Evolution and God

1. 61

   lostgirlscatposted 14 years ago

   Which theory comes closest to answering the question of the origin of mankind and why?
   
       A. The theory of evolution is correct and God had no part in the process.
   
   
       B. The theory of evolution is essentially correct, but God started and guided the process (i.e. intelligent design)
   
   
       C. God created human beings in pretty much their present form approximately 10,000 years ago and evolution is not a valid theory.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Deborah-Lynnposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      The only Answer of Faith is C.    A or B are misguided answers based on unsubstanciated scientific lingo that has never been proven beyond theory...

      replyreport
2. 61

   zadrobiposted 14 years ago

   I'm gonna have to go with D. Final answer.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      lostgirlscatposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I'm sorry, you're out of vowels.

      replyreport
   2. 61

      lostgirlscatposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I'm sorry, I believe you're out of vowels.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         zadrobiposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Wrong game.

         replyreport
3. 59

   cassidydahustlaposted 14 years ago

   How about god created science

   replyreport
4. 70

   Cagsilposted 14 years ago

   Evolution and God?
   
   It is an irrelevant question.
   
   Evolution is still being explored.
   
   God is a mystical figure created to control people.
   
   So, I'll simply say- Existence!
   
   The Universe Exists.
   The Earth Exists.
   The People of Earth Exists.
   
   No other answer required.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      lostgirlscatposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      You cannot say no other answer is required when you have provided no answer in the first place.,

      replyreport
      1. 70

         Cagsilposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Okay, NONE of the above.
         
         Is that better.

         replyreport
   2. 0

      SirDentposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      When was God created and by whom?

      replyreport
   3. 60

      The Ropeposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Sounds like you are a "spontaneous combustion" theorist.  Can't believe it myself but have run into a fair number of who prefer to take this road and not look any further.  Have you studied it?  Would love to see a hub...

      replyreport
5. 70

   TimTurnerposted 14 years ago

   I don't believe in god but not because of evolution.
   
   I don't see why evolution and a divine creator couldn't co-exist.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Stimpposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you!!  I do believe in God but I don't understand why people can't just go with "it is what it is" and not question it.

      replyreport
6. 60

   hudsonj1994posted 14 years ago

   I say B

   replyreport
7. 60

   Valerie Fposted 14 years ago

   None of the above, though I'd probably come closer to believing B to be true. I don't think the theory of evolution as it currently stands is 100% correct. However, it's the best explanation for biodiversity, the fossil record, et cetera, that we currently have, so I roll with it.
   
   I also believe that to assume evolution disproves more literary (as well as the literal) interpretations of the Bible and even the very existence of God is to jump to conclusions unsupportable by logic.

   replyreport
   1. 58

      Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      As this is not in the irrational beliefs section, I will step in.
      
      Logic:
      
      1. Evolution is adaptation to changes in the environment and random mutations
      2. Evolution happens
      3. Evolution is an incredibly ineffective way to develop something
      4. Evolution as a theory does not stand up to the suggestion that there was a guiding hand involved. In fact, breaks down if this is the case and becomes worthless.
      5. evolution can not have had a developmental destination
      
      6. The christian god therefore does not and can not exist.
      
      A god that just threw everything in a pot to "see what came out"? OK - I could go with that. That actually makes sense. As for the worshiping and passive/aggressive "love"?

      replyreport
      1. 67

         jenblacksheepposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Wow, I like this a lot! I've never thought about evolution like that and now I'm extremely jealous and wish I'd deduced this myself! So glad there is still someone who can bring a little logic to this tiresome re-occuring debate. I'm so sick of people who just let logic pass them by!!
         Thanx Mark!!!

         replyreport
8. 72

   wyanjenposted 14 years ago

   A.
   
   If you are a believer, evolution does not have to mean that there is no god.
   
   But, if you do not believe in god, evolution provides an alternate answer to the question "How did we get here?"
   
   My problem with the argument is that science is still advancing and will continue to provide new answers, while religion is static. Unless more ancient texts are discovered, there won't be new answers.

   replyreport
9. 60

   Valerie Fposted 14 years ago

   I disagree with your fourth premise.

   replyreport
   1. 58

      Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Of course you do. But that just means you do not understand the first, second or third premise.
      
      Plus - you have already decided that there must be a god and it must be the christian god - and now you need to make the facts fit.
      
      There can not have been a guiding hand in the evolutionary process because that implies a pre-determined destination, which makes the entire theory worthless.
      
      Plus the third premise is worth discussion. What an incredibly slow way of "creating something in His image." Therefore - either this god is a) not all powerful and this was the only avenue or b) there is no such god.

      replyreport
10. 60

    Valerie Fposted 14 years ago

    I also don't agree with the third premise. Effectiveness is also subjective and presupposes a purpose. Ineffective for what?

    replyreport
    1. 58

       Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       No - effectiveness is implied in the 100% perfect god that you have created.
       
       Or are you saying that your god is not perfect?
       
       And yes - you are the one presupposing the purpose also.   Remember - "created in his own image."
       
       Guess this is where we start reaching for the semantics huh?

       replyreport
11. 60

    Valerie Fposted 14 years ago

    You're the one saying that evolution is ineffective. I'm asking exactly what about it is ineffective. I don't think you can answer that question without presupposing a purpose to it.
    
    Also, I don't agree that evolution necessarily involves random mutations. Where is randomness even in the theory?

    replyreport
    1. 58

       Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       It is only ineffective if you assume a destination.
       
       If there is no pre-determined destination it is 100% effective.
       
       Therefore we were not the goal because there was no pre determined destination.
       
       Therefore the christian god does not exist.
       
       Mutations are random. Whether they are successful or not is another question.

       replyreport
       1. 61

          lostgirlscatposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Actually, mutations are not random, whether deleterious or beneficial, they generally are a response to to an enviromental pressure. Resulting either from damage to an organism, in which case that organism will die out, or as a beneficial change to help an organism cope with some new challenge, thereby making the species more successful in its' ecological niche.

          replyreport
          1. 72

             wyanjenposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             Mutation occurs during an organism's embryonic development. DNA mutations cannot occur as a result of environmental pressure or physical damage. There are plenty of convicted felons who wish this was true
             
             Mutation is random.

             replyreport
             1. 61

                lostgirlscatposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  The enviromental pressure or damage occurs to the Parent or even great-great grandparent, affecting each embryo in its turn- a gradual, sometimes millennial, change to the DNA. Also, DNA damage or mutation happens all the time during the 9 mth gestation period due to physical damage caused by the ingestion or absorption of harmful chemicals by the prospective mother. Mutated frogs with various phsysical oddities being a prime example.

                replyreport
12. 93

    habeeposted 14 years ago

    I'll go with B. I believe God was and is in control.

    replyreport
13. 74

    spiderpamposted 14 years ago

    C. The Creation Account. If people really did their homework they’d come to the same conclusion.

    replyreport