Why Shouldn't God do Evolution?

Jump to Last Post 1-3 of 3 discussions (14 posts)
  1. Disappearinghead profile image77
    Disappearingheadposted 6 years ago

    Geneticists have seen their synthetic DNA evolve, but this would not have been possible without external input, that is, human intervention. So why do some consider it unreasonable (atheists and theists for different reasons) for God to have done the same?

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/20 … by_itself/

    For me the key phrase in this article is 'directed evolution' which describes the research being carried out.

  2. girlgonestrong profile image60
    girlgonestrongposted 6 years ago

    The reason why evolution is wrong is because it implies that God is a liar...which he is not.  God does not say (multiple time) that he did something in a certain way when he, in fact, did not.  That's lying and lies are the tools of the Enemy.  It is impossible for God to lie.

    To better understand, you should read this: http://www.warriortalk.com/showthread.p … ost1357033

    1. janesix profile image60
      janesixposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      So god just created things in a manner that LOOKS like evolution? Why?

      1. girlgonestrong profile image60
        girlgonestrongposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        It doesn't "look" like evolution.  The only reason why it does is because the "experts" are so good at twisting what we can actually see and measure and then claim that they are proof of evolution.  DNA similarity is no more support for evolution then phenotype similarity is.  Both of them are just as well explained by the fact that when a "Designer" finds something that works, he applies it again and again in multiple places for use in similar ways...but that concept is scoffed at because, well, materialists have found that Ph.D.-backed scoffing does a better job at convincing people that the position of those they are deriding is foolish than anything else.

        The facts of the matter are that we do NOT see mutation producing new "genetic language" through freak chance for which natural selection can work on.  The examples of bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics as proof that beings evolve and adapt to adverse environmental elements is empty in that these adaptations are accomplished by a LOSS of genetic information (things missing in the genetic code resulting in a resistance to the drug) and not through ADDITION of new chapters of DNA blueprint data to the critters genome.

        Mutation is the only means in the evolutionary model by which new data could, theoretically, be added to the genome but many scientists (the more honest ones) now admit that because the rate of beneficial mutation is so low (pretty much Zero) and the number of beneficial adaptations for even so-called simple organisms to have evolved to their present state numbers in the millions, the amount of time needed for our world to have bumbled blindly through time would have to be in Thousands of Trillions of Years....and not the 3.5 Billion years that they tried to sell us all on a while ago.

        Furthermore, the entire thing doesn't "look" like evolution from an origin perspective.  There's a reason why such a large contingent of scientists believe that the pre-assembled amino-acid sequencees that they feel would somehow "jump start themselves" into life (an impossibility in and of itself which has never been observed and is an embarrassment to data-driven science that so many sign on to this muckity-muck) had to have come from an alien world.  The Alien Seed hypothesis exists because so much scientific evidence leads us to believe that there was NEVER a time where the geological conditions on earth would have been such that the first cell could create itself.  But do they turn to the logical conclusion of a SUPER-natural creator who has the power to make things the way he wants? 

        Of course not.  Instead they sign up for the idea that the conditions must have been BETTER on a  DIFFERENT world and that somehow this world fired debris across the cosmos in such a way that it collided with the earth.  We've all heard stories about how in war, when millions of rounds of ammunition are being fired between forces, it's nearly unheard of that those combing these historic battle fields find two rounds which have collided in mid-air.  The idea that debris from a "seed planet" was expelled and crossed the cosmos and then struck earth is like the idea of two riffles shooting NEEDLES at each other at ranges in excess of a mile and then these two needles colliding head-on. It's a statistical impossibility yet this is the type of thing that materialists are clinging to in order to keep the evolution-myth alive in the collective consciousness.

        1. janesix profile image60
          janesixposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Most antibody resistance in bacteria comes from horizontal gene transfer, sometimes an entire species genetic code is transfered.

          I have no idea what loss you are referring to.

        2. kerryg profile image85
          kerrygposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Your information is pretty much as wrong as wrong can get. So wrong I scarcely know where to begin.

          I guess I'll start with two of your most incorrect points:

          1. There are many mechanisms by which organisms can "add" genetic material. (Horizontal gene transfer, as mentioned by janesix, being just one.)

          2. Mutations do not have to be beneficial or harmful in order to influence evolution. The majority of mutations are actually completely neutral at the time they occur.

        3. Jesus was a hippy profile image60
          Jesus was a hippyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          First of all, statistical impossibility? You mean the odds are zero? I am pretty sure they are not and if they are not zero then it is not impossible.

          I take it you didn't hear about the meteor from mars that contained bacteria fossils?

          The popular creationist claim that mutations only reduce information in a genome ihas been debunked over and over. It simply is not true.

          And lastly., do you honestly think that 99% of the earths scientists are in a massive conspiracy to try and take you away from your religion?

          What a ridiculous and dumb thing to think.

          1. Castlepaloma profile image74
            Castlepalomaposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Jesus was a hippy

            And lastly., do you honestly think that 99% of the earths scientists are in a massive conspiracy to try and take you away from your religion?

            Who posted that, if they did, they are one hell of a science bigot

    2. pisean282311 profile image60
      pisean282311posted 6 years agoin reply to this

      @girl god is liar or bible authors r wrong?...evolution is well accepted fact and with time it would be universally accepted because it is not bible or quran , it is based on physical proofs and not fairy tale...now god has nothing to do with bible or quran...both r human product..so what u can conclude is that bible authors where wrong...liar?...nope...they didnt knew what they wrote was lie...they like many even today believed in what they wrote...

    3. Castlepaloma profile image74
      Castlepalomaposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      @girl god

      About 80% of the people believe or think evolution is real

      Will these liars go to hell?

    4. profile image57
      atheistchickposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Of course God didn't lie, he doesn't exist! If you don't even exist, then you cannot possibly lie! Of course there is the Bible but really? You'll believe that load of rubbish over real facts and figures?...wow...ignorant people

      1. Castlepaloma profile image74
        Castlepalomaposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        God never lies, only people lie.

        Now, what God are we talking about?

  3. profile image0
    Emile Rposted 6 years ago

    It's pretty simple. Of course an atheist wouldn't consider God having a hand in anything. That's a fundamental rule of atheism.

    The theists who don't obviously can't fathom the thought that maybe they have the right to think for themselves. I believe denying reality is some test of faith.

    I'll be honest, it's difficult for me to wrap my head around the possibility of divinely guided evolution, but I definitely prefer that argument to listening to  a theist swear it just isn't possible because God said he didn't do it.

    1. Disappearinghead profile image77
      Disappearingheadposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Agreed. I just can't get my head around the Young Earth Creationist who insists Genesis is a literal account even while Jews generally accept it is not. They start out with a conclusion and then try to fit observed 'facts' to it, which isn't science at all.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)