jump to last post 1-13 of 13 discussions (30 posts)

Evolution and God

  1. lostgirlscat profile image57
    lostgirlscatposted 7 years ago

    Which theory comes closest to answering the question of the origin of mankind and why?

        A. The theory of evolution is correct and God had no part in the process.


        B. The theory of evolution is essentially correct, but God started and guided the process (i.e. intelligent design)


        C. God created human beings in pretty much their present form approximately 10,000 years ago and evolution is not a valid theory.

    1. Deborah-Lynn profile image77
      Deborah-Lynnposted 7 years ago in reply to this

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

  2. zadrobi profile image59
    zadrobiposted 7 years ago

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

    1. lostgirlscat profile image57
      lostgirlscatposted 7 years ago in reply to this

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

    2. lostgirlscat profile image57
      lostgirlscatposted 7 years ago in reply to this

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

      1. zadrobi profile image59
        zadrobiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Wrong game.

  3. cassidydahustla profile image61
    cassidydahustlaposted 7 years ago

    How about god created science

    1. Cagsil profile image60
      Cagsilposted 7 years ago

      Evolution and God?

      It is an irrelevant question.

      Evolution is still being explored.

      God is a mystical figure created to control people.

      So, I'll simply say- Existence!

      The Universe Exists.
      The Earth Exists.
      The People of Earth Exists.

      No other answer required.

      1. lostgirlscat profile image57
        lostgirlscatposted 7 years ago in reply to this

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

        1. Cagsil profile image60
          Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Okay, NONE of the above.

          Is that better.

      2. profile image0
        SirDentposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        When was God created and by whom?

      3. The Rope profile image60
        The Ropeposted 7 years ago in reply to this

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

    2. TimTurner profile image70
      TimTurnerposted 7 years ago

      I don't believe in god but not because of evolution.

      I don't see why evolution and a divine creator couldn't co-exist.

      1. Stimp profile image76
        Stimpposted 7 years ago in reply to this

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

    3. hudsonj1994 profile image60
      hudsonj1994posted 7 years ago

      I say B

    4. Valerie F profile image61
      Valerie Fposted 7 years ago

      None of the above, though I'd probably come closer to believing B to be true. I don't think the theory of evolution as it currently stands is 100% correct. However, it's the best explanation for biodiversity, the fossil record, et cetera, that we currently have, so I roll with it.

      I also believe that to assume evolution disproves more literary (as well as the literal) interpretations of the Bible and even the very existence of God is to jump to conclusions unsupportable by logic.

      1. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        As this is not in the irrational beliefs section, I will step in.

        Logic:

        1. Evolution is adaptation to changes in the environment and random mutations
        2. Evolution happens
        3. Evolution is an incredibly ineffective way to develop something
        4. Evolution as a theory does not stand up to the suggestion that there was a guiding hand involved. In fact, breaks down if this is the case and becomes worthless.
        5. evolution can not have had a developmental destination

        6. The christian god therefore does not and can not exist.

        A god that just threw everything in a pot to "see what came out"? OK - I could go with that. That actually makes sense. As for the worshiping and passive/aggressive "love"?

        1. jenblacksheep profile image78
          jenblacksheepposted 7 years ago in reply to this

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

    5. wyanjen profile image86
      wyanjenposted 7 years ago

      A.

      If you are a believer, evolution does not have to mean that there is no god.

      But, if you do not believe in god, evolution provides an alternate answer to the question "How did we get here?"

      My problem with the argument is that science is still advancing and will continue to provide new answers, while religion is static. Unless more ancient texts are discovered, there won't be new answers.

    6. Valerie F profile image61
      Valerie Fposted 7 years ago

      I disagree with your fourth premise.

      1. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Of course you do. But that just means you do not understand the first, second or third premise. wink

        Plus - you have already decided that there must be a god and it must be the christian god - and now you need to make the facts fit.

        There can not have been a guiding hand in the evolutionary process because that implies a pre-determined destination, which makes the entire theory worthless.

        Plus the third premise is worth discussion. What an incredibly slow way of "creating something in His image." Therefore - either this god is a) not all powerful and this was the only avenue or b) there is no such god.

    7. Valerie F profile image61
      Valerie Fposted 7 years ago

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

      1. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        No - effectiveness is implied in the 100% perfect god that you have created. wink

        Or are you saying that your god is not perfect?

        And yes - you are the one presupposing the purpose also. wink  Remember - "created in his own image."

        Guess this is where we start reaching for the semantics huh?

    8. Valerie F profile image61
      Valerie Fposted 7 years ago

      You're the one saying that evolution is ineffective. I'm asking exactly what about it is ineffective. I don't think you can answer that question without presupposing a purpose to it.

      Also, I don't agree that evolution necessarily involves random mutations. Where is randomness even in the theory?

      1. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        It is only ineffective if you assume a destination.

        If there is no pre-determined destination it is 100% effective.

        Therefore we were not the goal because there was no pre determined destination.

        Therefore the christian god does not exist.

        Mutations are random. Whether they are successful or not is another question.

        1. lostgirlscat profile image57
          lostgirlscatposted 7 years ago in reply to this

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

          1. wyanjen profile image86
            wyanjenposted 7 years ago in reply to this

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

            Mutation is random.

            1. lostgirlscat profile image57
              lostgirlscatposted 7 years ago in reply to this

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

    9. habee profile image90
      habeeposted 7 years ago

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

    10. spiderpam profile image47
      spiderpamposted 7 years ago

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

     
    working