Did God Use Evolution To Create Life?

[locusts]

Did God Use Evolution to Create Life? Has All Life Descended From a Common Ancestor? What does the evidence reveal? Does the evidence support the Bible’s description of events, or was Darwin correct? What have discoveries over the past 150 years revealed?

[mibn2cweus]

If only Darwin had been around way back when we might have more detailed records of what God was up to then. God is not know for readily sharing details or keeping lots of well preserved millions years old specimens.

You might try the science topic where someone with more expertise in evolutionary theory might be more likely to wander by. Might be a good idea to not mention The Old One there though.

[Peter Pedant]

mornin' mibbo

it is impt to bear in mind that evolution is directed by local conditions and NOT by the old fella in a white beard. A moments thought reveals these two standpoints are COMPLETELY diffferent

it is tolerated as it is so prevalent in America that it gives us europeans a much needed economic edge - in innovation, vaccine production etc

[Peter Pedant]

In order
1. No - what makes you think he did
2. yes - 90% DNA is used to run a cell, the rest is - a leaf, monkey fingernail etc. You can conclude this because they are the same.
You can conclude WHEN by the number of mistakes per unit of DNA. - no mistakes - yesterday. Many mistakes, years ago
3. Lots see above
4.no
5. Darwin was correct
6. read - evo-devo - development of evoutionary theory
its a thousand pages ! ( set book in first year uni: they all complain)

[mibn2cweus]

Peter Pedant, If you can spare a moment perhaps you would shed some light on Spungle's question at bottom of page 4, answer 80.

[Atheist]

Spungle, as I understand it, pigs did not turn into dogs, they are both descended from a common ancestor.
I found this on google.
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_48
I'm curious about why there is resistance to evolution. Is it, I wonder, because it challenges the creation stories of the various religions?

[Bestscourses]

What comes first, Is egg or Chicken?. Like this, there is no direct answers for your question.

[mibn2cweus]

//it is tolerated as it is so prevalent in America that it gives us europeans a much needed economic edge - in innovation, vaccine production etc//

I wouldn't count on the pond providing immunity from the anti-reason, anti-science, anti-mind virus, so virulent on on the other side, indefinitely.

[andy-hughes]

Bestcourses - // What comes first, Is egg or Chicken?. Like this, there is no direct answers for your question. //

This is actually easy, and there is a direct answer.

Scientists have established that birds evolved from dinosaurs, and dinosaurs are known to have produced young from eggs, so clearly eggs came first.

Hope that helps.

[Theland]

MIBs referring to Spungle answer 80.
Evolution is not proven, and although micro evolution occurs within a species, such as Darwin's finches, macro evolution is no more than wishful thinking and pseudo science.
The bible talks about distinctive, ''kinds,'' and no evidence has ever been observed to change one kind into another.

[Theland]

Andy, bird fossils have been found that were older than ptreradactyl fossils.
Just an interesting point for you to ponder.

[Theland]

MIBs at 07:20.
Oh how you misunderstand and misquote me.
I welcome each and every piece of scientific progress from whichever branch of science it comes.
I love logic and reason, underpinned by facts.
There is no book other than the bible that contains historically verifiable prophecies, which when compared to the subsequent history are proven to be true or coming true.
My logic and reason tell me the bible is reliable and can be believed.
Can you offer another explanation?

[naomi24]

Theland, //I love logic and reason, underpinned by facts.//

Why do you believe that which isn't supported by facts then? No logic or reason in that.

[Theland]

I do believe in what is supported by facts.
We both have access to the same evidence, but I fear you have missed it.

[naomi24]

No you don't. There is no definitive evidence for the existence of God -so stop kidding yourself that you're using logic or reason. You're not.

[Theland]

I feel sorry for you Naomi.
Your pride and ego are preventing you from learning.
Do something about it or stumble around in the dark.

[naomi24]

Save your sympathy for yourself.

[Peter Pedant]

Morning Mibbo
can i shed light on Spungles q 80 ( golly like an exam)
the one that begins - - - I'm no scientist,

1.well I would agree with that.
2. Spungo agree that evolution exists - and has been observed - but not that it accounts for the major changes
3. so where are the missing links? and the fact they are missing - does that disprove the thesis - coz the ordda be there see.
4 - no see cross species - no cross epecies occurred

read evo devo - I can tell you it is 1000 of hard work
various points come out
1. fossil record incomplete ( even Darwen knew that)
2. burgess shale - where life started - is up a canadian mountain and not Dorset or Devon to my mind says nothinng about the lack of life in Devon. The dinosours of Devon show that there was
3. evoution of man is even worse - plenty of fossils ( australopithecus etc ) that we arent descended from but clearly are related to. The strata show we coexisted with australopithecus. When Dart was asked why he hadnt reported it, he replied: we thought no one would believe us.
4. Darwen thought the solution to the evolution of the mammalian eye would prove evolution ( no intermediate stages) - it is ironic that the lack of stages is us.ed to disprove Darwen ( no intermediate stages so God muc be at work, only explanation).
5. Charles Darwin understood that evolution was a slow and gradual process. ... But in 1972, evolutionary scientists Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge proposed another explanation, which they called "punctuated equilibrium." That is, species are generally stable, changing little for millions of years.
6 or 5b - Niles ( he also played the Soup Nazi in Seinfeld) and Eldridge thought their modification was so significant and different that it should now be called the Niles n Gould Theory. (6) - Most people thought it was a modification ( 5b). They are both dead. who?
7 - er that was about it
I was asked to comment on Spungles post a while ago

sozza if I have upset the threads steam of screaming spitting back biting and gouging

carry on boys and girls

[Peter Pedant]

// Evolution is not proven, and although micro evolution occurs within a species, such as Darwin's finches,//

Evolution is not proven, and although micro evolution occurs
oh come on come on, evolution is proven den innit?

it just remains as to whether it accounts for all the changes. Darwin followers says yes, and some others without O levels, with rabies and think Wakefield is a New Age Prophet insist no, anti-vaxxers all of them

Let them - they will die from covid

[Theland]

So can you give any example of macro evolution?

Also, as a scientific theory, evolution does not qualify.
Not observable, repeatable, and dismissabilitous because I can't think of the word.
Help!

[mibn2cweus]

Since we are currently unable to recreate an entire universe from scratch we must conclude therefore that our universe could never ever have possibly happened . . . so there!