Evolution and God

Jump to Last Post 1-13 of 13 discussions (30 posts)
  1. lostgirlscat profile image61
    lostgirlscatposted 9 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 image78
      Deborah-Lynnposted 9 years agoin reply to this

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

  2. zadrobi profile image59
    zadrobiposted 9 years ago

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

    1. lostgirlscat profile image61
      lostgirlscatposted 9 years agoin reply to this

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

    2. lostgirlscat profile image61
      lostgirlscatposted 9 years agoin reply to this

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

      1. zadrobi profile image59
        zadrobiposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        Wrong game.

  3. cassidydahustla profile image60
    cassidydahustlaposted 9 years ago

    How about god created science

    1. Cagsil profile image80
      Cagsilposted 9 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 image61
        lostgirlscatposted 9 years agoin reply to this

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

        1. Cagsil profile image80
          Cagsilposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          Okay, NONE of the above.

          Is that better.

      2. profile image0
        SirDentposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        When was God created and by whom?

      3. The Rope profile image60
        The Ropeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

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

    2. TimTurner profile image74
      TimTurnerposted 9 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 image71
        Stimpposted 9 years agoin reply to this

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

    3. hudsonj1994 profile image61
      hudsonj1994posted 9 years ago

      I say B

    4. Valerie F profile image55
      Valerie Fposted 9 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 9 years agoin reply to this

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

        Logic:

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

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

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

        1. jenblacksheep profile image84
          jenblacksheepposted 9 years agoin reply to this

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

    5. wyanjen profile image81
      wyanjenposted 9 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 image55
      Valerie Fposted 9 years ago

      I disagree with your fourth premise.

      1. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 9 years agoin 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 image55
      Valerie Fposted 9 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 9 years agoin 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 image55
      Valerie Fposted 9 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 9 years agoin reply to this

        It is only ineffective if you assume a destination.

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

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

        Therefore the christian god does not exist.

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

        1. lostgirlscat profile image61
          lostgirlscatposted 9 years agoin reply to this

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

          1. wyanjen profile image81
            wyanjenposted 9 years agoin reply to this

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

            Mutation is random.

            1. lostgirlscat profile image61
              lostgirlscatposted 9 years agoin reply to this

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

    9. habee profile image93
      habeeposted 9 years ago

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

    10. spiderpam profile image76
      spiderpamposted 9 years ago

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

     
    working

    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

    Show Details
    Necessary
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Features
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Marketing
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Statistics
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)