jump to last post 1-20 of 20 discussions (322 posts)

Does evolution prove there is no God?

  1. jacobkuttyta profile image45
    jacobkuttytaposted 4 years ago

    No. Many people, from evolutionary biologists to important religious figures like Pope John Paul II, contend that the time-tested theory of evolution does not refute the presence of God. They acknowledge that evolution is the description of a process that governs the development of life on Earth. Like other scientific theories, including Copernican theory, atomic theory, and the germ theory of disease, evolution deals only with objects, events, and processes in the material world. Science has nothing to say one way or the other about the existence of God or about people's spiritual beliefs.

    (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/libra … cat01.html)

    1. pisean282311 profile image59
      pisean282311posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      no....it infact makes us understand man made religions like christianity ,more easily....we can differentiate between myths and message more easily and rather than taking bible or quran or torah as literally ,one can understand our ancestors attempt to questions...evolution just makes religion become attempt rather than truth...good for the world...

    2. twosheds1 profile image60
      twosheds1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You're absolutely right. However, I am reminded of two quotes. One is from Pierre-Simon LaPlace, Napolean's astronomer. He presented a copy of his astronomical work to Napolean, who said "M. Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its Creator," to which LaPlace replied, "I had no need of that hypothesis." It is probably apocryphal, but illustrative nonetheless.

      The other is more modern, and come from physicist Steven Weinberg: "Science doesn't make it impossible to believe in God, but science makes it possible to NOT believer in God."

      Evolution and other scientific discoveries seem to be making the idea of a god superfluous.

      1. AntonOfTheNorth profile image60
        AntonOfTheNorthposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The idea of god is superfluous only if there is in fact no god.

        Otherwise the idea of god is a reflection of the truth.

        Evolution has nothing to say about how it started, only about how it works now that it is going.

        cheers

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Just exactly what need is there of a god? It is superfluous already. The idea of a god is just that - an idea. No truth to reflect.

          1. AntonOfTheNorth profile image60
            AntonOfTheNorthposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Isn't 'it just happened' also an idea?  In the absence of any way to test the theory?  I realize it is simpler than 'god did it' and therefore more appealing to a rationalist, but still. . .

            The best I've seen out of a theory like the big bang for example is the 'suddenly, something happened' proposal, and that everything before that is irrelevant.  Completely unrevealing as to why and how, yet I submit that what caused this sudden transition from the irrelevant before to the relevant after would be at least interesting to know if it were possible.

            In the absence of knowledge, we opine.  We've done this as a species as far back as we know.  I suspect we've always been wrong and that we're still missing it now.  We have one planet and a few thousand years of incomplete observations against billions of years and a vast reality much of which we can't even detect if the theories are correct.

            If no god, true that god is just an idea, and something else is the truth

            If god, not just an idea, god is the truth.

            There is no need for a god, unless there was one.

            I doubt any religion has anything testable to verify that.  But I haven't seen ANY testable notion about how the universe came into its current reality. 

            On that score, what we believe is just what we believe.  The truth doesn't care.

            Religion has no lock on the truth just because it was written down, particularly as so much that is simply observed easily refutes all of them.

            But we don't know how we came to be.  We've seen the mechanisms at work and we've built some good theories.  Testing them is problematic.  So we guess.

            Somone might stumble on to it some day.

            cheers

    3. A Troubled Man profile image61
      A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      But, evolution does indeed show that after the universe was created, one way or the other, humans did not appear on earth in the form they are today. Did not God create humans in their current form?



      Perhaps, but when science comes along to reveal how things work and those things contradict scriptural beliefs, we can begin to see the existence of God is tenuous, at best.

      1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
        HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Scripture simply says God created humans last, just as evolution supports. It does not say by what method.

        The things science has revealed does indeed contradict traditional beliefs formed around scripture, but does not contradict scripture itself.

    4. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Sorry, but science does have something to say. Science is unable to detect anything that exists outside of reality. Therefore Science says this "spiritual" existence is not there.

      - Science

      1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
        HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Do you not see the problem with that statement?

        "Unable to detect.." <> "...  is not there"

        By this same logic, the mind doesn't exist either. Obviously, that's not the case.

        1. A Troubled Man profile image61
          A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          That is false, science can detect the mind because it does exist.

          1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
            HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            No, it can't. Science can detect physical happenings in the brain, but not the mind itself. These are related, but are not one and the same.

            1. A Troubled Man profile image61
              A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Where do you get that nonsense?

            2. twosheds1 profile image60
              twosheds1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Well, what is "the mind?" We know the mind exists because we can see evidence of it. How else could you know empirically that anything exists?

              1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                We only know the mind exists because we each have one. What evidence do we see that doesn't also require the subjective relation of our own minds to even begin to grasp? The only evidence beyond the physical firing of neurons or routing of oxygenated blood flow is the output (words/actions) of an individual. If we didn't have our own minds to associate, what evidence we do have would in no way convey a sense of how dynamic the mind truly is.

                That is why the majority of studies involving the mind fall outside of the umbrella of the physical sciences and are instead covered by the behavioral sciences, like psychology.

                If we didn't each have our own minds there would be no way of knowing it exists. If something as dynamic as the mind exists, yet there is no empirical evidence that objectively proves it, who's to say it's the only thing in existence just as dynamic and creative that cannot be detected? Chances are, it's not.

                1. A Troubled Man profile image61
                  A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  So, you're saying the mind is not a physical thing, it is non-physical? The brain is made of matter and energy, but the mind is not?

                  How can something not made of matter or energy cause something made of matter and energy to do anything?

                  1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                    HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    You just basically stated an age-old philosophical conundrum known simply as the 'mind-body problem'.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind-body_problem

        2. AntonOfTheNorth profile image60
          AntonOfTheNorthposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I've seen a reasonable article on brain studies that defined the 'mind' as the activity performed by brain, rather than as an object. 

          If that's true, science wouldn't be troubled with detecting an object called mind.  It can easily detect the activity called mind though.  (Easier on some more than others, I suspect. smile

          cheers

          1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
            HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Detecting activity doesn't solve the 'mind-body problem'. Assigning specific components that make up the mind to physical happenings in the brain, the question still remains... Are these physical happenings the cause of the mind, or is the mind the cause of these physical happenings?

            1. AntonOfTheNorth profile image60
              AntonOfTheNorthposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Again, the latest I've read about studies of the brain (hardly definitive, I know, but these are just opinions here) points to 'mind' not being an object.

              The mind under this supposition is not a thing.  It is the collective actions performed by brain, much like 'sight' is the collective actions performed by eyes and the connected neurological tissue.  Your sight is not a thing.  Your sight is the eyes/brain interpretation of light.

              Under this supposition, mind is a product or action performed by brain. It is not an artifact.  It is an activity.  The mind-body problem is, under this supposition, solved.  Brain is the initiator of all activity known as mind.

              My brain is not a scientist.  I can't speak to the scientific validity of such a theory, but I find that an interesting concept. Is it right?  Dunno.

              cheers

              1. 0
                jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Is it right?
                Yup.

              2. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Thank you, AntonOfTheNorth, for a discussion-worthy response. In the view of Monism, most often credited to Thomas Hobbes, it's just as you said, that the mind is basically just the collective product of brain activity. And in the case of sight, like you pointed out, that certainly seems to be the case.

                Sight is the physical processing of physical light. Same goes for sound being the physical processing of physical sound waves. Or the physical processing of particles in the air in the case of smell. We can build computers that do all of that today.

                But where the mind isn't so clearly boiled down to being nothing more than the product of physical brain activity is in the cases of those things that make us decidedly human. Like the drive and passion that brings people like us here to debate these things at great lengths. What makes you care about what you care about. What part of the brain feels pride in a job well done, or feels slighted or embarrassed. These things that are just as much part of the mind, that are large part of who each of us are, yet are way more abstract than images and sounds, and hard to quantify or boil down to nothing more than physical brain activity made of matter and energy. That's where the chasm lies between the two that further spurs the 'mind-body problem'.

      2. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        That would be incorrect.  When science uses methods that are known to detect something in particular circumstances and cannot find that something then it is reasonable to declare it isn't there.

        But science does not know how to detect God (or any part of the supernatural) .  By most definitions God is inherently undetectable by humanity unless He chooses to reveal Himself.  Science doesn't know what God is, what He is made of, or where to look (another universe, probably, but doesn't know in any case).  Given that, no honest scientist can declare that He is not there.  All it can say in the matter is what every honest believer also says: "I don't know, although I have suspicions."

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          What is this "Supernatural," of which you speak? Science has looked and looked, but nothing appears to be there. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude it does not exist.

          - Science

          1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
            HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Your answer is in the term 'supernatural'...

            supernatural - of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe.

            Anything of a supernatural nature falls outside of the jurisdiction of the natural sciences.

            1. getitrite profile image80
              getitriteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Which could include things that don't, actually, exist at all.  Just because something is said to be outside the jurisdiction of the natural science, doesn't mean that it actually exists.

            2. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Can't agree with that, either.  If and when science DOES find what people will agree is supernatural, it will then be natural and something science will study.

              The problem, of course, is that anything found, anything at all, is then considered natural rather than supernatural by definition.

              1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I understand what you're saying. But in the context of God, being the creator of existence and therefore existing before/outside of it, He is something that will never be within the reach of science. Natural is only what is 'of existence'. Science is incapable of observing anything that exists outside our universe. But based strictly on the definition of the word, I agree.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  To a large degree you are certainly correct, but I would disagree that science will never observe anything in a different universe.  We simply don't know enough to make that statement.

                  I've seen speculation that our universe is butting up against another one; stars seem to be "clumping" in one area near one edge and that could indicate a second universe with it's gravity pulling on "our" stars.  If it should turn out that that speculation is correct, and that gravity is crossing the boundary between two universes, other forces or energies may be capable of it too.  If THAT is correct we should be able to peer into that other universe.

                  As I say, though, if it turns out that we can then that universe will suddenly become "natural" rather than "supernatural" and everything in it (including God?) as well.  It's the way we're built and think, maybe - things we don't understand are supernatural, things we see, feel and work with are quite natural.  Definition most definitely plays a part here.

                2. A Troubled Man profile image61
                  A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  That is merely your opinion and is not supported by religious scripture.

                  1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                    HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Not supported by religious scripture? Did you just really say that? Not that there's anything wrong with your statement, I'm just surprised to see this statement coming from you. Please tell me where in scripture this idea is not supported.

                    Besides, science's inability to see beyond the big bang is not my opinion. I actually borrowed that from Neil LeGasse Tyson. He wasn't talking about God, of course, but when you consider scripture describes God as the creator of existence, He therefore exists before and outside of this existence, then He too is beyond the sights of science. It's not just my willy-nilly opinion.

          2. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            That's kind of the point, Mark.  I don't know what the "supernatural" is - no one does.  Various descriptions of it's effects on the known universe vary and contradict themselves, so we don't know that, either. 

            You can't look for something when you have zero knowledge of what you're looking for.  Doesn't mean it isn't there, though, and science should never make such a claim as it has no evidence outside of it can't find what it isn't looking for.

            1. Mark Knowles profile image60
              Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Sorry - what is this "Supernatural" of which you speak? You can't speak of something of which you have no knowledge of - surely?

              Science deals with reality. When "Hiuyfoljhgkhg2vkljhf;dwedf" becomes reality we will speak of it. If you speak of it and have no evidence or testable theories - Science rejects it.

              - Science

    5. thisisoli profile image66
      thisisoliposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Can you pick and choose the parts for your religion, surely if you believe in god, you believe the theory of creation in which every animal was created?

  2. tdhigg01 profile image59
    tdhigg01posted 4 years ago

    I think it's interesting that the reason people don't believe in the existence of God is because there is, so they say, no physical evidence.  However, there is no physical evidence for the theory of evolution.  Oh sure, finches can develop beaks that help them better obtain food, but that doesn't mean they aren't finches.  There has never been any documented, scientifically-proven evidence supporting the theory that one species (man) evolved from another (apes).  It simply doesn't exist.  The entire theory itself is anti-scientific.  There is no way to perform experiments (because the process supposedly takes millions of years), there is no physical evidence to support it, and on top of that the entire radio-carbon dating system is flawed.  Which leaves us right where we began.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Most people I know who don't believe in a god do so because the idea is ludicrous. The fact that you are ignorant of proven scientific facts does not make your Majikal Super Being any less ludicrous.

      1. Dannytaylor02 profile image83
        Dannytaylor02posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        enlighten us mark on the scientific facts please

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Dude - if you are incapable of finding scientific facts about evolution - I suspect you will not accept them on an Internet forum discussion. But - if you really are that uneducated - here is a thread that might help:

          http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/7572

    2. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Oh, there is evidence, all right.  The paper it is written on will weigh tons if all put together.

      That you choose to ignore it doesn't make it nonexistent.  That you choose to demand absolute proof (as opposed to evidence), available to anyone without study or work, doesn't make the known evidence nonexistent. 

      It's there for anyone that can read, but it does take some work and effort to dig out (no pun intended smile).

    3. getitrite profile image80
      getitriteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It would seem that the HONEST thing to do is to suspend belief in something until evidence is found.

         

      That's just downright dishonest.  Do you know anything about fossil records?



      Total misconception!
       

      You are GROSSLY misinformed of what evolution is.  Man DID NOT evolve form apes.  Man IS an ape.  We, and the other great apes share a common ancestor.



      That's completely absurd.

       

      Do you mean back to a flat earth, and earth centered solar system?  And since all these scientist are wrong that means ancient ignorant goat herders' knowledge is just as valid as modern scientific fact finding.  Right?

    4. twosheds1 profile image60
      twosheds1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Pretty much everything you said is wrong. There is oodles of physical evidence, including DNA. There is plenty of data that shows the relationship between humans and chimps, and several experiments have been performed that have shown evolution. To whit:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_lo … experiment

      You might want to try reading something that wasn't written by evolution deniers. To do that, you'd have to remove your head from your nethers, first.

  3. getitrite profile image80
    getitriteposted 4 years ago

    http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k286/mrommyan/emoticon/shocked.png   Yep, the sun being created on the fourth day, does not contradict modern scientific facts at all.

  4. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
    HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago



    Right. I agree. If you'll notice, Mark was talking about using science to confirm whether or not something supernatural exists. I was pointing out the flaw in that logic.




    Actually, as specified in verse 2, the creation account is told from a surface perspective. During the fourth day portion, between plant life on land (day 3) and vertebrates on land (day 5), there were two things that happened that make what's described accurate.

    1. Plant life being in direct contact meant the atmosphere much more quickly changed from translucent to transparent. Where before the sun lit up the dome of the sky, the sun, the moon, and the stars were not visible until the atmosphere became transparent.

    2. The entirety of the planet's continental land mass moved from beneath the planet where daylight lasts 6 months and the night sky just pivots, to between the poles.

    The sun/moon/stars are what people in that age referred to when they said 'the heavens', which were created 'in the beginning'. While there was plenty of light, and even day and night, for millions of years, they were not yet visible. This is the same timeframe when they became visible. Once they were, they were then addressed specifically.


    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/7102821_f248.jpg

    1. getitrite profile image80
      getitriteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I don't know what denomination you are, but I am Pentecostal...and we were taught to take the bible literally.  We don't tamper with the word of God by making up our own interpretations.

                                                           Gen 1:16-19
      16 And God MADE two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

      17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

      18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

      19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

      1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
        HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Right, and I didn't. Verse 1 says he created the 'heavens' in the beginning. This portion simply says he MADE the sun, moon, and stars, which is true. This also happens to be the age when they became visible from the surface, which is the perspective specified in verse 2. It also says he set them in the firmament in a particular way to serve a particular purpose, which lines up with, and was actually accomplished by, the moving of the continents. I'm simply interpreting it based on actual facts. I didn't change anything.

        1. getitrite profile image80
          getitriteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          So when did He MAKE the SUN?  Was it on the fourth day, or did He make it at some earlier time, and was just waiting to make it visible to humans at a later date?  If so, why wasn't it just written to clearly state so??  To me, the word MADE, in this context, means that God created the sun...ON THE FOURTH DAY. Why does anything else need to be added?  To me that is pure conjecture.

          1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
            HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Well then what exactly do you think verse 1 meant by the 'heavens'? Or where would the light in verse 3 come from? Or what constituted light as day and dark as night in verse 4 and 5? Even people of the early Bronze Age and before knew full well the light of day came from the sun. What else would they be talking about? It's not conjecture if you're taking the whole text in context. When you just pull that one line out of context of the rest of it, then you're right, it doesn't make much sense.

            1. getitrite profile image80
              getitriteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              The universe...with Earth being the central focus, of course.



              I guess Goddunnit...but God done everything.



              Well it says right there that God called night and day by their respective names.  But then waits until three days later to MAKE the sun.  Or are you saying He made the sun when He created day and night???????????????????????????????



              But while writing their fairytale, they forgot.  OOPS!



              Like everything else in the bible, that's open to a myriad of interpretations...Just like the irrational one you are asserting here.



              It's more like desperately pleading to make logical that which is illogical



              Even starting from verse 1, and reading all the way through to when the sun was created, it still does not make sense, unless one tries to trick his own mind.

              1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Alright getitrite, I'm not going to argue with you. If you want to ignore the first 1/6th of the chapter and instead focus in on the wording of that one line, then by all means have at it. If you want to ignore that in just 31 verses it lists 13 specific creations and 6 major eras in the correct order feel free. But your assertion that the light was simply 'Goddunit' and that calling the light day and dark night had nothing to do with the sun, again based on nothing more than the wording of that one verse, is more of a stretch than anything I stated. This clearly has more to do with your utter lack of respect for the material. There's nothing I can do about that.

  5. Lisa Luv profile image57
    Lisa Luvposted 4 years ago

    Personally I think that it proves there is a GOD, that thought of all things for everyone....

    1. getitrite profile image80
      getitriteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Do you have ANY evidence to validate this proof, or do you just CHOOSE to BELIEVE there is proof?

      In other words, show us the proof(just a morsel) of a being, in existence, called god.

  6. Lisa Luv profile image57
    Lisa Luvposted 4 years ago

    Again Faith you have....It does not have to be proven....But when you think how grand everything comes together, don't you just pause in awe and wonder how it all came together so completely and abundantly?  Why not had been created by GOD..the alpha and the omega of all things...maybe of other life even on other planets...HOW AWESOME GOD could be....!

    1. psycheskinner profile image81
      psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      So I guess you agree the existence of evolution does not disprove God.

      Assuming you meant your comments to be somewhat on topic.

    2. Lisa Luv profile image57
      Lisa Luvposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Question?  How was my comments off topic in any way?  My opinion may differ...but it is on topic...Does evolution prove there is no God?

      1. psycheskinner profile image81
        psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I was trying to make the connection.

  7. Lisa Luv profile image57
    Lisa Luvposted 4 years ago

    Correct~~~I believe there is a GOD that thought of all things...evolution just being one of them...

  8. secularist10 profile image93
    secularist10posted 4 years ago

    Evolution has nothing to do with the existence of God. It certainly does not prove there is no God. However, some have argued that evolution does undermine or destroy Christianity.

    Christianity is based on the premise that Jesus is the savior who cancels out the original sin in humanity. This original sin, in turn, comes from Adam, from whom all humans are descended. But if humans are not descendants of this person, as evolution would imply, then original sin disappears, and thus the need for a savior disappears.

    1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
      HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Good point. Unless Adam was the creation of free will. Because it is only through free will, in this case being a will apart from God's, that sin is even possible. The whole theme behind the Adam/Eve story has to do with Adam behaving outside of God's will. The humans created in Genesis 1 carried out commands that took generations to accomplish. They did exactly as He said. And history shows homo sapiens did exactly as He said. Adam/Eve/Cain were different. They were capable of behaving outside of God's will, or according to their own. That's the difference. Thus, in that context, it all still applies.

      1. secularist10 profile image93
        secularist10posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I was speaking of the literal basis of Christianity. You are speaking metaphorically. So if it's all a metaphorical story about free will and whatnot, then the concept of Jesus as a savior, and salvation, Heaven, Hell and the rest of it is necessarily metaphorical too.

        1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
          HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Oh no, I'm speaking literally. I estimate it happened roughly 5500 BC. The Ubaid culture of southern Mesopotamia (5300 - 4000 BC) built the first cities and had the first social stratification. This is the same length of time that Adam/Cain and their family existed before the flood.

          The Uruk period came directly after and lines up with post Babel Genesis. I'm talking literally.

          1. secularist10 profile image93
            secularist10posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            The Bible says that humans (i.e. Adam) were created in one fell swoop, with no connection to any prior living thing. Evolution conflicts with this account. Therefore it cannot literally be true, therefore the basis of Christianity is undermined.

            Also, Christianity (at least traditional Christianity) claims Adam was the first person, so if you think Adam existed in the 5,000s BC, he clearly could not have been the first person because there were people before that time. (And that's not evolution, by the way, that's just history and archaeology.)

            1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
              HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              The bible says humans were created on the sixth day after life from the sea/birds (day 5) and mammals (earlier portion of day 6). And this mirrors evolution. First came sauropsids (everything but mammals), then synapsids (mammals) branched off, then humans from there.

              Then comes day 7, then Adam. It's only assumption that both of these are talking about the same event, even though the sequence of events don't even match each other. Not to mention the Genesis 1 humans were much better at obeying God's commands than Adam. But it's clear there were other humans during Adam's time. In Genesis 4 Cain fears being harmed by others when banished from where his family lives despite the fact that traditional interpretations say he was only the third human at this point. Then it says he built a city. And in Genesis 6, right before the flood, it says the 'sons of God' began having children with the 'daughters of humans' who it says are 'mortal' and only live 120 years right after showing life spans of Adam and his offspring living for centuries. Do a little research and you'll find that these two bits are some of those most wildly exaggerated and speculated upon verses in all the bible because they're ambiguous and confusing in the traditional context. Genesis 6 in particular is the basis of most of those stories involving renegade angels, for instance.

              The archaeological record shows a fundamental change in humans in this time and place. Those first Sumerian cities built during the Ubaid period, starting with Eridu (5300 BC) of southern Mesopotamia mark the first appearance of social inequality with a ruling class and a working class. Then around 4000 BC the Ubaid culture came to an abrupt, not yet totally understood, end. Genesis says Cain built a city and according to the Sumerians five cities existed before the great flood, again starting with Eridu. The span in Genesis between Cain's banishment and the flood is roughly 1500 years, the same length of time that the Ubaid culture existed.

              Then began the Uruk period that began after 4000 BC named after the Sumerian city built during the beginning of that era. Both Genesis and the Sumerian King's list say Uruk was built not long after the flood. Genesis attributes it to Nimrod, the Sumerians say it was Enmerkar. Both are described as 'great hunters'. The actual city of Uruk was built around 3800 BC. Not only was there continued social inequality, but this marks the beginning of human settlements with clear signs of male dominance as well as signs of organized war. Plus, unlike the humans that lived for tens of thousands of years, and unlike other rather large settled human communities that had existed long before, starting in the Ubaid culture and continuing into Uruk, these people prized possessions and wealth.

              This comes right after a dramatic shift in climate around 3900 BC (5.9 kiloyear event) that transformed the Sahara into a desert and actually caused mass human migrations out of that region, much like what's described in the story of Babel. And while the general assumption is that those traits that appeared in humans in this time and region came from living in settled communities with higher social interaction, the archaeological evidence actually shows these traits appearing not gradually in the people already in that region, but appearing at the same time as the arrival of nomadic newcomers from the Sahara. From that Uruk period of southern Mesopotamia on the first full blown human civilizations first began to appear. First in Sumer (3500 BC), then to the west in Egypt (3400 BC), then to the east in the Indus Valley (3300 BC), then at some point before 3000 BC in Akkad to the north. And in each of these places we see significant and sudden advances in craftsmanship and newly invented technologies, including writing in three different languages.

              There are some, like James DeMeo (Saharasia: The 4000 BCE Origins of Child Abuse, Sex-Repression, Warfare and Social Violence, In the Deserts of the Old World) and Steve Taylor (The Fall: The Insanity of the Ego in Human History and the Dawning of a New Era) who see this as evidence of the emergence of the modern human ego. It's the changes first seen here in Mesopotamia and spread from there that differentiates the humans of 'civilized' societies from those of the tribal/indigenous populations of the world. They're physically the same. Same physical brains. But there's a distinct sense of self that's much more pronounced. The ego as DeMeo and Taylor suggest. It should be pointed out that neither of these guys are theists, as Taylor in particular views religion as a result of what he calls the 'ego explosion' as well.

              This mirrors Genesis exactly. The people dispersed at Babel were descendants of Noah/Adam. Like Adam and Eve realizing they were naked right after "the eyes of both of them were opened", they were much more aware of themselves then they were before. And they were capable of behaving outside of God's will, much like the humans of 'civilized' societies more and more behaved outside of the whim of nature through invention and innovation. Cain built a city. Cain's descendants 'fathered' all those who raised livestock/played stringed instruments, and another who made tools out of metal. All inventions that first appeared during the Ubaid/Uruk periods in Mesopotamia.

              This is why I believe Adam was the introduction of free will into the world. Because homo sapiens did exactly what humans were told to do in Genesis 1 between roughly 195000 years ago up to roughly 10000 BC. By this point they had populated the planet and had established themselves as the dominant species in the animal kingdom and only remaining species of the homo genus, unlike any other species of animal. Then, in the 'cradle of civilization', humans fundamentally changed. And human history from that point forward illustrates the spread of 'civilized' empires, overtaking the 'locals' or 'savages', and constant wars, sparking in Mesopotamia first, then not long after in China, and from there across the world, taking much longer to reach Africa south of the Sahara, Australia, and North/South America. Some say it's the modern human ego. I think it was the spread of humans with their own individual wills. The birth of human selfishness.

              1. secularist10 profile image93
                secularist10posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                The issue is not about the rise of cities or stratified social hierarchies in Mesopotamia and elsewhere. The issue is that Christianity claims Adam was the first human being, and this contradicts evolution. Genesis is quite clear that Adam was the first human created directly and instantaneously by God, not by a long process of development.

                If you are speaking about Adam metaphorically representing the birth of human selfishness and the ego, etc, again, that is metaphor.

                1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                  HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I know the difference between literal and metaphorical and I get what you're saying. According to the traditional Christian interpretation, Adam was the first human, which contradicts evolution. I understand.

                  You're not getting what I'm saying. I'm saying I have good reason to believe that Adam's creation was literal. He was created in an already populated world and Genesis supports this. And I'm showing how you can actually see the affects of Adam's creation in the archaeological record. This has everything to do with the rise of cities and the appearance of stratified social hierarchies because those are tell-tale signs of free will. 'Civilized' humans now make up over 95% of the world's population. They, or we, are of both bloodlines. We are both of naturally evolved humans and of Adam/Eve.

                  And therefore, we are all capable of sin because we all have free will. Thus both evolution happened AND Christianity is legitimate.

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                    Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Prove it. Everything you have posted so far is your opinion based on the need to defend your religion.

                    Show us the proof Von Noggin. lol

                  2. getitrite profile image80
                    getitriteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    This level of dishonesty is pathetic



                    Really?  You actually think you can insert the primitive, ignorant stories from a fictitious book of silly, childish fairytales into the history of evolution?  Have you NO shame?

                     

                    I can just feel the desperation in your statements.  Do you even believe this drivel, YOURSELF.  Wow!  Truly, truly disturbing!!!

                  3. secularist10 profile image93
                    secularist10posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Headly:

                    "I'm saying I have good reason to believe that Adam's creation was literal. He was created in an already populated world and Genesis supports this."

                    Genesis does not support that. If Adam's creation was literal, then he was the first person because that is what the book literally says:

                    "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. The Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed." (Gen 2: 7-8)

                    "Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it... Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them." (Gen 2: 15-19) (NKJV)

                    Every reference to the man is in the singular. If it was more than one man, then it would have said "Eden, and there he put the men whom he had formed."

                    You have to do some seriously creative interpretation to get a preexisting human race from these passages. A level of creativity that, if applied elsewhere in the Bible, throws into doubt practically every other concept in the book.

            2. jacobkuttyta profile image45
              jacobkuttytaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I don't know why people are stuck up in what happened in the future.  There is no point in debating over the past.  Let us look at the future.

              Eternal future is more important than the past.  How can we escape the judgment of our sin is open now for a limited period.  i.e. in our life time.  The question is Can we do something to avoid the eternal punishment?  How can we receive salvation? Is it possible for me to get eternal happiness?  I think we should more concerned about these questions than debating over the past.

              There is only one way.  That is Jesus Christ.  He showed us a path of life.  A way to salvation.  A way to unite with God.

              1. secularist10 profile image93
                secularist10posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                How do you know?

              2. Mark Knowles profile image60
                Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                But - there is no sin to be judged for. Your "past" is nonsense. The genuine "past," which includes humans evolving from other apes does not have any Adam, therefore no original sin. So - no need for Jesus at all. wink

                So - while evolution may not absolutely prove there is no god (assuming a non-international god) it most certainly disproves the Christian god.

                Does that answer your question? Yes - evolution proves the Christian god does not exist.

              3. getitrite profile image80
                getitriteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                By making such a statement as this, do you feel that maybe you have insulted the millions of people, around the world, who have different beliefs than yours, yet believe just as strongly?

  9. Lisa Luv profile image57
    Lisa Luvposted 4 years ago

    JUST another thought to ponder on for all>>>
    When you discuss it in the terms of Christianity than you are saying there is only one major religion.
    You are also narrowing things down to the realm of life we all know easily and leaving out the (if I may use the term “soul of our lives”) which is harder to fathom.  Just like it is hard for some people to understand there are other realms, other dimensions, or even other life that exist on other planets.
    All things are possible through “GOD”, that is why in the first place he is called GOD…The beginning and the end…

    1. A Troubled Man profile image61
      A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      There is no evidence whatsoever for other dimensions or realms. How do you know that?

  10. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
    HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago

    What are you referring to when you say Genesis has been debunked by science?




    Just taking the word of the scholars who have studied it extensively ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis


    Yes, I know and understand that some can delude themselves to the point that they can convince themselves of anything. If you read my profile you'll see I had the same doubts. Though I kept quiet about how I saw things for a long time I finally decided to start discussing with others for that very reason. To ensure I'm not just deluding myself.

    Besides, it's not my delusion that lists 13 specific things in order as to how they actually happened. I didn't do that and there's no amount of delusional twisting I could do to make it work if it weren't so on point already. I simply noticed the point of view being from the surface in verse two and the rest just fell into place.

  11. getitrite profile image80
    getitriteposted 4 years ago

    If we are talking literally then what measures a day, in the bible?

    1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
      HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The Hebrew word translated as 'day' is 'yowm'. This same word means day, a number of days, some time, year, age, era

      1. getitrite profile image80
        getitriteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Since "DAY" can mean just about anything you want it to mean, it would clarify things immensely if you would select one definition, so that we can make sense of what you are trying to convey.  Otherwise, there is not much meaning to any of your assertions.

  12. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
    HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago

    It was the part in bold. First it says where God's spirit is, "upon the face of the deep"(v2), then from there He says "Let there be light"(v3).




    He did make two great lights and He made them to serve that particular purpose, as well as to "divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth".

    The thing is, just like it says, the sun/moon/stars were not visible in the sky for the first 4 billion years of Earth's existence. This age that falls right between plant life and vertebrates on land, day 3 and day 5, marks the first time in Earth's history that the atmosphere became transparent so that the sun, the moon, and even stars were visible. And it's also in that same era, as plant life on land continued to absorb carbon dioxide and expel oxygen, that the entirety of the Earth's continental land mass drifted from beneath the planet where daylight lasted for 6 months up to between the poles where they still are today.

    Two things happened in this age between plants and vertebrates that completely changed Earth's sky. Until then the sun, the moon, and the stars simply weren't mentioned specifically. But way back 'in the beginning' it says God created the 'heavens'(v1). It also says there was light(v3) and that he defined the light as day and the dark as night(v5). That's exactly how it was. First the sky changed from opaque (no light) to translucent (light), complete with both day and night. Then 4 billion years later, from translucent (no visible sun/moon/stars) to transparent (visible sun/moon/stars). This was a significant era.




    "cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth" (King James Version)
    "cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth" (Orthodox Jewish Bible)
    cattle and creeping thing, and beast of the earth" (Young's Literal Translation)

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The moon does not define the night. It's not even a light and it's not always in the night sky. The sun defines night and day. You can justify that away as well, but you will notice you are justifying and explaining every sentence.
      You start by saying a day doesn't mean a day, but God obviously knows what a day is because he made day and night and called them just that day and night.

      1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
        HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You can choose to ignore the accuracy of the Genesis creation account by arguing semantics if you like, but I think it's pretty clear. In the age Genesis was written humans were well aware of how often the moon was in the night sky. It still provides light. True, it's reflected light, and not the source itself, but it clearly provides light by being made up of a surface that's highly reflective and serves the purpose specifically stated.

        As far as what a 'day' is, I'm simply pointing out that the same word is used in Hebrew much like we use it today in English. The same word 'day' can mean a 24 hour period, it can mean the portion of the day that the sun is up, or it can be an indeterminate amount of time like "back in the day" or "in his day".

        1. AntonOfTheNorth profile image60
          AntonOfTheNorthposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          All of this is precisely why one should stop treating the bible like it was an objective and scientific account and then compare it to scientific documents and theories.

          The bible is, at best, an subjective interpretation of communication with a deity, which has been ratified through the ages by scholars with confirmation bias.  Comparing it to evolution is like comparing Mein Kampf with an objectively performed (??) historical study of the Third Reich.

          cheers

  13. taburkett profile image60
    taburkettposted 4 years ago

    Until science can prove which came first
    - the chicken or the egg -

    Evolution cannot prove there is no God.

    And,
    until science can prove that the earth is not an object in a science project managed by a higher being,

    Evolution cannot prove there is no God.

    Following the trip to Mars -

    our next space jaunt must be to discover the beginning of the Heavenly Way.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Neither. Obviously, biology is not your strong suit.


      But it can certainly prove there is no direct intervention and definitely proves the Christian bible is false.


      Science has already proven that.


      See above.



      What Heavenly way is this?

      1. taburkett profile image60
        taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Your statements are simply a personal belief.

        Science cannot prove that there was no God.
        Science cannot prove that God did not make the earth.
        Science cannot prove that our souls do not go to Heaven.

        Therefore, science cannot prove the Christian Bible is false.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Ah - another persona. Sorry you did not understand.

          Little wonder your religion causes so many conflicts. sad

          1. ytbot1x profile image59
            ytbot1xposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Are at a loss of words? lol

            Go on buddy, explain a little, if you can... lol

          2. taburkett profile image60
            taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            my religion does not cause any conflicts, because I know everything came from God.

            1. A Troubled Man profile image61
              A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              War, disease, pestilence, starvation, natural disasters, crime, Crusades, witch burnings, Inquisitions, ... everything.

        2. A Troubled Man profile image61
          A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          YOU cannot prove there is a God.
          YOU cannot prove that God made the earth.
          YOU cannot prove souls exist.

          Therefore, you cannot prove the Christian Bible is valid.

          See how that works?

          1. taburkett profile image60
            taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I do not intend to prove to you or anyone else that God exists.
            If you wish to disbelieve, that is your problem, not mine.
            I know he exists in my world because of the life I have lived.
            I know in my world the Christian Bible is valid.
            YOu definitely picked the correct screen name.

    2. scottcgruber profile image93
      scottcgruberposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The egg.

      The "first" domesticated chicken as we know it was a hybrid of red junglefowl and grey junglefowl in South Asia some 4,500 years ago. The offspring of this hybridization would have started as an egg. Therefore, the first gallus gallus domesticus was an egg.

      Not proof of evolution, of course - and unrelated to God. But interesting nonetheless.

      1. taburkett profile image60
        taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        thanks for the insight.
        and so, prior to 4,500 years ago, we do not know where the ancesters of the chicken came from.
        so, we still do not know what came first.

        1. A Troubled Man profile image61
          A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Ever heard of dinosaurs? Oh wait, the Bible makes no mention of them. Never mind, then.

          http://www.poultryhub.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Dino-bird-resp2.jpg

          1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
            HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Don't be so certain.

            In Genesis 1:21 it says "God created great whales and every living creature that moveth..."(KJV). In other translations, instead of stating God created 'great whales', it sometimes says 'great sea animals' (CEB), or 'giant sea monsters' (CEV).

            The actual Hebrew words used here that are translated so many different ways are 'e-thninm', which means 'the monsters', and 'e-gdlim', which means 'the great ones'. We now know that between the debut of vertebrates on land and the appearance of birds there were numerous creatures that much more aptly fit these descriptions than 'great whales' .... namely dinosaurs.
            http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInte … f/gen1.pdf

            If the bible were to mention dinosaurs anywhere, it would be right there.

            1. A Troubled Man profile image61
              A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              LOL! Your posts are indistinguishable from Islamic propagandists who also make up stuff as they go along, attempting to take anything they can and distort it to align with science. Very dishonest.

              Sorry, but great whale are great whales. Mammals, not dinosaurs. lol

              1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Right, and it's the KJV of the Hebrew text that said 'great whales'. The Hebrew version says 'Monsters' and 'Great Ones'. Didn't make that up.

                1. A Troubled Man profile image61
                  A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  YOU said dinosaurs, so yes, you made that up. Try to be even a little honest, if you can.

                  1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                    HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    YOU said the bible makes no mention of them. Hopefully you understand they wouldn't have actually been called 'dinosaurs'. So what would you suggest they call them if they did happen to mention them? Monsters and Great Ones is a pretty apt description.

            2. 0
              Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Ah, dinosaurs did not live in the seas. You know what would be convincing? If we found a translation made before the discovery of Dinosaurs that accurately described them, this way we would know that the writers and the translators had more knowledge then that was known at the time and that they were honest. Sure anyone can come up with a new translation know and say that the original described dinosaurs.

              1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                The translators have no more knowledge than anyone else, except of course where translations are concerned. The key to Genesis is that A) nobody knows who wrote it, and B) nobody knows when it was written. We have some very educated guesses, but nothing concrete. Especially in the case of creation, which was most likely a song passed down verbally for Lord knows how long, there's no telling how old it is.

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Oh yes and I forgot to mention.

                  You will notice that in Genesis 20 God created creatures in the sea and birds. But not until 24 did God create land animals. I'm not sure how we got birds from dinosaurs if the birds came first? I'm sure you have an explanation for that as well.

            3. twosheds1 profile image60
              twosheds1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              If it was true that dinosaurs were mentioned in the Bible, then how come, before dinosaurs were discovered, didn't anyone say "Hey, where's this giant sea creature mentioned in the Bible." I think what you have is people fitting evidence to their preconceived notions.

    3. A Troubled Man profile image61
      A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      LOL! That has got to be one of the most ridiculous, far-fetched conclusions I've read today. Hilarious. lol



      So, you actually have hard evidence that our earth is in fact managed by a higher being? lol

  14. kathleenkat profile image91
    kathleenkatposted 4 years ago

    I don't see why it would disprove God.

    That I know of, no research of any kind has come near to disproving OR proving God.

    1. A Troubled Man profile image61
      A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Doesn't the Bible state that God created everything in the form it's in today? Does evolution agree with that?

      There's your answer, do you see, now?

      1. taburkett profile image60
        taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        God created the earth and all living things.
        This science project resulted in a complex composite of opposing factors for each living object where each provides a portion of the support necessary to sustain the science project.
        Man has named this project nature.
        Man has denied that he cannot determine who created the earth.
        Man has continually denied things that occur because they cannot explain them scientifically.
        God has never failed man, but man continually fails God.

        1. getitrite profile image80
          getitriteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Then it is the fault of your slow witted god.  He could have made successful humans, yet chose to make humans abject failures, then complains.  This makes no sense at all.

          1. taburkett profile image60
            taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            your misconception is not a new venue.
            your perception is stated as one of a disbeliever and so you will never recognize the value that God gave to man.
            I am a successful human made by God.

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I am a successful human made by my parents, and they even stuck around to make sure I made it to adulthood.

              Give credit where it's due.

              1. taburkett profile image60
                taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I was raised by grandparents in a Christian home environment.
                Everything I have is due to the teachinng I received based on Christian principles.

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Give thanks to your wonderful grandparents then because without them you wouldn't have gotten any help from God. He doesn't help homeless children in India or Africa, but your grandparents stepped up to the plate. Give them credit.

                2. A Troubled Man profile image61
                  A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  That's called indoctrination.

                  1. taburkett profile image60
                    taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    that is called love.

                3. getitrite profile image80
                  getitriteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  When one examines the doctrines of religion, it is not the bastion of wonderful moral standards it purports to be:

                  If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness.  (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)

                      2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death.  They are guilty of a capital offense.  (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

                  A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death.  (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

                  If even then you remain hostile toward me and refuse to obey, I will inflict you with seven more disasters for your sins.  I will release wild animals that will kill your children and destroy your cattle, so your numbers will dwindle and your roads will be deserted.  (Leviticus 26:21-22 NLT)

                  1. taburkett profile image60
                    taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I live by the 10 commandments - the principles of life.

            2. getitrite profile image80
              getitriteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              That's because my mind is stable, and I possess the courage to think for myself, instead of allowing others to disable my critical thinking.  The only thing you have is delusion, nothing more.



              Choosing to live your life inside of a silly, childish fairytale is not impressive in the least.  Say something that actually makes sense.

              1. taburkett profile image60
                taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                God gives me strength to live among irrational people who continue to provoke each other with meaningless banter.
                That's because my mind is pure and filled with love of my fellow man.
                My critical thinking has made me healthy, wealthy, and wise.

                1. getitrite profile image80
                  getitriteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  God is imaginary!  Please grow the courage to put away childish nonsense.  It is you, and maybe the ones who are close to you, who has given you the strength to thrive.




                  Yet you are here, deceiving your fellow man about some invisible, nonexistent, psychotic, evil god.  I wouldn't call that love.




                  That's only outside of religion  When it comes to matters of faith, you blindly follow the rest of the sheep.

                  1. taburkett profile image60
                    taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    God is imaginary only in your mind.
                    I see my God everyday.
                    I speak with him and he speaks with me.
                    I treasure every encounter through his principles.

        2. A Troubled Man profile image61
          A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Sorry, but that doesn't agree with evolution.



          Men understand there was no "who".



          Entirely false.

      2. scottcgruber profile image93
        scottcgruberposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        To be fair, disproving Genesis is not exactly the same thing as disproving God. And since different religions and philosophies have defined God to mean pretty much anything they've wanted it to mean over the years, God in the broadest sense is an impossible concept to disprove.

        However, if we just limit the definition to the conceptions of God as Creator, then yes, evolution does force a redefinition. The idea that God is an omnipotent and benevolent creator doesn't jive well with the planet's history of mass extinctions and evolutionary dead ends, nor the vestigial organs, conserved genes, and analagous structures that make living things look exactly like they descended with modification from earlier species through a long process of trial and error. Accepting this as "creation" makes God either a cruel sadist or a blitherting incompetent.

        1. A Troubled Man profile image61
          A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Good one.

      3. kathleenkat profile image91
        kathleenkatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Perhaps God created evolution. Doesn't prove anything to me.

        The Bible doesn't state anything about evolution, and evolution doesn't state anything about the Bible. They are completely unrelated topics that neither prove nor disprove eachother.

        1. A Troubled Man profile image61
          A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Then, the Bible is wrong.



          If the Bible is wrong about something that important, perhaps it should be discarded as myth?



          Evolution shows the Genesis account to be wrong. Simple, really.

          1. kathleenkat profile image91
            kathleenkatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            But we're talking about God here, not the Bible.

            The Bible can't prove or disprove God any more than the theory of evolution can. It's just a book. They are both just forms of written communication.

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Tell that to the creationists.

          2. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
            HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Please, please, show us how evolution shows the Genesis account to be wrong. Show us how simple it is.

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              It's very simple.

              1. We know from evolution that we didn't get here is 5 or 6 days because the bible describes exactly what was meant by a day.

              2. The order is wrong. Birds did not come before land animals, they were in fact once land animals and before that sea creatures.

            2. A Troubled Man profile image61
              A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Genesis Account:

              And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.”  So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.

              And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.”

              “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

              So God created mankind in his own image,  in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

              Evolution Account:

              The evolutionary history of life on Earth traces the processes by which living and fossil organisms have evolved since life on the planet first originated until the present day. The similarities between all present-day organisms indicate the presence of a common ancestor from which all known species have diverged through the process of evolution.

              Btw, you may want to have a look at the Top Ten Monsters in the Bible. Maybe dinosaurs were number 11 and just didn't make the list.

              http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-monsters-in-the-bible.php  lol

              1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                You didn't explain anything. You just copy/pasted a portion of Genesis and a description of evolution. I'm not seeing how the evolution account shows the Genesis account to be wrong.

                According to Genesis life came from the sea. Check. According to Genesis there are three distinct commands that shape life. First the command for life to come from the sea, including birds. This of course mirrors sauropsids. Vertebrates> amphibians> reptiles> dinosaurs> birds. Then a second command calling for 'beasts of the earth' and cattle (mammals) to come forth from the land. And what was already on the land? The animals from day 5. And where did mammals come from. Synapsid reptiles. Hence the branch of Synapsids. Then humans represent another branch.

                So, the origin is right, the order is right, they're broken down correctly by type, there's a specific command that correlates to each branch, and ends with humans.

                Did I miss something?

                1. A Troubled Man profile image61
                  A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  No, that is not a check, life was placed in the sea by God as it appears today, life did not come from the sea. We can duly ignore the rest of your post.



                  Reading comprehension classes.

                  1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                    HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    What? "life was placed in the sea by God as it appears today"?

                    I've literally read these passages countless times in I don't know how many translations, tediously comparing to the original Hebrew word for word, and I've never seen anywhere where it says anything that could even remotely resemble what you just got. Are you serious? What are you basing that on? And then, in the same comment, you also put the bit about reading comprehension? Please, help me understand where your superior reading comprehension got all of that. If I ever hope to improve it would help to know what I'm doing wrong.

  15. socialgirl27 profile image61
    socialgirl27posted 4 years ago

    I know you can't just take my word and make it a final answer but I have to say their is a god, I have been praying in my room and suddenly I have felt this heat poured on me i was amazing and shocked it made me ran out from my room. I was told it was the holy spirit from god its a blessing. I know the truth and no one can't take that away from me. God has now been testing my faith and trials and boy they are hard. I worry on making a mistake or slipping out a bad word cause he see and hears everything. I can not explain or put it in to word but I know he is real i just wish others could give him a chance and see for them self.

    to get this blessing all you have to do is repent for your sins  wrong doings, ask him to change you and forgive others I know that ones hard when someone has really hurt you in the pass but he can show you. I just open the bible and see what god has to say to me today so many question so far has been answered.
    pleased the blood of Jesus to protect you and give you joy in life. This evolution is to confuse us humans and believe in something that don't assist. Think it this way this world is all money making and like to twist things just to have power and money.

    god bless xxx

    1. A Troubled Man profile image61
      A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Who told you that feeling heat is the same thing as the holy spirit from god?



      But, if it wasn't the holy spirit from god and just heat, then why would you continue to embrace a false belief?



      So does Santa Claus.



      No problem, show me your god and I'll give him a chance.



      Considering you get your answers from the Bible and that there is no mention whatsoever of evolution in the Bible, you should probably try and read another book, preferably one that can explain evolution to you. That way, you'll be able to offer a more reasonable argument.

      1. taburkett profile image60
        taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You can see my God only if you personnally look for him.
        I cannot take you to God, I can only take myself to God.
        You must decide who you wish to emulate through your life.
        I choose Jesus and God as my heroes.
        I know they will lead me to the promised land.
        I know that living under their principles will give me a great life.

        1. A Troubled Man profile image61
          A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Interesting, your heroes performed human sacrifice on one another.

          1. taburkett profile image60
            taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            My God did not sacrifice humans.
            Humans performed sacrifice upon other humans.
            Humans who live under my God do not sacrifice humans.

            1. A Troubled Man profile image61
              A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Then, God did not sacrifice his son, Jesus?

              1. taburkett profile image60
                taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                That is correct.
                Man crucified Jesus due to the same irrational theory that profoundly lives today.
                Man is the sinner - but - Jesus did inform us that we can live on the side of His Father to receive his protection and blessing.
                Even in his last days, Jesus lived for his fellow man.
                The world is better because of this regardless of the disappointment that many might find on this world due to their personal lifestyle.

                1. scottcgruber profile image93
                  scottcgruberposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  What theory? That capital punishment is an appropriate form of justice?

                  And if Jesus wasn't a human sacrifice, why is the term "Lamb of God" used to describe him?

                  1. taburkett profile image60
                    taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    we are all lambs in the flock of God.
                    this description was provided by man when most were herding sheep.

  16. 0
    KDuBarry03posted 4 years ago

    As I was reading through some of these posts, I have to say I'm impressed with both arguments looking to prove how each one is right/wrong. Needless to say, I find that evolution and the life span of the universe to be truthful due to extensive research; however, it still doesn't prove that there is/are (a) higher entity(s). Cultures across time, i.e. the Mayans & Egyptians, hold information that have proven useful for comparison in today's scientific research on (a) how the universe was created, (b) if higher beings we normally discuss are aliens [that's a whole other debate that can be saved for another time, and (c) how life on earth works. Through research and the like, we have found different animals from different periods ranging in age. However that may be, there is still one question I'm at an impasse on: If life started off as evolution, and even if there are aliens out there that could have been thought of as the higher deities of ancient myth and script, there is no evidence proving/disproving another higher entity. We simply don't have the evidence to support if there is/are (an) almighty being(s). With evolution, I agree with the research done; however, on the aspect of God and higher beings, I must stay agnostic.

  17. ukseoinnovations profile image59
    ukseoinnovationsposted 4 years ago

    My opinion is that there is no God. I believe that there is something else when we die. I also don't believe that when we die we go to either heaven or hell, as I believe that is what we live everyday. I see an article coming out of this for me to write!

    1. taburkett profile image60
      taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Isn't it wonderful that we can have differing opinions.
      I believe that what we live everyday is man-made heaven or hell here on earth.
      The difference being the way we treat and defend each other in the physical form.
      However, based on our physical form efforts here on earth, I believe that when we transcend to the supernatural we are provided a place in heaven or hell also.
      In the supernatural environment, we can then interact with our loved ones by sending impulses to them that will assist them as they live their physical lives.
      This has happened to me several times in my physical lifetime as my grandparents, mother, brother, and special friends have assisted me in making the right decision to advance my life.
      This world is so wonderful because we do have the right to our own opinion.

      1. A Troubled Man profile image61
        A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        While it is your opinion and belief that the supernatural, heaven and hell exist, there is no evidence of their existence.



        Of course, no one  knows that as there is no evidence to suggest anything of the sort, hence it must be something you have made up yourself.

        1. taburkett profile image60
          taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You will never find it because you oppose it.
          I have found it because I have reaped its benefits.
          I cannot make up something that is happening for me everyday as I grow more healthy, wealthy, and wise through it.

          1. Mark Knowles profile image60
            Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Interesting  - in that case you can prove it to us.

            Please do so.

            1. taburkett profile image60
              taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I am the proof, I have found the light.
              I live it every day.
              If you desire the proof, all you need to do is seek it.
              by the way Mark - it is currently 1:49 est in America - were you looking or thinking about the sun just now?

              1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                No  - sorry. I don't live anywhere near Amerika. lol lol

                1. taburkett profile image60
                  taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  regardless of your geographic position on the earth.
                  were you looking at or thinking about the sun?
                  maybe how you would enjoy a purely sunny day?

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                    Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    No. LOLOLO

                    Sorry - your super being told u wrong into your head.

              2. 0
                Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Wow, it was 1:49 in all of America? Is there only one time zone there?

                Mark, was asking for the proof you said you have, then you told him to seek it out? That's exactly what he was doing when he asked for proof.

                You must have no proof and you must have not found the light.

                1. taburkett profile image60
                  taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I am the proof for me.
                  you must seek your own proof.
                  if you do not find it - then you are not truly looking.
                  an open mind and open heart is all that it takes.
                  but many are unwilling to accept this because they must touch something.
                  If you let it touch you, you will find the proof.

                  1. 0
                    Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I was once a christian, but then I grew up and realized I had been lied to. Do you believe everything you here? Did you see the emperors new cloths?

          2. A Troubled Man profile image61
            A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I do no such thing, but instead welcome Him with open arms.



            All your efforts that have led you to grow are a result of you, your family and friends. Nothing more. Take credit where credit is due.

          3. 0
            Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Why can't you make it up? Are you not very creative?

            Didn't Jesus say something about wealthy people not getting into heaven? Stay poor my friend.

            1. taburkett profile image60
              taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Did I say that my wealth was material?  No.
              My wealth is my life and the many friends that I have both rich and poor who follow the righteous path through the Lord.
              My life is filled with great wealth of the power that the Lord has given me.
              This permits me to achieve many things that others never do.
              It provides me with the means to assist others when no one else can.
              It allows me to make the world a better place through the assistance I can provide.
              It challenges me daily as i meet others like yourself who wish only to view a piece of the scripture.
              Proverbs 29:7 - The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern.

              1. 0
                Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I have all the same things, but I don't attribute these things to the supernatural, and I don't go around bragging about it. I credit myself, that way when things go poorly I take responsibility for that as well. I don't blame the devil and never tell anyone else that they will burn in hell if they don't do as I do.

                The difference between you and me is you attribute success from God and I attribute success from character.

                1. taburkett profile image60
                  taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  your character is very limited because it is based on yourself.
                  mine is very unlimited because it is based on all of mankind.

                  1. 0
                    Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Insulting someone without knowing them is not a good sign of character.

                    How can a persons character be based on all of mankind? You are insulting me and not making any sense. Perhaps you don't understand what character is.

                  2. 0
                    KDuBarry03posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I understand your perception of your public face as a person of God; however, there is too much variation in anthropology, culture, faith, ethnicity, creed, etc. to prove that we are all "lambs of God"; I'm more of a cultural relativist instead of a cultural absolutist (especially with debates on faith) because conflicts occur when one side thinks their right and wants to prove the other one wrong. Yes, there may be a God or gods/goddesses or any other form of a higher being (I must remain agnostic as to what is out there due to the variability of culture and creed); however that may be, it is unethical to say how one's character is "limited" in comparison to your self-prescribed "unlimited" character in which could be seen as "limited" from another's perspective unto you. I can't help but be reminded of all the culture clashes we've had throughout written human history based upon a statement like yours, taburkett. It is understandable and respectable that you are standing your ground on your faith and belief in God and another version of how life began; however, it must be also ethical on your part to see why others believe in different versions. Scientists prefer one way, Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity & Islam) have their own versions, Hinduism, Shinto, continental tribes and etc. all have their own versions. Because of this variation in culture and perspective (and instead of looking at "what's wrong" in other's theories/beliefs on life & creation), why not try and find common ground and what parts you agree and disagree with on this matter? I think there is too much cultural variation to fully believe one theory/belief and totally repel others.

              2. Mark Knowles profile image60
                Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I ur health cancer?

  18. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
    HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago

    That's because you pointed out that Adam is always referred to in the singular, thinking that if there were others then it should have been plural. Genesis 1 says there were others. It's only assumption that says the creation of humans in Genesis 1 and the creation of Adam in Genesis 2 are different depictions of the same event. There were others who already populated the planet by the time Adam was created. But Adam was different. For one, he was created separate from naturally evolved humans. Second, he lived for centuries. Third, he was able to behave contrary to God's will where the humans in Genesis 1 followed God's commands to the letter.

    Genesis 4 does mention others. Others Cain feared encountering after leaving the land of his family. Then it says he built a city. Cain's banishment happened within the first 130 years of Adam's existence. He then built a city around the time he had his first son. Third generation and there's a city. Not a homestead, but a city.




    Everyone specifically said to have been related to Adam lived extended lifespans. Everyone in Genesis 5 and everyone in Genesis 10. Each generation gradually shorter, but still centuries. Most likely because they were breeding with 'mortal' humans. "My spirit will not contend with humans forever".

    The assumption that the sons of God are angels comes from these verses and the book of Job. Neither specifies who they are. However, this is not consistent with the rest of the bible. Not only are the 'sons of God' always human, in the old testament they're always Israelites(Exodus 4:22-23). And in the new testament before Jesus' death/resurrection always Israelites(Luke 3:23-37). After, however, it's always believers...

    John 1:12 – But as many as received him [Jesus Christ], to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.
    Romans 8:14 – For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
    1 John 3:1 – Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God.


    Then there's this ...

    Hebrews 1:5 – For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father”? Or again, “I will be his Father, and he will be my son”?

    See, this is one of the key reasons why I know I'm onto something. Because this one shift, this one slight alteration to the context behind the stories, clarifies the overall story. Rather than being a collection of disjointed ambiguous texts, it becomes one cohesive narrative.

    For example, in this context you have a planet full of naturally evolved humans and one family that began with a man handmade by God and the 'breath of life' breathed into his nostrils directly by God. Then it says, if you continue to breed with these mortal humans, 'My spirit will not contend'. This is followed by a gradual decrease in lifespans. Then comes the 'chosen people' who were direct descendents of Adam/Eve who were given very specific laws that said don't marry outside of your own kind, here's who you can breed with, here's who's too closely related to breed with, and you MUST breed. Oh, and only eat this. In Ezra 9 it's mentioned, don't mix the 'holy seed'. This is the bloodline that spawned a virgin birth. This same bloodline who was protected and who still carried "God's spirit" that "would not contend with [mortal] humans forever". Then, after Jesus died and was resurrected, comes the "Holy Spirit". Now, all of the sudden, anyone could be a 'son of God'. Now the 'holy seed'/'God's spirit' was no longer physically retained in one bloodline, but could now be given to all.




    Yes, when there's population, like the thousands and thousands of immigrants who came to America, a nation/civilization can form quickly. But less than 200 years and only 8 or so generations starting with a small family? And not just two civilizations, but both had a ruling and working class. Kings (Sumer) and Pharaohs.

  19. getitrite profile image80
    getitriteposted 4 years ago
    1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
      HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, Emma and I had quite the back and forth when I first published my hub on the creation account. But, to be fair to her, the pictures I now include in that hub showing the geologic timescale and all of that wasn't there when she first read it. It was just the written bit. Personally, I think that stuff makes it much easier to follow.

      Did you read these? Mine and hers? Any thoughts?

    2. taburkett profile image60
      taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      "The First Six Days: Why the Genesis Account is not Compatible with Science  If God created the sun on the fourth day........"

      good question - but still a supposition, not a fact.
      science has provided a vague description of the past, not a full truthful substantiated description, just a theory based on assumptions.
      the quandry is that man seeks to find the physical being, not the spiritual one.  scientists will continue to be baffled because they will not find the physical until the Lord returns in the final days.
      mankind has a problem with this because mankind is composed of sinners who seek to use only mankind theory.
      the spirit lives and the content people of mankind understand that the spirit lives.
      those who are caught up in the rapture of the physical will never understand that the spirit lives.

      1. getitrite profile image80
        getitriteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        However, nothing explains reality like an ancient book, written(plagiarized) by ignorant goat herders, right?



        And just what method are you using to validate that you have found a spirit?  What is it composed of?   How did you identify it?  Surely you are not just going on childish whimsical ignorance.

         

        And, of course, these brilliant men and women of science should consult your expertise, since you have identified their shortcomings.  You could teach them a thing or two.  Who would have thought?



        lol



        Eloquent, but disturbing nonsense.

        1. taburkett profile image60
          taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I learned at an early age that my life has been filled with God focused support.
          The one most easily explained is one of potential death where an enemy could have easily killed me if God had not intervened.
          my plight and story is this.
          In explanation, my acceptance of my position to support God through my life began during military duty many years ago when I found myself in a precarious position while behind enemy lines I came face to face with an enemy combatant. 
          Most people being in that position would have reacted immediately by discharging their weapon and killing the enemy.  But, there was something about this particular situation that was much different from the deductive reactionary battle training that I had received during field training for combat.  The difference with this particular situation was that this enemy, who was less than 10 feet away with his weapon already focused on me, appeared not prepared to attack or shoot me.  No, this enemy seemed to be as fearful for his life, because he and I had become entangled in a chaotic fire-fight involving our respective buddies who were battling violently all around us. 
          At that moment, I believe that my enemy was as afraid of losing his life if he fired upon me, just as I was fearful of losing my life if I fired upon him.  It became apparent to me that neither of us knew exactly where our buddies were so we did not know if we were in a safe or hostile zone.  While we both had our weapons pointed at each other, we just sat there in stalemate, trying to decide what was going to happen next.  Then, all of a sudden all the violent chaos and piercing sound of weapons being discharged ceased.  My enemy and I just stared at each other in despair as if were both going to die if we fired our weapons. 
          I quickly assessed my predicament.  But just about when I was sure there was little that could be done, I thought of something that my grandmother always told me when I went off to play, “Smile you young boy, no one can react negatively to a smile.”  So, I smiled the biggest and proudest smile I could muster.  And then, just as my grandmother had always predicted, my enemy smiled back at me.  I nodded and then he nodded.  I lowered my weapon and he lowered his.  I got up to leave and then I saw that he had been wounded.  He had taken a bullet in the right side of his chest just under the shoulder and appeared to now be weak from the injury. 
          For some reason, to this day I do not know why, I went over to him and offered my medical pack so he could bandage his gaping wound.   When I saw that he was having difficulty, I assisted him with the bandage and then once again got up to start to leave.  But as I bent down to smile at him again, he grabbed my arm and pointed to the far side of the field from where we were.  In the dim light, I could see his buddies. 
          They were coming our way.   Now, I knew I was sure in a mess.  But just when I thought my time was up, he shouted out to his buddies and they responded.  Then, just as quickly as they had appeared, they were gone. 
          I turned back to look at my enemy and he was grinning.  Then, he opened his field jacket and showed me his shiny gold cross.   And, then he pointed to my chest and the parachute harness that I was still wearing.  I had cut the chute off of it when I landed because it was all tangled and covered with mud.  And when the chaos started I did not have time to shed the harness.  There in the middle of my chest was a dark metal cross.  Not a real cross, but a cross made by the two bindings that had become tangled in my chute lanyards during the jump.  When I had cut and ripped the chute off the harness to discard it, they had slipped together into a perfect four inch dark metal cross.  As he touched the cross on my chest, he said one word I understood – GOD.  If I had been confronted by any other enemy, I would not be writing this story today.  I know that GOD brought us together that evening in that chaotic field.
          With that, he pointed me in the right direction and then headed off in the opposite direction to rejoin his buddies.  I knew that God had been with me in that chaotic field that night.  I think about that young man often, especially when I see someone wearing a gold cross.  I often wonder if that young man is as happy as I am today.  I pray that he lived through the Vietnam War.

          It should not take this type of example for people to understand that GOD does support those who believe.  But I know that this is just an example of the power of the spirit that lives.

          1. getitrite profile image80
            getitriteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            That's a great, life altering story, as I am a former serviceman myself.  But instead of God causing crosses to magically appear, why didn't He just STOP THE WAR or PREVENT MAN FROM STARTING IT IN THE FIRST PLACE?

            1. AndReall profile image62
              AndReallposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Man has free will, God gave us free will. God didn't design war. We did. Stop blaming God.

              You're now showing courtesy. Good improvement. Keep it up.

              1. A Troubled Man profile image61
                A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Hmmm... maybe THAT was his biggest mistake.  Give us a will to be free to choose, yet construct a belief system for us to live that does little more than ignore our freedom to choose. big_smile

            2. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
              HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Humans make their own misery. What would there be to learn, to gain from experiencing this life, if God nerfed the world and prevented bad things from happening? If there were no consequences for our decisions and actions, or the decisions and actions of others, because God constantly intervened, then there would be no risk.

              1. psycheskinner profile image81
                psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                But the people who make the misery are not the ones who suffer it. So that is hardly fair.

                1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                  HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  It's not about being fair. It's about actions and consequences. If each of us are to have our own minds and able to make our own decisions, then there are effects to our causes, good and bad. The ripples of the things we do are often felt far beyond what we even know, again good or bad.

                  If you think about it, that's what makes life meaningful. There's risk and danger everywhere. Like in the story above. That story would mean nothing if there was no real risk of dying. Love, time spent with family and loved ones, good times, all of those things are cherished because they are fleeting. Like in the same way death gives life urgency and purpose. Without inevitable death, without that unseen ticking clock or eventual expiration date, each day would have little worth because there would always be tomorrow.

                  1. psycheskinner profile image81
                    psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I can see how that makes sense of out overall situation, like a child born with a disorder that causes it to die in agony within hours.  Not actions or consequences there.  Just arbitrary suffering.

                    Or why the actions of one person exploiting others (like a warlord with an army of children seizing power) can let them live in happy comfort like long--horrible actions, wonderful consequences.

            3. taburkett profile image60
              taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              not enough believers and followers.
              during my tour, I discovered that only about 1% of us believed in God.
              I lost many friends that evening, but none of them had found him yet.
              Later, I was assigned to a unique squad to escort the fallen members home.  I discovered then that most if not all of those who were killed had little or no belief in the Lord.  I prayed before, during, and after every mission.
              As a battlefield controller, I worked many joint forces efforts.
              During one such effort, I was overhead as a spotter and radioman.
              When our aircraft was returning to our base in Thailand, I heard a distress call on my headset.  We wnet back to that location and supported the soldiers on the ground with several passes using our gattling guns to disburse the enemy.  When the choppers arrived to pick up the remaining soldiers, we left the battle and headed home to rest.
              31 years later at a High School gathering where I was chosen for the local Hall of Fame, I found out that one of my classmates had been on the ground at that battle.  I told him that I had been overhead and had heard their radio call for help.  He told me their radio had been destroyed when their radioman had been hit by a mortar.  I found out that day that Dick had survived along with 5 others.  They had lost 27 soldiers in that battle.  Dick and I attended the same church for 18 years together before going off to different colleges.  We still attend the same church today.  And when we see each other, we pray together to thank the Lord for allowing me to save him and those 5 others.  You see, my life has been blessed in many ways.

              1. A Troubled Man profile image61
                A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                A noble story, but it certainly makes no sense that your god picked out 5 guys and "allowed" you to save them while the other soldiers died, let alone that you believe that's what happened as if you knew it for a fact.

                And, while I understand the common answer from an argument of incredulity is that your god works in mysterious ways, it is still a huge insult to the intelligence of those who were saved, let along those who died, especially when you believe it as fact.

                1. taburkett profile image60
                  taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  You definitely have chose the correct page name.
                  While on duty in Germany, I was assigned to a special unit supporting the Berlin area.
                  During our duty, we would provide speacial support to Congressmen and other VIPs visiting the area.
                  On one of our trips from West Germany to Berlin, the assigned security team had one individual who did not show up for the mission and so I was assigned to transport the House Armed Services Committee chairmen and his enterage around Berlin.  During my mission, we were to proceed to a dinner at the Embassy in Berlin for the British.  As I drove up to the entrance to the British sector, I saw that there were no guards at the gate.  So, I immediately turned away from the British sector a proceeded to the safe house designated for the Chairman.  Later we found that the guards were fighting the Red Army Faction who were attempting to get into the Consulate Offices.  They had tried to warn us of this, but we never received the warning because our radio was not functioning.  When the Chairman asked me why I was leaving the area, I simply explained that I had a gut feeling because the guards were not at their posts.  But what I saw was a guard standing in the middle of the entrance as I approached.  This was not a normal guard, becuase this guard did not create a shadow in the headlights of the car as we approached.  I was very shocked by this but never told this story until 1 month ago when I was asked to tell the most wonderous story I could think of concerning God's activity in my life.  This is the one that came to mind immediately.
                  I do not know why the 5 individuals lived when their radio had been destroyed.  I do not question the results of any of the wonderful things that have happened in my lifetime.  I just continue to thank God daily as I am allowed to continue his work.

          2. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
            HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            That's an incredible story. Thanks for sharing.

  20. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago

    I think the assumption that childhood suffering punishes the sins of the parents is unjustified and morally abhorrent.

    If this is the kind of morality that springs from religion, I am happier without it.

    1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
      HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Not sure which response you were referring to, but I did not mean to give the impression that I think this could be punishment for moral behavior. Sure, moral decisions could have led to physical action, or inaction, which then had physical consequences.

    2. taburkett profile image60
      taburkettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      many drug users have created much newborn suffering.  some is created by the original drug user even through multiple generations.  This is due to the sins of the parent of one of the generations.  This is the kind of morality that springs from the Devil, not God.  The consequences are due to the human sin.  With the current level of immoral activity in society we see more of this suffering.  If we want the suffering to stop, we must begin to rebuild moral principles as outlined under God.

 
working