not searching before asking. However, I did not search because from what I have read so far in other threads, it appears that I would have to read through a lot of off topic comments. Kind of like searching for a needle in a whole hay stack when I know that some people here can restrict the search to only one portion of the stack.

Note that my question wasn't so much on how life was created on this planet, but more on what the consensus is, for people who believe on a Creator, on how that Creator was created. Is there even such a consensus?

To me, it seems like if somebody is going to explain the origin of life by putting a Creator in the picture then they ought to explain where that Creator is coming from.

I would suggest that most think the Creator is God (Yahweh, Allah, etc). God has always existed, and is infinite ... knows no bounds (as far as we know). Obviously, God could not create the universe and still be a part of it.

I would say that is the consensus, but there are different views.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

well, give it about 3 billion years and it just might.

---

kiwipat

per ardua ad astra