Common Misconceptions Re: Evolution

by cantleave 83 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  james_woods

  Perhaps it was there from the beginning, but served the purpose of only starting the whole process but is NOT the process in of itself.

  Well, in the case of DNA, this formation is pretty much dictated by the mathematics of hydrocarbon chemistry - including the spiral, the double chain, and so on. Just like benzene, but a larger and more complicated organic molecule.

  Not at all the same thing as a kid building something randomly out of tinkertoys - the atomic rules themselves dictate what molecules can form and which are not possible.
• 

  Paulapollos

  Psac,

  "Cruel? well...one would agrue that evolution is neither cruel or kind, it just is,".

  Great point in my opinion. It does make me wonder, would a "moral" God care about our feelings about the process "He" used to get us here? But either way, you're right, this discussion is about the process of evolution, amoral and inhuman.

  However, just a question. Why would God, who portrays himself as a loving Creator, choose to use evolution? Direct creation is a lot simpler, a lot more direct. Granted, it does not generate as much awe. But if that was the reason God used evolution, because it makes us more in awe of God....wow. What an ego-trip! (No offence intended, of course.)

  PP
• 

  PSacramento

  Well, in the case of DNA, this formation is pretty much dictated by the mathematics of hydrocarbon chemistry - including the spiral, the double chain, and so on. Just like benzene, but a larger and more complicated organic molecule.

  Not at all the same thing as a kid building something randomly out of tinkertoys - the atomic rules themselves dictate what molecules can form and which are not possible.

  You know that, the more you make your case, the less it an option "by chance" becomes.

  You are getting into the realm of "fine tuning" my friend :)
• 

  cantleave

  PSac - no fine fining required.

  Watch the programme.
• 

  james_woods

  You know that, the more you make your case, the less it an option "by chance" becomes.

  I never meant to imply that it was by chance - I was just saying that it is what it is.

  Specifically that given atomic combinatorial laws, DNA is inevitable - and did not require some outside influence to piece it together.
• 

  PSacramento

  However, just a question. Why would God, who portrays himself as a loving Creator, choose to use evolution? Direct creation is a lot simpler, a lot more direct. Granted, it does not generate as much awe. But if that was the reason God used evolution, because it makes us more in awe of God....wow. What an ego-trip! (No offence intended, of course.)

  IF we look at human history ONLY, you may have a point, but we have to look at the universe and all that goes with it, including the laws that the universe is subject to, evolution seems more of a probable tool as opposed to "snap the fingers" and its' done.

  To create is to show love, no one creates out of hate or indefference ( well...maybe hate, LOL).

  If God choose evolution, a process that was created to help living cells survive, then that is in line with a loving creator.

  Even IF God had snapped his fingers and made the universe "as is", there is no reaosn to think that evolution in some form, woudln't be part of the design.

  Adapting to change is NOT a bad thing.
• 

  PSacramento

  Specifically that given atomic combinatorial laws, DNA is inevitable - and did not require some outside influence to piece it together.

  And the laws are such by chance or design?
• 

  cantleave

  Psac ... The laws of nature are not tangible laws. In reality, they do not even exist outside of the conceptual. They are descriptions of the universe's behavior. These laws are not discovered; they are invented.
• 

  PSacramento

  Psac ...

  The laws of nature are not tangible laws. In reality, they do not even exist outside of the conceptual. They are descriptions of the universe's behavior. These laws are not discovered; they are invented.

  Well, if THEY are invented and they are laws...what can we say of evolution then?

  But I know what you mean and I agree, the physical laws of OUR universe are applicable only to OUR universe.

  That doesn't change that they ARE and they were have been able to "see" them and "understand" them, which is in of itself, very cool.

  That doesn't answer the question of chance and the notion that ALL this was just by chance and I think that, it does indeed become a core issue because, if you keep going back far enough, there has to be something that made thinsg the way they are and it was either chance or a creator ( unless you can postulate another option).
• 

  unshackled

  if you keep going back far enough, there has to be something that made thinsg the way they are and it was either chance or a creator ( unless you can postulate another option).

  
  
  I don't see it as a 50/50 probability split between chance and creator. If the universe was here not by chance but by a creator...where did the creator come from? Chance? So the other option could be that the universe has always been. So instead of adding an extra step and invoke a creator...why not just say the universe was always here? (Brain. Hurts.)