Article in current issue of Scientific American describes evolution of the human eye

[WHAMPOM]

Nope, somewhere in the bible.
This is to address and understand the debate coming from the other side.
I had a brief discussion about if God created 'all the animals of the earth' and why can marine life be completely different. A childhood friend strong into Christianity mentioned that it was written that the creatures of the ocean are of satan's creation (disfigurements, not well understood). But this was several years ago and I don't remember most of the important details. I was hoping to understand more of the argument coming from religious side before assuming anything.

Sorry no second hand revelations accepted, you gotta read the bible yourself and then tell us what it says.

 

[1prophet]

Nope, somewhere in the bible.
This is to address and understand the debate coming from the other side.
I had a brief discussion about if God created 'all the animals of the earth' and why can marine life be completely different. A childhood friend strong into Christianity mentioned that it was written that the creatures of the ocean are of satan's creation (disfigurements, not well understood). But this was several years ago and I don't remember most of the important details. I was hoping to understand more of the argument coming from religious side before assuming anything.

Don't assume anything, can't count how many times I have seen charismatic preachers say things that contradict the very bible they supposedly believe in yet the people would rather believe them instead of opening up their bibles to learn for themselves.

Genesis 1


20And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

 

[Doppel]

Another anti-religion circle jerk thread? These threads always follow the same path don't they, don't y'all get bored?

 

[Infohawk]

Another anti-religion circle jerk thread? These threads always follow the same path don't they, don't y'all get bored?

To be fair, these threads are always continued because a religious person and a non-religious person fight about something. In other words, it takes two to tango.

The same goes for all the Republican-Democrat debates on this forum.

 

[werepossum]

As I understand it (and I'm certainly no expert), ID posits "irreducible complexity" to mean that many/most of the proteins and other compounds required to make something like an eye are useless energy drains unless all are present. Therefore, an eye should never evolve because the chances of that many mutations spontaneously evolving is virtually nil, at least while leaving the evolved creature fertile, and without all the mutations none of the synthesized compounds should be manufactured as the energy drain would make the organism less competitive right up until a functional eye evolved. Since I can't see the article, I'm not sure whether this article addresses that point.

Also on evolution, I never understood the question of the missing intergrade species, the "missing links". When I look at nature, I see only intergrade species; everything seems to be in the process of becoming something else. Just in fish, one can find anything from the most basic eyes (lampreys) to eyes so sophisticated that they can simultaneously focus above and below the water line (archer fish.)

 

[JSt0rm]

Did it never occur to skeptics to ask why any evolutionary mechanism exists at all?

Because I dont know, GOD.

Lol. what a doofus.

 

[glenn1]

To be fair, these threads are always continued because a religious person and a non-religious person fight about something. In other words, it takes two to tango.

The same goes for all the Republican-Democrat debates on this forum.

I honestly think that the religious out there are just stringing along the evolutionists - their constant threads exhorting how this or that article "disproves" God or creation reminds me of someone with a fixation about "proving" how professional wrestling is fake. Who's the bigger dumbass, the person who believes wrestling is real, or the person that spends significant efforts in showing how it isn't?

 

[bfdd]

Thanks for the article shira. You hit up the thread in OT about "humans have a 6th sense" stuff?

 

[shira]

Thanks for the article shira. You hit up the thread in OT about "humans have a 6th sense" stuff?

Didn't know about it. I'll take a look. Thanks.

 

[Lemon law]

You can't prove God didn't to it!! ()
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If God done it, we know the jury jurisprudence beyond a reasonable doubt stuff, put God in jail for the crime.

A typical case of American blind justice.

 

[CycloWizard]

Not really. It's saying the human eye has demonstrable inefficiencies in it that are a direct result of its evolution from an imperfect basic design. Especially compared with other animal groups that have a basic design that eliminates these inefficiencies. Evolution was able to come up with ways to mitigate these inefficiencies so that they didn't adversely affect out reproductive success, which is the only thing nature cares about.

It's fruitless though. ID proponents will just latch on to some other half-baked argument on why we all had to be created by the magical sky-man.

Natural selection by definition does not cause a decrease in efficiency, nor does it necessarily result in the most efficient design (indeed, it rarely does). A lot of people on both sides will only appear in this thread to rabidly defend their position, whether it be "evolution" (sic) or intelligent design, without understanding the underlying mechanics.

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

I am always amused by this reasoning.

"The works of nature are so unbelievably complex that no supremely omnipotent creator could have created it. It had to have evolved from...well random chance."

Did it never occur to skeptics to ask why any evolutionary mechanism exists at all?

LOL.

It's called antropic principal you nutjob.

If the evolutionary mechanism didnt exist we wouldnt be here talking about it.

 

[Baasha]

sweet article!

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Therefore, an eye should never evolve because the chances of that many mutations spontaneously evolving is virtually nil, at least while leaving the evolved creature fertile, and without all the mutations none of the synthesized compounds should be manufactured as the energy drain would make the organism less competitive right up until a functional eye evolved. Since I can't see the article, I'm not sure whether this article addresses that point.

We really don't know how prevalent life is in the universe since obviously, Earth is currently the only known place with life. However, remember, even if life turns out to be incredibly rare and unlikely to evolve, the universe is so large that even something that has a virtually nil chance of happening will happen thousands, perhaps millions, of times. Life on Earth may be a miracle but it is probably a miracle that has played out millions of times throughout the history of the universe. Millions of star systems with life sounds like a huge number, but if the average galaxy has 100 billion stars and there are 100 billion galaxies, that number is pretty small even if we're only looking at 5% of those stars having planetary systems.

 

[Atreus21]

LOL.

It's called antropic principal you nutjob.

If the evolutionary mechanism didnt exist we wouldnt be here talking about it.

The anthropic principle. A philosophical principle, not a scientific one, right? You mean you as an atheist rely on THIS to explain the nature of the universe while masquerading as being entirely restricted to scientific principles? Sounds like you make as a large a leap of faith as I do regarding God.

I didn't dispute that evolution exists. I just challenge atheists to give me a reason why such mechanisms for understanding our universe are in place.

 

[nyker96]

The anthropic principle. A philosophical principle, not a scientific one, right? You mean you as an atheist rely on THIS to explain the nature of the universe while masquerading as being entirely restricted to scientific principles? Sounds like you make as a large a leap of faith as I do regarding God.

I didn't dispute that evolution exists. I just challenge atheists to give me a reason why such mechanisms for understanding our universe are in place.

anthropic principle is merely a theory, it doesn't prove or disprove the existence of god.

but anyways, good article on the eye OP! Love it.

I don't think church nowadays disagree with the existence of evolution in general. They certainly don't like it and tried in several occasions to silence it. For instance in 1923, Gov. John Walton signed a free textbook bill (H. B. 197) that essentially enacting the first sanctioned restrictions of evolution education in the United States.

 

[Atreus21]

anthropic principle is merely a theory, it doesn't prove or disprove the existence of god.

but anyways, good article on the eye OP! Love it.

I don't think church nowadays disagree with the existence of evolution in general. They certainly don't like it and tried in several occasions to silence it. For instance in 1923, Gov. John Walton signed a free textbook bill (H. B. 197) that essentially enacting the first sanctioned restrictions of evolution education in the United States.

If the church disagrees with evolution still they are being silly. To the extent that ID people fight against evolution, they further undermine their credibility.

 

[shira]

Even if it were somehow proven beyond dispute that life on earth came into existence and radiated/evolved through entirely natural processes, that wouldn't disprove the existence of God. All that such a proof would do would be to demonstrate that God wasn't necessary for those purposes.

Morality is similar area of dispute, and there's a similar point to be made: Even if it could be proven that morality arose and radiated/evolved through entirely natural processes, that wouldn't disprove the existence of God, either.

I think that people believe in God because they have a deeply held need for whatever it is that God symbolizes for them, a profound type of coping mechanism. That's neither good nor bad - we all need coping mechanisms, and if God works for you, go for it. But be honest with yourself about why you believe.

 

[JockoJohnson]

I saw Lamb present this a while back. The only problem I have with the article is that it doesn't make sense to say that the eye has "mistakes" in its design, except in the context of ID.

Of course there are mistakes and flaws with the human eye...mine doesn't shoot laser beams but they should.

 

[JockoJohnson]

Even if it were somehow proven beyond dispute that life on earth came into existence and radiated/evolved through entirely natural processes, that wouldn't disprove the existence of God. All that such a proof would do would be to demonstrate that God wasn't necessary for those purposes.

Morality is similar area of dispute, and there's a similar point to be made: Even if it could be proven that morality arose and radiated/evolved through entirely natural processes, that wouldn't disprove the existence of God, either.

I think that people believe in God because they have a deeply held need for whatever it is that God symbolizes for them, a profound type of coping mechanism. That's neither good nor bad - we all need coping mechanisms, and if God works for you, go for it. But be honest with yourself about why you believe.

^This. Good reasoning and logic well presented.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Nope, somewhere in the bible.
This is to address and understand the debate coming from the other side.
I had a brief discussion about if God created 'all the animals of the earth' and why can marine life be completely different. A childhood friend strong into Christianity mentioned that it was written that the creatures of the ocean are of satan's creation (disfigurements, not well understood). But this was several years ago and I don't remember most of the important details. I was hoping to understand more of the argument coming from religious side before assuming anything.

As a proper amateur librarian wannabe, i also own a bible next to several other books. But i have no idea where to look up what you mention. I do know that the bible can not be taken literally. I mean, it is a collection of scripts from many different writers from different times and all writers had a political agenda. I do hope to own a Talmud , Torah and Quran, Hindu and Buddhist scripts one day as well. Now i have some information in pdf form but it is not the same. It is easier to search through however.

 

[gaidensensei]

Don't assume anything, can't count how many times I have seen charismatic preachers say things that contradict the very bible they supposedly believe in yet the people would rather believe them instead of opening up their bibles to learn for themselves.

Not assuming anything, was merely hoping someone in P&N could share the insight on that. I did some looking into this for awhile, and this is what I came up with.

For all those not sure of what my random tangent is about:
- Common evolution derives the origin of the eye is originally from the ocean, where the earliest traces of life forms with eyes were found during the Cambrian period.
- Portions of the bible are against this concept partially due to the seas and ocean being a host for 'demonic' content, therefore it is possible from the bible's perspective that evolution of the eye from land and water were homoplasious - evolved separately from each other for the same fuctions.


Here is the backstory, I claim no expertise - just reading like anyone else. I am more familiar with the biology theory than I was of the biblical text. For reference, I am neither fanatically involved in either side of the debate. I am a biologist but I also welcome knowledge shared by the bible.

http://ichthys.com/sr2-copy.htm#3.%20The Sea:
3. The Sea:

Before all else, God created the heavens and the earth. But the earth came to be ruined and despoiled – darkness lay upon the face of the abyss while God's Spirit brooded over the surface of its waters.
Genesis 1:1-2

In biblical symbolism, the sea is usually not a positive sign. On the contrary, the sea is often associated with evil. In keeping with usage employed elsewhere in the Bible, any description of the earth's surface as lying under the face of the deep conveys a very negative picture – not one of blessing (which we should expect in the wonderful, original paradise of Genesis 1:1: see Part 1), but one of cursing. This can be readily seen from a survey of these symbolic uses of "sea" in the Bible:

a. Water Versus Land: Despite the somewhat romantic picture that we have of the sea today, we need to understand that from the point of view of an ancient agricultural people such as the Israelites were, land is the thing. For people not much involved in maritime commerce, the sea marks the boundary of what can be cultivated, of what can be inhabited and inherited. Land has value; the sea merely marks its end (e.g., Josh.15:12 & 47; 23:4). It was a good land the Lord promised to the Israelites, a land "flowing with milk and honey" (Ex.3:8, 17, 13:5; Lev.20:24), whose bounty in no way derives from the sea. This "good land" was to form the basis not only of the economy, but of the community now-and-future through the principle of everlasting inheritance (Lev.25:8-55). Viewed from this perspective, it should be clear that the references to the dark abyss (i.e., the deep sea) and to the waters of a universal ocean then engulfing the entire earth (implied, and then confirmed in verses 6-10) could only have seemed foreboding in the extreme to their contemporary audience. This impression is strengthened by God's assessment of His removal and collection of these waters in order to allow the dry land to appear once more: "And God saw that it (i.e., the separation of the dry land from the sea) was good" (Gen.1:10). As a race, we humans were originally taken from the ground (Gen.2:7), and even though it has been temporarily defiled with a curse as a result of Adam's sin (Gen.3:17-19), it is still one of the primary provisions of God's grace to us through its agricultural bounty (Acts 14:17). The land, that is, the earth, will see its redemption and restoration at the return of Jesus Christ (Acts 3:21; Rom.8:19-22). Land is our ultimate habitation, while the sea, despite its own unique bounty and appeal, is essentially inhospitable to human life, and changeable by its very nature, a quality that puts it completely at odds with God's promises of eternal and lasting inheritance.

b. The Sea as a Sign of Divine Judgment: As we saw in more detail in Part 1 of this series, Hades, or "hell", is divided into three compartments: 1) Abraham's Bosom, the place of deceased believers prior to Christ's ascension (Lk.16:19-31); 2) "hell" or Hades proper (also referred to as sheol, gehenna, "torments", and "the grave"), the place of the deceased unsaved to this day (Matt.5:29-30; 23:33; Lk.12:5; 16:23; Rev.20:13-15); 3) the Abyss, the place where certain of the fallen angels are presently incarcerated (Lk.8:31; 2Pet.2:4; Jude 6; Rev.9:1-11; 20:1-3). Therefore to translate Genesis 1:2 with the word "abyss" (as we do above) is to suggest a context of divine judgment (rather than one reflecting the blessing of original creation). There is good reason to suggest that this translation is justified:

The word we are translating "abyss" in Genesis 1:2 above (often rendered "the deep") is the Hebrew tehom (תהו&#1501. While one might have expected to encounter here the far more common Hebrew word for sea (yam, י&#1501, we find tehom employed instead, doubtless because of its somewhat more sinister connotations. The word is usually suggestive of dramatic and powerful events, often involving the judgment of God (cf. Ex.15:5 & 8; Job 38:16-17; Ps.42:7; 71:20). This point was not lost on the ancient scholars who made the famous 3rd century B.C. Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible known as the Septuagint (abbrev. LXX). They eschewed more common Greek words for "sea", instead rendering tehom with the Greek abyssos (ἄβυσσο&#962, the word, incidentally, from which our English "abyss" is derived. From this point on in the Septuagint, abyssos is by far the most common translation of tehom, establishing a precedent which greatly influenced the writers of the New Testament. So we see, for example, that in Revelation the Beast can be described in one place as "coming up out of the sea" (Rev.13:1; cf. Dan.7:3), and in another as "coming up out of the abyss" (Rev.11:7; 17:8), so that the apostle John was quite comfortable interchanging this name for the chasm of Hades with the sea whose depths cover it. Thus, from a scriptural point of view, the subterranean realms below the earth can be construed as part and parcel with the deep sea which covers them (cf. Job 26:5-6, where sheol and "under the sea" are one and the same).

This equating of the sea with the nether-world buried beneath it helps to explain the difficult passage in Revelation where we are told that at the final judgment, "the sea will give up her dead" (Rev.20:13). When John immediately adds to this statement that "death and Hades will give up their dead", he is merely explaining that in prophetic terms there is virtually no difference between the sea on the one hand and death-and-Hades on the other (a hendiadys for one single place: torments, or hell). These two venues are, from an earthly perspective, one and the same place (though, technically speaking, they are distinct: Hades is the place under the abyss or sea, and the sea or abyss is what separates Hades from the world above): the sea (or, more properly, Hades-beneath-the-sea) is the present location of deceased unbelievers (believers have already been removed to heaven from Abraham's bosom at the ascension of Christ), and of the demons who are now imprisoned (cf. 1Pet.3:19-20; Jude 1:6-7; Rev.9:1-20). The latter, long since under sentence of judgment along with their leader, Satan (Jn.16:11), require no further adjudication after the Satanic rebellion is at last finally crushed. But "the dead" [unbelievers] in Hades, their abysmal place of incarceration lying below the sea's deepest depths, will stand judgment at the end of human history before being consigned to the lake of fire (Rev.20:11-15).

That the sea often corresponds to hell in the Bible is another indication that its appearance on the scene in Genesis 1:2 in this world-encompassing form should not be taken as a neutral signal. An imperfect world, a world in the grips of divine judgment, a world that needs a hell, has a sea. The very presence of the sea (especially in the form of the tehom-abyss sea) suggests very strongly that in Genesis 1:2 we are dealing with the aftermath of some awe-inspiring divine judgment, and not with the original creation of Genesis 1:1.

c. The Sea as an Instrument of Divine Judgment: Besides being a sign that divine judgment has occurred, the sea is sometimes an instrument of that very judgment. Cases of this type of divine judgment are relatively rare in scripture and always highly significant events. In addition to the Genesis judgment we are now considering, two other large scale "water judgments" stand out:

1. The Antediluvian Civilization (Gen. 6-9; cf. 2Pet.2:5; 3:5-7): As in the Genesis Gap judgment where the sea completely covered the earth, in this case as well God “did not spare” that ancient civilization, God "did not spare" that ancient world but "brought the flood upon its ungodly people" (2Pet.2:5). Water was the means of annihilating the pre-noahic civilization, completely extirpating the sinful world of that time in one of God's most spectacular water-judgments. His promise to Noah afterwards, sealed with the rainbow, has guaranteed for us that this flood and the Genesis Gap judgment will be the only two universal water judgments on the present earth (Gen.9:8-17).

2. The Egyptians in the Red Sea (Ex.14-15): The fact that there will be no more world-wide water judgments in the manner of the great flood has not ruled out water as a more local instrument of divine judgment (cf. Tyre: Ezek.26:19-21). The most spectacular of these is the destruction of Pharaoh and his army in their pursuit of the Israelites through the Red Sea. God actually parted this massive body of water (see the Exodus 14 series) to demonstrate His power and majesty, then caused it to return to its place in a complete and devastating judgment upon Pharaoh and his followers (Ex.14:18; 15:1-18).

As an additional parallel to the Genesis Gap judgment (or, perhaps better, a corollary) we might also add that of Sodom and Gomorrah. In Genesis 1:1-2, we see in the Bible only the result of divine judgment, i.e., the depths of the sea surrounding the entire earth, whereas in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, we see in the Bible only the judgment actually delivered (Gen.19:23-29), that is, the fire and brimstone "rained down" upon the entire area. Nevertheless, the location of these cities can scarcely be anywhere else but below the waters of the Dead Sea (now covering the "plain of the Jordan" of Gen.13:10ff; cf. Zeph.2:9). Similarly, the fossil record we possess of the pre-historic earth has often been taken to suggest a cataclysmic end (fire and brimstone?) to some of the more famous ancient inhabitants, the dinosaurs (although we are left to supply the reason: God's judgment against Satan's perversion of the original earth); in this case, the Bible mentions only the aftermath: the sea.

One other thing these water judgments have in common is the fact that they were all provoked by exceptionally evil and hard-hearted conduct. The unprecedented evil of the antediluvian world (Gen.6:1-7; 8:21), the outrageous behavior of the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen.19:4-25; 2Pet.6-10; Jude 7), and the extraordinary hard-heartedness of Pharaoh (see the Exodus 14 series, #2), all suggest that for a water judgment on the order of what we find in Genesis 1:2 (i.e., the complete devastation of the entire earth), some horrendous assault against God's justice must have taken place. Given that no other morally responsible creatures except the angels existed at this point, we may take this as further strong evidence that Satan's rebellion was the cause that provoked this complete innundation of the earth. When we take this perspective, what happens next in the context of Genesis chapter one makes good symbolic sense. God's recovering of the land out of the water is a very clear picture of restoration and deliverance from evil's grip (cf. the Israelites' passage through and out of the Red Sea, and our transfer "from the power of darkness" "into the kingdom of His beloved Son", Col.1:13). The water has symbolically cleansed away the evil (very much like the ritual of John's water-baptism) and now new life is once more free to take hold by the grace of God.(6)

Finally, it is worth asking whether God would, through an act of original creation, create a world deluged, one in which there was no possibility of life, only dark waters prevailing everywhere, especially in light of the strong biblical symbolism of judgment such a state implies. It seems to stand much more to reason that Genesis 1:2 is recounting the after-effects of judgment (after effects that will require the restoration of the following verses to counteract) rather than the characteristics of God's original creation of the earth.

d. The Sea as a Medium for Evil: Although scripture recognizes and allows for the economic necessities of life, arrogant and idolatrous super-commerce, both past and prophetic, has a special relationship to the sea on which it depends. Both Tyre (Is.23:1-18; Ezek.26-28), and antichrist's Babylon (Rev.18:11ff) maintain a world-wide arrogance of commerce (associated with idolatry, and symbolized by prostitution) which negatively affects their partners, and it is the sea that acts as the link between them. Significantly, it will be remembered from Part 1 of this study, it is the Prince of Tyre whose "trafficking" is used symbolically for Satan's activities in seducing many of his fellow angels to join his cause (Ezek.28:12-19).

e. The Sea as the Point of Origin for Antichrist: The sea is the place from whence the beast, or antichrist, rises (Rev.13:1). As the point of origin for the one who most completely opposes Christ while operating most closely with Satan (2Thes.2:9), the sea is more nearly to be connected with cursing than with blessing. The symbol of "coming up from the sea" first occurs in Daniel 7:3, where all four of the major anti-God empires of history arise from that source, the last being Rome, in both its historic and prophetic incarnations; the title of "beast" is then transferred from the kingdom to its ruler in Revelation 13:1, making the sea the origin not only of the most anti-God empire in history but also of its anti-Christ emperor (cf. Dan.7:3-14; 9:25-27; 11:21-45; 2Thes.2:1-12; Rev.13:1-18; 17:1-18). In Revelation 13:1, Satan is also shown summoning antichrist up from the sea. Moreover, as the location of the abyss (not to mention Hades), the sea is the present abode of some of Satan's incarcerated followers (2Pet.2:4; Jude 6; cf. Rev.9:1-11), the future temporary prison of Satan (Rev.20:1-3), and analogous to the ultimate home of the devil and all fallen angels (i.e., it is the lake of fire for a reason: Matt.25:41; Rev.20:10). It should also be kept in mind that it is the object of our present study to show that the sea was the means God employed to judge the original earth, after Satan's coup had netted him temporary control of the first Eden. Viewed in these terms, for Revelation to associate antichrist, Satan's all-time main candidate for world rule, with the sea, the means and place of God's judgment on Satan during the Genesis Gap, is to closely link Satan's last attempt at total world rule (which will result in God's judgments at Armageddon) to his first one (which resulted in the Genesis Gap judgment). Thus the symbolism linking the sea to God's judgment on evil is an important theme encountered throughout the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation.

f. The Sea as the Home of Symbolic Monsters Representing Satan: Besides being the symbolic point of origin for antichrist, the devil's chief minion, Satan himself shares in this close connection with the sea through his identification with the two mythical monsters of the deep, Leviathan (cf. also Job 3:8, 41:1-34; Ps.74:12-14) and Rahab (Job 9:13, 26:12-13; Ps.87:4; 89:9-10; Is. 27:1; 30:7, 51:9-10). Biblical writers made use of the names of these legendary creatures to represent Satan symbolically (in his capacity as the dragon-serpent: see Amos 9:3):


On that day (i.e., the Day of the Lord, beginning with the 2nd Advent, following the Tribulation; cf. Is.26:20), with His fierce sword, great and mighty, the Lord will punish Leviathan (i.e., Satan; cf. Rev.12:1-13:1), the slippery serpent, even Leviathan the twisting serpent, and He will kill the monster (or dragon) who lives in the sea.
Isaiah 27:1

Often, these monsters are also used to represent empires inspired by Satan (compare the beasts of Dan.7), as in the case of the following passage where the satanic Egypt of the Exodus is called Rahab (notice also the use of tehom here for "the great deep" instead of the usual word for sea, yam; see section I.3.b. above):

Was it not You who hacked Rahab to pieces, who pierced the monster (or dragon)? Was it not You who dried up the sea, the waters of the great deep (tehom); who made the depths of the sea into a highway for the redeemed to pass through it?
Isaiah 51:9-10

g. The Removal of the Sea: The lack of any sea in the eternal state has puzzled many readers of Revelation 21:1, but should come as no surprise in light of our discussion above. When evil has finally been banished from the universe forever and we inhabit at last the new heavens and new earth "where righteousness dwells" (2Pet.3:13), there will no longer be any need for a sea, either as a means of judgment or as a memorial to judgment past. This striking truth is all the more reason to regard the sea in Genesis 1:2 as a result of (and memorial to) God's initial judgment on Satan's rebellious activities, and not as a part of His original creation of the earth.

It is a nice summation, it covers up portions of what I recall with ease.

 

[Atreus21]

Even if it were somehow proven beyond dispute that life on earth came into existence and radiated/evolved through entirely natural processes, that wouldn't disprove the existence of God. All that such a proof would do would be to demonstrate that God wasn't necessary for those purposes.

Let me make sure I understand this. Natural processes don't disprove God, but they do prove that he is unnecessary.

Most theists hold that God created everything. Including these natural processes. How can he be unnecessary to something that he created?

Morality is similar area of dispute, and there's a similar point to be made: Even if it could be proven that morality arose and radiated/evolved through entirely natural processes, that wouldn't disprove the existence of God, either.

Same point as above.

I think that people believe in God because they have a deeply held need for whatever it is that God symbolizes for them, a profound type of coping mechanism. That's neither good nor bad - we all need coping mechanisms, and if God works for you, go for it. But be honest with yourself about why you believe.

To some extent I agree with this. If I honestly somehow came to know with certainty that there is nothing beyond this existence, I wouldn't see any reason not to commit suicide, or commit crime. God is central to my understanding of the universe.

I've heard people snicker at this admission, saying they wouldn't want to be around me if I ever came to this conclusion. To this I retort: You think your claim to morality is any safer? On the shifting whims of societal norms that simply happen to have produced a temporary civility? I'd say my claim rests in a far less malleable source.

But beyond the comfortable psychological reasons, I can't understand how people look at the mind-boggling complexity of the universe, and our poor power to grasp all of it, and ascribe it to nothing more than chance + time. I couldn't look at any handiwork of my own or someone else's and think it logical to include mindless chance as the origin of its assemblage. And my creations are insignificant in comparison to whatever power created the universe.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Let me make sure I understand this. Natural processes don't disprove God, but they do prove that he is unnecessary.

Most theists hold that God created everything. Including these natural processes. How can he be unnecessary to something that he created?

I hold that the sun is pulled across the sky by Helios in his chariot. Therefore, Helios is necessary for the sunrise. All this naturalistic "heliocentrism" nonsense does not prove that Helios isn't necessary.

To some extent I agree with this. If I honestly somehow came to know with certainty that there is nothing beyond this existence, I wouldn't see any reason not to commit suicide, or commit crime. God is central to my understanding of the universe.

God does not exist |= There is no continuation of awareness after death.

I've heard people snicker at this admission, saying they wouldn't want to be around me if I ever came to this conclusion. To this I retort: You think your claim to morality is any safer? On the shifting whims of societal norms that simply happen to have produced a temporary civility? I'd say my claim rests in a far less malleable source.

I am an atheist |= my morality is determined by social norms.

But beyond the comfortable psychological reasons, I can't understand how people look at the mind-boggling complexity of the universe, and our poor power to grasp all of it, and ascribe it to nothing more than chance + time.

Why would we make baseless ascriptions like that? Rational people do not make unfounded logical leaps like that.

I couldn't look at any handiwork of my own or someone else's and think it logical to include mindless chance as the origin of its assemblage.

That's because your handiwork looks so very unlike the rest of the natural world which wasn't manufactured.

And my creations are insignificant in comparison to whatever power created the universe.

What evidence is there that the universe was created?

 

[Jaskalas]

Is all this to fight some creationist fairytale that some clever man wrote down two thousand years ago?

It's fascinating to learn more about the evolution of the human eye, and while some dogmatic folk might enjoy throwing the book at you - this is all rather moot in the grand scheme of things.

Of course evolution is real. Why does evolution exist? Who created evolution? Let us say you figure out and answer that. Who created that which created evolution? Who created that which created that which created evolution?

The circular logic is infinite. It is entirely irrelevant and aside from a question of god and creation. So it did not occur exactly the way some primate wrote it thousands of years ago. That much should be obvious. It should only spit in the face of the ignorant, and the rest of us will enjoy learning more about the world we live in, regardless of how it came to be.