"We are stardust"... Abiogenesis + evolution = God's plan?

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Could it be that abiogenesis and evolution are both fact and are part of God's design?

I understand how and why people insist on the young age of the Earth (using lineage in Abrahamic religious text). But maybe you just read it a bit wrong? Maybe, it is incomplete information? A thousand years is as a day to God, no? Why not a billion years?

God created man from dust, no? Stardust, it seems. Literal dust. From stars exploding.

Perhaps God chose two "almost ready" early hominids to be the first humans, Adam and Eve. He could have just created other humans as He liked, for them to breed with, I imagine. Or perhaps Adam and Eve were just Moses's stunted interpretation of being shown Y-chromosome Adam and Mitochondrial Eve by God in a vision. Perhaps God showed him a lot of truth, but he could not recall every detail or absorb and understand it all.

I could continue, but that's what threads are for

I don't see the conflict. Surely every monotheist thinks God is capable of both abiogenesis and evolution. No?

 

[fncceo]

Could it be that abiogenesis and evolution are both fact and are part of God's design?

Of course ... did you think he would sculpt every velociraptor and platypus individually?

The supreme being, creator of the universe works smart, not hard.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Of course ... did you think he would sculpt every velociraptor and platypus individually?

The supreme being, creator of the universe works smart, not hard.

Right!

 

[fncceo]

Right!

 

[cnm]

 

[Colin norris]

Of course ... did you think he would sculpt every velociraptor and platypus individually?

The supreme being, creator of the universe works smart, not hard.

Both articles have absolutely nothing relevant to God. Both preceded any man made God and any one who believes otherwise is a fool.

 

[fncceo]

Both preceded any man made God

Man's perception of a divine being differs from person to person.

Any actual divine being would be vastly different that what we perceive.

"There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy. "

 

[Grumblenuts]

Could it be that abiogenesis and evolution are both fact and are part of God's design?

There's no God, but abiogenesis is actually a part of evolution. The first part. So..
Ya say ya want an ev-o-lu-tion. Well 'el ya know..

 

[BULLDOG]

Listening to those old CSN&Y songs always makes me happy and reminds me of how excited for the future I was as a kid. I had no doubt that we could conquer the world and all it's worries.

 

[cnm]

???

 

[BULLDOG]

???

You didn't see the video in the OP?

 

[Colin norris]

Man's perception of a divine being differs from person to person.

Any actual divine being would be vastly different that what we perceive.

"There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy. "

There is no God, heavens etc. You have no evidence there is and no evidence that a god created one single atom in the universe.
I challenge you to provide evidence of that but I know you can't. Your bible etc is proof of nothing.

Evolution and big bangs are not philosophy. It is a proven fact.

 

[fncceo]

I challenge you to provide evidence of that but I know you can't. Your bible etc is proof of nothing.

Before anything can be proved, there has to be a postulation on precisely what it is someone is trying to prove. Without a specific definition what a god is, no one can prove one exists or doesn't. Lack of ability to prove something exists is in no way proof that it doesn't ... see Dark Matter (which we can't). Dark Matter is a construct that fills the knowledge gaps in our current understanding of physics. We cannot know, or not know, it exists... it is a placeholder until we someday (or ever) discover a way to know The Universe more completely.

The Universe we inhabit is a much more complex place than any human can grok. We are three dimensional beings who live in a multidimensional universe. Just like the eponymous Flatlanders in Edwin Abbot's book, we are physically incapable of perceiving what exists beyond our own physical dimensions without inference of phenomenon. If we do try to reconcile phenomenon within our sensory limits, we will invariably skew those reconciliations to agree with our limited dimension view of The Universe(s) -- the ultimate confirmational bias.

So -- when I quoted Shakespeare's "Hamlet" by saying, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy", I mean precisely what Shakespeare is saying that no man (or woman) knows everything. There are many things in this world we don't know and about which we cannot even dream.

Lastly, your faith in the non-existence of a god is obviously something you feel strongly about and I would never try to dissuade anyone from their faith. Some people need faith in what they cannot prove as a way of justifying their existence and I won't deprive you of that. I can only say that I hope you find as much comfort in your simplistic static view of The Universe as I find in the fact that you don't believe the same as I.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There is no God, heavens etc. You have no evidence there is and no evidence that a god created one single atom in the universe.
I challenge you to provide evidence of that but I know you can't. Your bible etc is proof of nothing.

Evolution and big bangs are not philosophy. It is a proven fact.

There may be gods. This is something we cannot really know.

 

[Grumblenuts]

There may be gods. This is something we cannot really know.

Technically speaking. That's all. On the other hand, consider seat belt use. If, since their invention, no one's life or limb had ever been saved by a seat belt or an air bag for that matter, there likely wouldn't be any in use now.. except by those blessed with seat belt FAITH.. even though.. technically speaking.. such horrors had always been possible. There is reasonable caution and then there's just being ridiculous.

That said, I've developed lots of respect and admiration for Ralph Nader over the years and I do wear seat belts because we have plenty of evidence proving them well worth the bother, not to mention it being required now by law.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Technically speaking. That's all. On the other hand, consider seat belt use. If, since their invention, no one's life or limb had ever been saved by a seat belt or an air bag for that matter, there likely wouldn't be any in use now.. except by those blessed with seat belt FAITH.. even though.. technically speaking.. such horrors had always been possible. There is reasonable caution and then there's just being ridiculous.

That said, I've developed lots of respect and admiration for Ralph Nader over the years and I do wear seat belts because we have plenty of evidence proving them well worth the bother, not to mention it being required now by law.

Yes I understand all of that. Evidence based determination. I proceed as if there are no gods, because I see no reason to believe gods exist.

 

[fncceo]

I proceed as if there are no gods, because I see no reason to believe gods exist.

You could just as easily hedge your bet and profess a belief while refusing to participate in the ritual.

Like Indiana Jones, you will have no impact on the inevitable finale.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You could just as easily hedge your bet and profess a belief while refusing to participate in the ritual.

But that would be a lie. Saying you believe in a gods and actually believing in gods are not the same thing. I find it hard to believe such a lie would fool the gods or get me past the pearly gates.

But maybe lying about it works for you? I mean no offense, but it's a fair question.

 

[fncceo]

But that would be a lie. Saying you believe in a gods and actually believing in gods are not the same thing. I find it hard to believe such a lie would fool the gods or get me past the pearly gates.

But maybe lying about it works for you? I mean no offense, but it's a fair question.

I'm not saying it works or doesn't work... I'm saying our belief or non beliefs don't impact the eventual outcome.

G-d, if she does exist, is ineffable. We can no more know her plans than we can the physical state of Schroedinger's mistreated feline.

As for living a lie. We are hairless apes playing at civilisation. Safe to say much of what we say and do are lies.

 

[JustAGuy1]

Both articles have absolutely nothing relevant to God. Both preceded any man made God and any one who believes otherwise is a fool.

Sure, well because you say so. Were you molested in the Church?