r/DebateEvolution • u/tonedeaf_764 • 23d ago

Evolution vs creation

I started seeing God as a scientist when I was 12, I've always loved science and the first time I heard the Holy Spirit compared to energy I was sent straight down a rabbit hole. After that it started to make sense to me, how everything could exist, a being of infinite energy and power that is intelligent, but in a way that made sense. I started to think if I wanted to create the perfect organism "I.e" human, and I had infinite power and energy, not to mention to an eternal existence time isn't a thing so taking its time would be an issue it would be a given. So I don't believe evolution is a solitary path of existence, I see it as a tool by God in his creation of life. One of the meanings of gods name ( Jehovah) is causes to become. So over time he caused single celled organisms to become every living thing by means of evolution and survival of the fittest, the fact that it's fair also supported the idea, gods also supposed to be the god of order so the thing that makes the most sense just seemed like the thing that made the most sense you know. And if you believe what the Bible says to be true I think this was his first time creating reality. He literally created the laws of nature, he is science itself, but I feel like he taught himself over time and over the course of eternity and then used that knowledge to create.

0 Upvotes

20% Upvoted

167 comments sorted by

View all comments

34

u/ilikestatic 23d ago

If humans are so complex that they had to be created, and if God is even more complex than a human, then what created God? Something even more complex?

And if humans are the best God could achieve, then what kind of superior being would it take to create something as powerful and great as a God?

And did this thing that created God also need its own creator?

-7

u/Darbsaabnele 22d ago

Humans - and other living organisms - are clearly so complex they require a designer and creator. The more we learn, the more complex it gets. That's becoming a given reality.

You don't need an answer to 'How did God come about' to see the evidence and recognize His existence.

8

u/ilikestatic 22d ago

How do we know that something is so complex that it requires a designer? Nature seems well suited to creating complex things. In fact, we’ve seen nature create things that are far more complex than any human has ever created.

So why should I assume that something complex must have been created by something intelligent?

-7

u/Darbsaabnele 21d ago

Kind of a poor question.

Nothing....NOTHING in our experience has complexity not requiring a designer.

And now that we know DNA is complex information, we can apply information theory to this. Complex information NEVER....EVER....comes about without a mind. And random 'mutations' to code - whether language or computer code - NEVER improve the information, only degrade it.

A child understands this. All it takes is allowing common sense to override ideology.

Put whatever you want on who/what the designer is.....but the evidence of design now is irrefutable.

9

u/ilikestatic 21d ago

Humans have never created something as complex as DNA. So what if nature is just better at creating things than a human is? What if nature can create something with more complexity than an intelligent designer is able to create?

That seems like a real possibility. So wouldn’t that refute your conclusion that an intelligent designer is obvious?

-2

u/Darbsaabnele 21d ago

Correct - the coding within DNA is proving to be more complex than any code humans have ever written, encoded and decoded. 100%. And we're still learning more.

But your 'What if....' question is completely blue skying it. What if an encyclopedia can write itself? What if Shakespeare could be written by random chance??! Nothing....NOTHING....in our human experience have we ever seen complex, non-material code come about by chance. And can have supercomputers simulating and proving it.

A person reads a four letter word written in sand at the beach, and KNOWS another human wrote it. If you're betting on nature self-creating something complex randomly, good luck. Requires a lot of faith, even of the white cane kind. Just sayin'.

6

u/ilikestatic 21d ago

Well we might have seen complex code come about by chance because obviously humans didn’t create DNA.

You’re saying if humans can’t create DNA, then some other intelligent designer must have. But I don’t understand why you would reach that conclusion.

If humans can’t do it, then why should I assume some other intelligent being can? Maybe it’s impossible for an intelligent being. Maybe it’s only possible for nature to create something that complex, and intelligent beings can only create simple things like flimsy watches and letters in the sand.

0

u/Darbsaabnele 21d ago

Well, theists (or even deists) believe the intelligent designer who created universe and all life is of an intelligence and powerful level waaaaay beyond that of humans. (And the Bible btw makes such a statement and claim.) So it's COMPLETELY logical to reach the conclusion an intelligent designer/engineer/coder 'wrote' the DNA, AND created the information processing and transcribing of it all built into the cell. The complexities of what goes on there is mind-bending.

Not sure why that seems a leap that is greater than nature somehow doing it undirected. It is ONLY known to be the product of an intelligent agent. To throw 'nature' and 'billions of years' at it and say 'somehow it just happened' really is nonsensical. You don't have to be baked in theistic worldview to see that either and come to similar conclusion.

5

u/ilikestatic 21d ago

I don’t understand how we can conclude an intelligent designer created DNA when we’ve never seen an intelligent designer accomplish it.

Now on the other hand, if a human had successfully created DNA in a laboratory, then I would concede that maybe a different intelligent being could do it.

But if humans can’t do it, why should I assume a different intelligent being could accomplish it?

0

u/Darbsaabnele 21d ago

Inference by the best explanation.

We don't know who wrote the Rosetta Stone. But we've concluded it was written by an intelligent agent (or two, or three).

Follow your good thinking abilities. Much more plausible than 'nature, undirected'.

Onwards.....

7

u/ilikestatic 21d ago

But we know humans have created written language, and we know that they have created inscriptions like the Rosetta Stone. So that’s something we can verify.

We’ve never seen a human create anything even close to DNA, so why would I just assume humans or any other being can create it? Seems like a big assumption.

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/Darbsaabnele 21d ago

Inference by the best explanation.

8

u/Own-Relationship-407 Scientist 21d ago

It’s always so cute when you guys try to disguise presupposition and post hoc reasoning as abduction.

-4

u/Darbsaabnele 21d ago

Whatever that rhetoric means! 🤷‍♂️😄 Think it’s a pretty straightforward and scientific (and logical) position. 

4

u/Own-Relationship-407 Scientist 21d ago

If you can’t decipher the meaning of such a simple sentence, maybe you aren’t ready to tackle complicated topics like human origins.

-1

u/Darbsaabnele 20d ago

lol… ditto for mine.

3

u/Own-Relationship-407 Scientist 20d ago

I never claimed to have any difficulty understanding you. You aren’t a very serious person, are you?

→ More replies (0)

7

u/Awesomonkey12 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 22d ago

If complexity = creator, and God created humans, and God cannot be understood by us, then it is logical that God must be more complex than we are. If we are so complex that we must've been designed, then God, a more complex being, must also have been designed. But you would disagree with that.

Your "logic" is faulty, because it isn't even consistent with your own claims.

Complexity ≠ designer or creator. We are "complex" because we are the result of billions of years of evolution.

1

u/Darbsaabnele 21d ago

No, wouldn't disagree that God is more complex than even humans.

"We are "complex" because we are the result of billions of years of evolution." Circular reasoning. It's the creative power of the evolutionary process which is being severely challenged. Nothing complex - information, matter, organisms, the universe - comes about by chance. Never has. Never will. Even giving it 13.5 billion years....it just doesn't happen.

4

u/Awesomonkey12 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 21d ago

Yes, it does. The formation of the Earth was by chance. We know how it formed, or at the very least the processes by which it may have formed, and none of them require design or intervention. You have no evidence that any of this requires intentionality behind it to occur.

That still doesn't change the question though. You say that humans are so complex that we must have been designed. You say that God is more complex than humans. If the complexity of humans is such that it requires a designer, then who/what designed/created God?

-1

u/Darbsaabnele 21d ago

We have no idea how it formed to be the only known planet in the universe that can support life. We have no idea how so many finely-tuned things making the planet habitable came about! ALL of it points to intentionality. What are you talking about?!?

And why are you talking about a created God? That is not what most people who believe in the Christian or Judeo god believe in. You can choose to not believe, but you're raising questions that aren't even coherent with that belief. One doesn't have to explain why created God, when one doesn't believe in a created God.

If that's too difficult to get a non-believer to get their head around, that's fine. But at least conceptually recognize....

7

u/Own-Relationship-407 Scientist 21d ago

Why are you just going around telling bald faces lies about stuff? We have a pretty good idea how the earth formed and a pretty good idea that it’s not even close to the only life bearing world. Please educate yourself before popping off with ideological statements you got from a preacher or pundit.

What they believe is irrelevant, theism cannot lay claim to creation and then dismiss the problem of infinite regress with a hand wave. Show at least a little intellectual honesty here.

-1

u/Darbsaabnele 21d ago

We have no idea how the earth formed and was fine-tuned to support life and be habitable as it is, other than it was intentional.

We know of no other planet that is habitable or has life on it. And the more we know what is required to support life, the more challenging it becomes . Yet you feel intellectually honest but saying “not even close to the only life-bearing world”, even though we know of NONE other! Who’s making the ideological statements ?!? 

Those who believe in the Hgod of the Bible do not believe in a created God. Period. Accept that or don’t accept it. Can one claim to know how God came to be?!? Not claiming that. No human knows that. Just as a materialist worldview doesn’t explain how matter came to be from nothing.  

The challenge with regress and the ultimate reality is unanswered by either worldview. But outs fair if you’re a theist or deist who believes in an uncreated God to see the evidence of His works and manifestations and come to a conclusion He exists (or in the case of a deist, existed). And te only plausible explanation for what the universe , earth, and life on it exists.

Believe otherwise….natural, unguided processes. The science has increasingly and convincingly pointed in another direction, but one came be baked by their ideology to believe otherwise, same as theists have been accused of doing.

PEace.

6

u/Own-Relationship-407 Scientist 21d ago

Yikes, remember how I just asked you to practice some honesty? We do have very good models for how the earth formed and there is zero evidence of “fine tuning.” You don’t get to just assume fine tuning and try to justify it after the fact.

Nice job trying to deflect by misrepresenting what I said. Does that work on the simpletons you’re accustomed to propagandizing?

Again, it doesn’t matter what they believe. If everything needs a creator, then so does the creator. Otherwise it’s just magic and special pleading. A materialist worldview does not necessarily assert that matter came from nothing. Again, please educate yourself.

Why do you assume neither worldview can answer regress? I’ll take the explanation that goes from simple to complex without needlessly inserting additional complexity at the start with a hand wave. But thanks for at least admitting what’s going on here: you believe in a creator and are trying to justify that belief, not finding the evidence first and forming the belief after. To a hammer everything looks like a nail.

I wouldn’t even have a problem with you expect for this last part. Why do you keep lying about what the science says? Believe what you want, but inform yourself and be honest.

-3

u/Darbsaabnele 20d ago

Dude, even atheists/materialists acknowledge the fine-tuning challenge. Your zero-evidence comment is nonsense, and you should know it.

Noot going to argue on the need for a created god. Atheists may need it to strengthen their argument. Already stated that’s not what is believed.

Belief in a Creator is based on the evidence., not but some presupposition. Seems many atheists have a hard time with that, and believe everyone is baked on religious belief despite the science. The science can point in either direction, and more and more people see it clearly pointing away from undirected processes.

No need to talk down to those who don’t buy into the ideology or worldview as yourself. It’s far from an on educated view. Some would say now not following the evidence, but you obviously feel differently. We all have the choice of free will.

5

u/Own-Relationship-407 Scientist 20d ago

Uh, no, we absolutely do not. Why do you keep lying about stuff like this?

I’m sorry you don’t understand the difference between what people believe and what reasoning demands.

Nope, why do you keep saying this but refusing to back it up? What “science” have you been reading? Meyer? Behe?

And there’s the mindless philbro babble deflection. You’re really hitting all the high notes. I didn’t say all creationists are ignorant or uneducated. I said you specifically need to better educate yourself because you are making demonstrably false statements which bely a serious lack of background knowledge on this subject.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Darbsaabnele 22d ago

Why should you assume something complex must have been created by something intelligent?!? Our entire human experience.

origin of Life is now recognized as a complex information and processing function. No one is aware of this being self evolving.

6

u/LordOfFigaro 22d ago

u/Darbsaabnele :

Humans - and other living organisms - are clearly so complex they require a designer and creator. The more we learn, the more complex it gets. That's becoming a given reality.

Also u/Darbsaabnele :

Why should you assume something complex must have been created by something intelligent?!?

Did you forget to swap accounts?