Theistic Darwinsim

Theistic Darwinsim (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins

Message

jeafl -> Theistic Darwinsim (8/6/2008 12:29:52 PM)
Darwinism’s survival of the fittest is predicated on the proposition that living things must struggle with each other and with their environment in order to live and this means that living things must die. How is a god that would create living things just so they would die be worthy of our respect, obedience or worship?

essentialsaltes -> RE: Theistic Darwinsim (8/6/2008 12:36:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jeafl Darwinism’s survival of the fittest is predicated on the proposition that living things must struggle with each other and with their environment in order to live and this means that living things must die. All living things do in fact die. Excepting maybe amoebas and suchlike. quote: How is a god that would create living things just so they would die be worthy of our respect, obedience or worship? You tell me.

EStan -> RE: Theistic Darwinsim (8/6/2008 1:07:58 PM)
Hmmm, I wonder if that might not be a better question for the "God" subforum, since it's really questioning the nature of God. Anyway, short answer: sin and death (some believers say "spiritual death") entered the world when Adam and Eve sinned against God by not obeying Him.

gluadys -> RE: Theistic Darwinsim (8/6/2008 1:48:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jeafl Darwinism’s survival of the fittest is predicated on the proposition that living things must struggle with each other and with their environment in order to live and this means that living things must die. How is a god that would create living things just so they would die be worthy of our respect, obedience or worship? You might ask why God made living things to reproduce without limit in an environment of limited resources. It is the expansion of population in finite system that makes the struggle for survival necessary. And it makes no difference whether they evolved or not. OTOH evolution is what makes it possible to develop new strategies and adaptations so that more species can survive. So, sounds like God made a good move when he made living things capable of evolution.

jeafl -> RE: Theistic Darwinsim (8/6/2008 1:59:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes All living things do in fact die. Excepting maybe amoebas and suchlike. Why is this? Is it because God is a cold-hearted killer? It is because sin entered the world with the fall of man? Is it because this is simply how nature, in the absence of any supreme being, operates?

jeafl -> RE: Theistic Darwinsim (8/6/2008 2:03:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EStan Hmmm, I wonder if that might not be a better question for the "God" subforum, since it's really questioning the nature of God. Anyway, short answer: sin and death (some believers say "spiritual death") entered the world when Adam and Eve sinned against God by not obeying Him. Why would physical death be part of the original plan for a loving God?

EStan -> RE: Theistic Darwinsim (8/6/2008 2:05:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jeafl quote: ORIGINAL: EStan Hmmm, I wonder if that might not be a better question for the "God" subforum, since it's really questioning the nature of God. Anyway, short answer: sin and death (some believers say "spiritual death") entered the world when Adam and Eve sinned against God by not obeying Him. Why would physical death be part of the original plan for a loving God? That's definitely a question for the "God" subforum. [;)]

jeafl -> RE: Theistic Darwinsim (8/6/2008 2:09:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gluadys You might ask why God made living things to reproduce without limit in an environment of limited resources. It is the expansion of population in finite system that makes the struggle for survival necessary. And it makes no difference whether they evolved or not. Why would resources be limited in a world without sin- i.e., a world that was still totally within God’s realm? As long as God was in the equation the earth was not a closed system. quote: OTOH evolution is what makes it possible to develop new strategies and adaptations so that more species can survive. Actually, the environmentalists on the left would claim that the opposite is true. The fate of most species is extinction and there are supposedly fewer species on earth today than in the past.

hellohellohi -> RE: Theistic Darwinsim (8/6/2008 2:14:57 PM)
What's so bad, secularly speaking, about death? I ask because such does not seem a trivial truth, though a fair axiom, if you like.

essentialsaltes -> RE: Theistic Darwinsim (8/6/2008 2:54:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jeafl quote: ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes All living things do in fact die. Excepting maybe amoebas and suchlike. Why is this? Biochemistry can only 'cheat' entropy for so long. Creatures wear down and break eventually. quote: [Is it] because sin entered the world with the fall of man? If cats die because people sin, that's pretty rough on cats. It's like kicking the dog when your child has done something wrong. quote: Is it because this is simply how nature, in the absence of any supreme being, operates? This is how nature operates, whether there is or isn't a supreme being. If a (conception of a) particular deity requires that death not exist, then that deity evidently does not exist: If benevolent Seussy-Zeus existed, death would not exist. Death does exist. Therefore, benevolent Seussy-Zeus does not exist.

essentialsaltes -> RE: Theistic Darwinsim (8/6/2008 2:56:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hellohellohi What's so bad, secularly speaking, about death? I ask because such does not seem a trivial truth, though a fair axiom, if you like. I've certainly never heard any dead people complain about it, but I'm not eager to join them at the moment.

gluadys -> RE: Theistic Darwinsim (8/6/2008 3:05:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jeafl quote: ORIGINAL: gluadys You might ask why God made living things to reproduce without limit in an environment of limited resources. It is the expansion of population in finite system that makes the struggle for survival necessary. And it makes no difference whether they evolved or not. Why would resources be limited in a world without sin- i.e., a world that was still totally within God’s realm? As long as God was in the equation the earth was not a closed system. Earth is still not a closed system. But the universe as a whole is finite. And the planet has a finite area. So of course, resources are also finite. At least within the realm of nature. And God clearly intended for the normal routine of life to occur within the parameters of the natural world. quote: quote: OTOH evolution is what makes it possible to develop new strategies and adaptations so that more species can survive. Actually, the environmentalists on the left would claim that the opposite is true. The fate of most species is extinction and there are supposedly fewer species on earth today than in the past. Be careful with your comparisons. Certainly there are fewer species alive today than the total number of species that ever lived. But insofar as some species today are descendents of extinct species, those species are still represented by living descendants e.g. birds are a living remnant of therapod dinosaurs. However, if you are comparing the number of species today to the number at any one time period in the past, there may well be more species today than then, or at least around the same number. So for example, we have far fewer species of trilobites today (as they are all extinct) but many more species of beetles (which did not exist in the early Paleozoic.) We have no ichthyosaurs or mosasaurs (marine reptiles) but we do have whales and dolphins.

Carico -> RE: Theistic Darwinsim (8/6/2008 3:09:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jeafl Darwinism’s survival of the fittest is predicated on the proposition that living things must struggle with each other and with their environment in order to live and this means that living things must die. How is a god that would create living things just so they would die be worthy of our respect, obedience or worship? Survival of the fittest also predicates that humans are evolving into a new superior species. I wonder what that could be? gods, perhaps? [sm=purplelaugh.gif] But that's what happens when people worship scientists. They try to fit a square peg into a round hole no matter what they have to do to get it in there. [8\|]

cow451 -> RE: Theistic Darwinsim (8/6/2008 4:03:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Carico quote: ORIGINAL: jeafl Darwinism’s survival of the fittest is predicated on the proposition that living things must struggle with each other and with their environment in order to live and this means that living things must die. How is a god that would create living things just so they would die be worthy of our respect, obedience or worship? Survival of the fittest also predicates that humans are evolving into a new superior species. I wonder what that could be? gods, perhaps? [sm=purplelaugh.gif] But that's what happens when people worship scientists. They try to fit a square peg into a round hole no matter what they have to do to get it in there. [8\|] It would be easier to have a discussion if you actually knew something about science other than that which you gleaned at Vacation Bible School. BTW, Darwin did not invent the term "survival of the fittest". I'll be glad to give a link to some information if you want to improve your understanding.

jeafl -> RE: Theistic Darwinsim (8/6/2008 8:38:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hellohellohi What's so bad, secularly speaking, about death? I ask because such does not seem a trivial truth, though a fair axiom, if you like. If you think death is so great, secularly speaking, how much longer are you going to wait until you partake of it?

jeafl -> RE: Theistic Darwinsim (8/6/2008 8:47:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes Biochemistry can only 'cheat' entropy for so long. Creatures wear down and break eventually. This is true only in a finite world. But would the world be finite if God were still part of it, as He was before the fall of man? quote: If cats die because people sin, that's pretty rough on cats. It's like kicking the dog when your child has done something wrong. Granted, the curse of sin on all living things is something that I don’t yet understand, but at least it doesn’t turn God into the cold-blooded killer He has to be for either theistic evolution or old earth creationism to be true. quote: This is how nature operates, whether there is or isn't a supreme being. You know this how? Why would you lend credence to a supreme being that is a cold-blooded killer? quote: If benevolent Seussy-Zeus existed, death would not exist. Death does exist. Therefore, benevolent Seussy-Zeus does not exist. But the Lord God gives you an opt-out: Eternal life through His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ. BTW: My question was directed only at people who believe in both Darwinism and some sort of supreme being. Your answers don’t make sense as answers to my question if you don’t accept the premise that the question is based on.

jeafl -> RE: Theistic Darwinsim (8/6/2008 8:59:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gluadys Earth is still not a closed system. Define closed system. quote: But the universe as a whole is finite. And the planet has a finite area. So of course, resources are also finite. At least within the realm of nature. But my question is not premised on the operation nature as we know it. If you are not willing to accept the question as it is presented, don’t waste my time trying to answer it. quote: And God clearly intended for the normal routine of life to occur within the parameters of the natural world. What tells you this? Where in the Bible does God say every living thing on earth will die just because He says it will? quote: Be careful with your comparisons. Certainly there are fewer species alive today than the total number of species that ever lived. But insofar as some species today are descendents of extinct species, those species are still represented by living descendants e.g. birds are a living remnant of therapod dinosaurs. You just went through a great spiel about how the earth has finite resources. Therefore the process of evolution will eventually lead to such a number of species that the earth’s carrying capacity will be reached and the number of species will either reach an equilibrium or the number will decline until enough resources are freed up for the number to rise again thereby setting up a boom-bust cycle. quote: However, if you are comparing the number of species today to the number at any one time period in the past, there may well be more species today than then, or at least around the same number. Try telling this to Al Gore. quote: So for example, we have far fewer species of trilobites today (as they are all extinct) but many more species of beetles (which did not exist in the early Paleozoic.) We have no ichthyosaurs or mosasaurs (marine reptiles) but we do have whales and dolphins. Considering how spotty the fossil record is, how can you reach such conclusions?

jeafl -> RE: Theistic Darwinsim (8/6/2008 9:03:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Carico Survival of the fittest also predicates that humans are evolving into a new superior species. Not necessarily. In actuality Darwin's survival of the fittest leads to the idea that the more something evolves the better it has to be. But professional Darwinists will tell you that the theory of evolution doesn't make judgment calls about one species being better than another.

Carico -> RE: Theistic Darwinsim (8/6/2008 9:42:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jeafl quote: ORIGINAL: gluadys Earth is still not a closed system. Define closed system. quote: But the universe as a whole is finite. And the planet has a finite area. So of course, resources are also finite. At least within the realm of nature. But my question is not premised on the operation nature as we know it. If you are not willing to accept the question as it is presented, don’t waste my time trying to answer it. quote: And God clearly intended for the normal routine of life to occur within the parameters of the natural world. What tells you this? Where in the Bible does God say every living thing on earth will die just because He says it will? quote: Be careful with your comparisons. Certainly there are fewer species alive today than the total number of species that ever lived. But insofar as some species today are descendents of extinct species, those species are still represented by living descendants e.g. birds are a living remnant of therapod dinosaurs. You just went through a great spiel about how the earth has finite resources. Therefore the process of evolution will eventually lead to such a number of species that the earth’s carrying capacity will be reached and the number of species will either reach an equilibrium or the number will decline until enough resources are freed up for the number to rise again thereby setting up a boom-bust cycle. quote: However, if you are comparing the number of species today to the number at any one time period in the past, there may well be more species today than then, or at least around the same number. Try telling this to Al Gore. quote: So for example, we have far fewer species of trilobites today (as they are all extinct) but many more species of beetles (which did not exist in the early Paleozoic.) We have no ichthyosaurs or mosasaurs (marine reptiles) but we do have whales and dolphins. Considering how spotty the fossil record is, how can you reach such conclusions? Sorry but one has to know the animals that used to exist in order to know if there are more today than there used to be. A perfect example of this erroneous thinking is in a documentary I saw on the Galapagos Islands. Scientists went to an island that they said no one had ever been to before and they listed "new" species that they claimed had developed in the last few centuries. So since no one had ever been to those islands, how can they know which species were new and which weren't? The answer is that they can't. So that's another contradiction that people who worship scientists as gods don't challenge. As Hitler once said; "People are so stupid. It's easy to fool them." And no one knew better than Hitler how easy it is to dupe the public. [8\|]

gluadys -> RE: Theistic Darwinsim (8/6/2008 10:28:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jeafl quote: ORIGINAL: gluadys Earth is still not a closed system. Define closed system. Thermodynamically, a closed system is one to which no energy is added by an external source. By this definition, the earth is not a closed system. quote: quote: But the universe as a whole is finite. And the planet has a finite area. So of course, resources are also finite. At least within the realm of nature. But my question is not premised on the operation nature as we know it. If you are not willing to accept the question as it is presented, don’t waste my time trying to answer it. I don't know why you would say I did not answer the question as presented. I did not infer from the question that you were speaking of any natural world other than the one God created--the same natural world that was experienced by the authors of scripture and which we continue to experience today. That world has always been finite. The writers of scripture did not envision an earth of infinite extent, nor a cosmos that was infinite in time. They pointed to a creation which had a beginning, to an earth that was bounded by ocean and firmament. The spoke of the earth being filled by the process of reproduction. If there were unlimited space and resources, they could never be filled. quote: quote: And God clearly intended for the normal routine of life to occur within the parameters of the natural world. What tells you this? In Genesis 8:22, Luke 12:54, Colossians 1:15-17. All speak to the rule of law in nature created and upheld by the Word that made them. quote: You just went through a great spiel about how the earth has finite resources. Therefore the process of evolution will eventually lead to such a number of species that the earth’s carrying capacity will be reached and the number of species will either reach an equilibrium or the number will decline until enough resources are freed up for the number to rise again thereby setting up a boom-bust cycle. No, since the carrying capacity is set by the number of individuals, not the number of species. Also, as noted earlier, species do go extinct as well as coming into existence. You can have as many or more species, as long as the average population of each is less. quote: Try telling this to Al Gore. So are you talking about the current mass extinction we humans are producing? That's not the fault of evolution. quote: Considering how spotty the fossil record is, how can you reach such conclusions? It's not that spotty.

essentialsaltes -> RE: Theistic Darwinsim (8/7/2008 12:09:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jeafl quote: This is how nature operates, whether there is or isn't a supreme being. You know this how? Living things die. This is an obvious fact. Do you deny it? Madison is the capital of Wisconsin, whether there is or isn't a supreme being. Living thing die, whether there is or isn't a supreme being.

jeafl -> RE: Theistic Darwinsim (8/7/2008 10:18:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Carico Sorry but one has to know the animals that used to exist in order to know if there are more today than there used to be. I haven’t said otherwise, but the working premise for the Darwinists is that we can know the number of species at any given point in time. And for all intents and purposes we don’t know how many species exist on earth even today. The definition of species as a set of organisms that can mate and produce offspring that mate and produce offspring is not very exact. Since goldfish in separate bowls are prevented from mating by geography, technically they are not the same species. A Great Dane and a Pekinese cannot mate in nature due to the difference in their size (and the attitude of the Pekinese) so technically they are not part of the same species even though they are counted as one single species.

HHV5 -> RE: Theistic Darwinsim (8/7/2008 10:23:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jeafl Since goldfish in separate bowls are prevented from mating by geography, technically they are not the same species. Oh c'mon. Does that mean a Brazilian and Scandinavian represent two different species?

jeafl -> RE: Theistic Darwinsim (8/7/2008 10:24:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gluadys Thermodynamically, a closed system is one to which no energy is added by an external source. By this definition, the earth is not a closed system. So a finite earth/universe plus an infinite God does not equal a closed system. My question is based on the premise that as long as God is in control of the created earth/universe, that created earth/universe is an open system and God can add to it as He pleases so the earth/universe would never run out of natural resources for the living things that it contains.

jeafl -> RE: Theistic Darwinsim (8/7/2008 10:25:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes Living things die. This is an obvious fact. Only in a sinful world.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI