was curious about what do Christians think about theory of evolution..in this forum i have found statements rejecting it by few..do everyone rejects it ?
Even when there is so much evidence and knowledge about human evolution? Yes, there are still huge gaps in our knowledge, but that does not refute the theory of evolution
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ … devil.html
There's people who reject evelution because they are mentally lazy and believe some BS fairy story that was told to them over and over to the point where they believe it without question. There's also people who believe the earth is flat!
Many things can get lost in translation.
The Big Band did happen.
Did God speak the bang into being? or is God the highest intelect produced in the Bang?
I don't know if it makes any difference?
Either way; after the earth cooled down... The spirit of God moved over the body of water and life abounded (evolved??)
God saw that it was all good and he then created man.
Does it really matter how?
Does it really matter how many times civilization flourished upon the earth?
I do not see the above statement as being in conflict with the Genesis account.
I only have to see mans written account as not being absolutely 100% perfectly correct in their understanding or translation.
None of which has anything at all to do with evolution.
Sorry - if you don't know what the theory of evolution says - why not ask about it?
I choose to exersize free will to believe most but not all of the evolution theory.
I choose to not be a slave to the religionist theory of the creation of the earth 6000 years ago.
If I stay halfway between the two ditches; I might be on the right road? If I am wrong then I am wrong? At least I won't be following something that I do not believe in.
But - what on earth do you think the theory of evolution says if you are referencing how many times civilization has risen?
Seem to me you are just adjusting proven facts to suit an irrational belief system that you would otherwise have to reject.
Can you specify your meaning of evolution.
There is no proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, Creator did not set in motion the development or dismantling of any/all organic systems.
The human expression of those events, by any measure of sensation, equation, hypothesis is just that -human. And those considerations are seen by human injection, human methods, for human purposes, resulting in human explanations/adaptations for those events.
No, belief is a personal thing. Just because someone calls themselves a Christian doesn't mean that they reject evolution. I consider myself a follower of Christ, yet there is room in my personal view of the world to incorporate science and technology into my belief system.
It becomes especially interesting when you consider that the scientific method arose, in part, due to the desire of Christians in the previous centuries to gain a better understanding of the mind of God. Even more interesting is that the scientific method did not arise as a discrete discipline in other societies or religions. Why is that I wonder?
I don't see how the scientific method (hypothesis, testing, theory) can result in any information about God, let alone a better understanding of His mind. Hypothesis is certainly possible, but the reproducible testing is not. Indeed, any testing was normally shut down violently any time it produced a theory that was in opposition to the hypotheses of the religious elite.
I would also take exception to the idea that no other society or religion produced the scientific method, or something very close to it. The Chinese found gunpowder - it did not just happen to laying around. They experimented with it and found ways to use it effectively. The Europeans were not the only people to examine the world around them and make discoveries about it.
Do onto others as they would have do onto to you. Everything else is conjecture.
I don't reject evolution, if you mean small changes over time, as evolution. I just reject Darwinian evolution, because I think it is lacking in real good science. It takes too great of leaps. I think if we stick to what we see and observe in the world, and don't presuppose any extra things into it, then that is where the truth is.
Evolution, if you mean small changes over time, can be observed every day, and most of the people I know that are religious don't have a problem with that.
What is really needed, is a definition of what is meant by evolution. There is more than one definition out there, and the ones I have seen, are very different. Thanks for asking ,as it is often misundertood by many people.
I also reject it.
I am a Catholic Christian and believe God created man. This is my faith and my faith is strong.
I believe in evolution of humans on earth, but on the same token I believe that some supreme being created the universe, so with that it's sort of a combination.
I believe in a combination - but cannot force myself to believe man 'evolved' from a sea creature or monkeys.
God created earth and man. I believe God planned for evolution (different blood types and genetics, DNA...) I do not believe carbon dating is capable of accurately determining the age of anything let alone anyone being able to say precisely how old Earth really is.
but u do believe in fossil of homo series..right?..
uumm......?? lol I believe in You I believe in Love I believe in Babies ....I believe in ....Many Things! lol
simple pray for the ultimate truth with honesty, humility and conviction and it will come to you.
simple pray for the ultimate truth with honesty, humility and conviction and it will come to you.
I accept both God's creation of everything, and the Theory of Evolution
Indeed, I don't understand why it must be one or the other. It's a false dichotomy.
Dawrin's theory seems sound to me (although I was a history and pol. sci .major, so what do the hell do I know about science lol)
We must embrace scientific thought, rationality and logic, and not run away from knowledge (Adam ate the apple, so we gotta deal with the consequences now).
Faith in God doesn’t mean you have to bury your head under a rock (not that I am implying any Hubbers here are doing that). In terms of explaining how Biblical accounts can reconcile with Darwin, Galileo, or other evidence that seems to reject various Biblical interpretations of the world, I don't feel that I am wise enough to explain, presumptuous enough that I can understand, or need to be able to in order to be at intellectual ease in my faith.
As God’s replied to Job (sic Greek One).... "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof."
Homer, methinks you do think a lot.
It's very good.
I'm not sure what "God" is, but there is something wonderful out there, whether it's just consciousness or a being of some kind. Evolution makes perfect sense to me, as it did to Darwin.
As to the full extent of evolution, from single cell to man, I don't see enough proof one way or another. But Darwin did document some startling evidence of evolution types.
thanks.. i'll be here all week.. try the chicken (which was evolved from a much smaller chicken with the help of steriods and breeding techniques)
You should read Alfred Russel Wallace's work on it, Greek. It may not seem so sound then. None of his list of questions in regards to evolutions inability to account for many of the traits we find in man have ever been answered.
And though you may be able to list some many similairities bteween the great apes and man... the differences are inumerable.
And though you may be able to list some many similairities bteween the great apes and man... the differences are inumerable...
You clearly haven't dated the types of women I have
and the greek bends shows up with misogynistic quips!
oh come now, that wasn't misogynistic!
It might have been anti-women-who-look-like-apes...
but as a man who looks like an ape himself on a good day, i don't see how you can call it misogynistic (perhaps superficial, etc... but not mysogenistic)
women who look like apes is not a misogynistic quip?
of course not.. men can look like apes too!
but that is not what you said greek bends.
now there is no need to be mean...
why would i compare the men I have dated to apes when I have not dated any men?
In fact, one of the reasons I never dated men was of their ape-like features!
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.( Leonardo Da Vinci) Perhaps in religous belief to?
Do you similarly reject the THEORY of gravity, the THEORY of thermodynamics, Relativity THEORY, Quantum THEORY? Or are you just demonstrating that you don't really know what a theory is?
I'm sure I do a lot better than you. Additionally, the first two are LAWS. Way to make a point LOL.
They are theories formulated as laws, yet Newtonian gravity is disproved. Still good enough for practical purposes, but wrong.
Well if you can provide me the value for this I will believe everything you two geniuses say:
I've not studied Lambda calculus, but I don't see why you bring it up now?
Sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about.
Then don't try to sway your opinions on me if you don't even understand what you believe in.
Again, I have no idea what you're talking about. I did not try to sway my opinions on you, I simply and honestly answered your question. If that is wrong of me, I will strive never to honestly answer your questions again, if that is what you wish.
Don't worry about it, it's not a big deal. I just thought that because you brought up certain subjects you would understand. Sorry about my assumptions.
No worries. I do understand General Relativity and why it replaced Newtonian theory of gravity.
Why are you laughing? Is is such that because I took the time to understand the theory, that I did the rigor and the work?
As Dr. Evil would say, "You just don't get it do you?"
No, I never did get it.
I never could understand why people rejected education and understanding even though they were given brains to think. Of course, the answer lies in religious indoctrination, the defeating of the intellect, the suppression of critical thinking skills and the death of the brain as it was intended to be used.
Choosing to remain ignorant was never meant to be part of the human condition, and instead has become the human condition.
humans "educating" humans???
humans indoctrinating other humans to be anti-indoctrinated by that doctrine according to that human.
Enlighten the less fortunate, Q ,and then we'll set a Mid West tent revival tour with you, Wayne Newton and Richard Dawkins.
Your whole statements points to how ignorant you are in your education. You were indoctrinated by choice to both religion and now science. Put all the blame on religion?! Yeah, and then you'll have to find something else to blame when they are gone...
It's ok to not understand something without attacking religion.
Lambda equals what?
Lambda equals what?
What is a theory in any subject. Only through practicle application testing a theory can it be deemed as legitimate and credible.
You'll find that those who reject evolution do not understand what they are rejecting. They reject it based on what their holy books state about creationism, hence they don't need to understand it.
It's like small children who still believe in magic and pixie dust and haven't accepted reality due to ignorance.
The difference is that believers will actually choose not to learn anything and would rather remain ignorant.
It clearly demonstrates how lethal religious indoctrination is to mankind and our future.
You do realize that is only your opinion, right?
I reject evolution in terms of man evolving from sea creatures or monkeys. I don't believe man 'evolves' by changing form, however, blood types & DNA "prove" evolution does occur as does the movement of man (to populate the earth) proves evolution.
I am a firm believer in God and the Bible and I believe in Magic. (One who believes in Magic doesn't usually believe in God)
Where does that put me in terms of ignorance for rejecting evolution??
Blanket statements are useless statements.
The theory of evolution has some serious gaps.
...and creationist use rigid standards to disprove evolution, but require only faith to prove creation.
Some outright reject the theory of evolution, but readily accept biblical creationism, which is way more implausible than evolution.
To them, it makes more sense that god breathed life into some dust, rather than life evolved over millions of years.
I would seriously like you to point out what these gaps are.
The usual thing religious types point out is a gap in the fossil record, the problem is those damn excavators keep uncovering new fossils which continually fill in those gaps.
Are you implying that my statement is, in some way, supporting creationism?
Gaps in evolution support creationism, just as they support the existence of teh flying spaghetti monster. That doesn't prevent the gaps being used by creationists as a groundless argument.
If we didn't have a belief system in anything. How would we have evolved to the present day? What form of conscience would guide us through the life experiences that we encounter reject or embrace.
"The theory of evolution has some serious gaps." True. As we learn more, and fill in the gaps, we refine the theory. That's how science works.
"Some outright reject the theory of evolution, but readily accept biblical creationism, which is way more implausible than evolution."
And that's how faith works.
And that's okay, just don't try to teach it in science class, 'cos it ain't science. It's either religion or philosophy, and there'd be nothing wrong with teaching about creationism in a comparative religion class (even in a public school, imo) or a philosophy class.
i'm chatholic as well and I believe god created everything and let evolution take over. I also listen to all side and never totally reject others theories.
There are plenty of Christians who do believe in the Theory of Evolution. However these are the same people who I argue are not real Christians, since they talk more about the values of Christianity, and avoid talking about their belief in God.
You can follow moral values without religion.
There is very little of the religious fervour which appears in America still left present in Europe.
I've never rejected the theory of evolution. I've never rejected science in any way. The same as Isaac Newton, Galieo, Darwin......... People who embraced science and religion. Without science, religion would not exist and without religion, there would be great open voids in scientific theory.
So to answer your question- No, Christians do not reject evolution or any other scientific theory.
Actually, without religion, Galileo would most likely have been the first person to walk on Mars rather than being held captive by the medieval church.
Really? How so? (by scientific proof, if you please).
IE is very correct, in that without the sensation keeling the equation, the value of your discoveries/hypothesis is void, useless and does not benefit the whole of humanity -for human purposes. Same goes in reverse. Remove them both and you have an altogether different perspective/approach to everything.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Gibberish.
He's amazing isn't he. He has a special place in my heart this way. Q, the guy who ruined that name for me when he is such an interesting character in Star Trek TNG
Q was in awe and complete fear of the human equation.
He understood and realised that our species would evolve even higher than his own and wanted to test our metal in every shape manner and form by being the blowfly in the custard of john luc picards breakfast serial!
Which would you prefer a world of religion or a world of science?
The greatest asset and liability we have at our very disposal is free will and freedom of choice. We all have the right to choose what we want everyday of our lives or reject it in total and walk away from everyone and everything.
Then quality of life comes into the picture, for you to seriously consider.
I am content with my belief system. We all are seeking that contentment easily or with great difficulty. Keep it simple!
i would prefer world of spirituality backed by science ..i would not prefer religion world..
To even back spirituality, there needs to be proof for spirit (soul) which religious nutcase can't bring and there we go with arguments with religious people. Just like this:
We have had many years of religion without much science until the last few centuries. People were sick and ignorant because they didn't have science to discover medicine or to teach them the lightning didn't come from god.
Diseases spread into epidemics which wiped out many people despite the prayers of the religious folk of the day. The earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. And you and your kind are trying to put us back into that unwashed and ignorant state with you imaginary gods and demons.
You would have fit right in back then. You have the requirements to be a shaman or soothsayer if you desire the old ways. Not today though! Just those with delusions follow your words.
err, Randy, science has existed with religion equally. Even the religious texts confirm it. The Egyptians, Mayans, etc used what religions called sorcery, magic, the craft, to make potions, powders, forge gold, iron, you name it -which is sceince.
They had a huge variety of medicines, machines, weapons, back then too. If anything, the advancement of science -like religion- has caused more harm than good. The A bomb, Petroleum, any synthetically compounded medication, weapons, machines -the list is endless...
People are sick and ignorant NOT because of the lack of medicine/science or religion -just the opposite -too much of them both. Name me one person who is still alive after the use of those methods of medicine, say from 1910 to 2010.
A spoonful of glucose helps the synthetically designed anti aging potion -sold by the sexy blond priestess model- go down in the most delightful way...?
Do christians reject theory of evolution?
Do Bears crap in the bush?
Do the trees that they squat under still get pollenated by the same type of colored bugs as they did 1,000,000 years BC?
Hahaha....... Prove It.... With Scripture
The only thing I reject is teaching the "theory of evolution" as fact.
you apparently don't realize what it takes to call anything a fact
It's when you gain an understanding of evolution do you yourself come to the realization it is a fact. It's still taught as a theory.
The theory of evolution in part is undeniably true. Short legged deer were caught by the tiger. Long legged deer lived to breed. Genetic mutations are also a reality. Some mutations can be seen as a improvement, better able to survive, others not so lucky.
But to think that an ameba turned into a frog and a frog turned into a monkey stretches the imagination a bit too far for a sane person beyond its capabilities.
Bunny rabbits popping out of an Easter egg is much more likely.
I would say that it takes much more blind faith to believe that a drop of murk grew legs, climbed a tree and now here we are. murk just does not turn into eggs or seeds.
Now after the seeds and or eggs were planted here; YES of course things do evolve.
You say what created the seeds and or eggs.... I ask what caused the big bang?
You say what created the seeds and or eggs.... I ask what caused the big bang?...stalemate
... I ask What caused the God?
We have plenty of evidence in support for evolution...now I would ask what evidence do u have in support of God?
The historical Jesus is hard to trace back, even if he existed he was an ordinary human who didnt matter to most of the part...what evidence do u have that God came, visited & left while most of the world didnt even realize that?
How did life just spontaneously generate from nothing? What about the complete lack of transitional life-forms in the fossil record?
I dont fall in either of these camps... I just like a good arguement.
The process of abiogenesis.
The fossil record IS a demonstration of transitional life-forms.
There is a lack of transitional life forms in the fossil record. I'm not going to debate that. I know that. So are you saying that all life forms are transitional?
And what about my question about life spontaneously appearing from nothing?
That's a relief, for a minute there I thought you were going to draw out the same misleading and ignorant argument creationists use to support their myths.
lack doesnot mean it is not there..it mean it might not be there or it is still to be discovered..science's quest to find continues and would keep on continuing..
I answered it. Are you asking a different question now?
What question is that? Your considered opinion that it is not possible, therefore it must have been majik? LOLOLOL
Or do you think evolution attempts to explain that in some way?
When you say "lack of" do you mean "there are some missing" or "there are no transitional forms"?
What caused the big Bang?
What caused God?
What caused a lump of dirt to grow legs and climb a tree??
Fact is we can follow the trail back to where the horizon ends and we keep coming back to where we started.
That is why the theory of evolution is a theory. It is provable only up to a point. And then speculation is necessary to reach a desired conclusion.
We can only prove things up to the boundaries lines of the realm of our reality that we live in..
There is a reality that extends way beyond our understanding; both outwardly towards infinity and inwardly towards infinity.
Life in an oxymoron both in the small things and in the grand scheme of things.
And we think that we are going to figure it (ALL) out???
Gawd you religionists are lazy. It is not just a theory. The theory explains the proven measurable facts that evolution happens. Dear me - Do you even know what the theory of evolution states? LOLOL
Once again, it's "grand" to see how believers believe with such confidence in their absolutism that such things exist well beyond anything us humans can figure out.
Jerami, here's a great example of a fact in which you may compare to that of a theory:
Believers don't understand evolution.
While an education would have helped you to see the world slightly different than that from the perspective of an indoctrinated cult member, it would have also helped you to understand how diversity of species and natural selection create new species.
What's really hilarious, Jerami, is that believers have no issues with people rising from the dead, walking on water, healing the sick with the wave of a hand and every other physical law being violated in the pursuit of happiness, yet they completely reject theories that do not violate any physical laws.
Silly in the extreme, Jerami. Think about it.
Actually Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
You're free to explain how that is possible. Can you?
No, I cannot explain how evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics.
You certainly got me there.
I could try and explain it...but not as well as many of the reputable resources you could find it at online.
So, why did you make the claim in the first place if you had no intention of following it up?
By "reputable sources" do you mean creationist websites?
Well I found this:
"Failure to understand that in thermodynamics probabilities are not fixed entities has led to a misinterpretation that is responsible for the wide- spread and totally false belief that the second law of thermodynamics does not permit order to spontaneously arise from disorder.
In fact, there are many examples in nature where order does arise spontaneously from disorder: Snowflakes with their six-sided crystalline symmetry are formed spontaneously from randomly moving water vapor molecules. Salts with precise planes of crystalline symmetry form spontaneously when water evaporates from a solution. Seeds sprout into flowering plants and eggs develop into chicks."
Uh oh, someone is using science rationally. This might get interesting.
Okay, this is getting ridiculous, especially the people trying to nit-pick the teaching of a "theory" as a "fact."
Clearly, these folks need to either get a dictionary, or else take a remedial science class.
Other people have already explained the difference between the scientific usage of the word "theory" (meaning the best understanding that we have so far of a given phenomenon) and the general usage of the word (meaning a guess or a conjecture).
Here's a good article on the subject. I think it should be required reading for anyone who tries to dismis evolution on the basis that it's "just a theory."
good read jeff
Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.
In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
Great read. It explains exactly that a Theory is not a Scientific Law. So, which of these Theories is correct, Big Bang Theory, String Theory, or TOE? According to that article they are all accepted to be true in the scientific community.
No, they are not all accepted as true, that is a misrepresentation on your part.
I'm sure it's not a misconception. I am just stating what was written in the article. Didn't you read it?
"In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole."
You see, you did misrepresent. Thanks for showing us what was really stated.
Great to see you can side with science when it's convenient.
we all are indebted to science..it covers every human being which exist in current times..believer or non believers , common believer or preacher..it is science which has made life easier for all human beings and it is science which made human being reach where they are now..we must be thankful to handful of great minds who made all these possible by keeping their curiosity intact and their mind's ability to question...isn't it?..
I'm not saying I don't believe in or like science, but it's not a necessity for daily life. It's a want. It's also a great way to try and explain what GOD has created.
Nonsense. You religionists are soooo very funny. Clearly you do not understand evolution.
There could not have been a god involved.
Love how you do not need electricity or computers for your daily life. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Clearly you don't understand evolution either. All wants and nice to haves my friend. Plenty of people have lived without those things, and still do this day.
But - you do not.
Plenty of people live without your ridiculous belief in a god as well.
Yes, they do, but any time between now and 100 years this conversation won't matter, because we will both be dead. When we are, I hope I get to meet you in the next life.
What next life is this? Odd that you accept that with absolutely no facts - yet are questioning scientific theories. Typical. You just want to fight I suppose.
Mark, I want no fight at all. The fact is we are both going to die, all of us will die.
Of course. You think I am denying that?
The "next life" you know all about that you hope we meet in while at the same time questioning scientific theories for lack of evidence is the funny thing. I mean - that is what you want to fight about is it not?
I guess you too have understood that evolution proves the Christian god does not exist.
You must be very angry.
Err, evolution has proof? How did an application of a theory become an entity? And can you point us to these facts/proofs
Absolutely. Here is some proof that evolution occurs.
I mention no entity. Once the evolutionary process is understood - it is clear there could not have been a developmental destination preplanned.
Which discounts a Creator - unless it is a "throw it all in a bucket and see what comes out in the next few million years" type of Creator. Which - I could sort of go for. If I was all powerful - that is the sort of thing I would do.
( that link is an opinion group, not absolute fact. I am curious though and will read it sometime today, Marcus.)
But it doesn't prove anything -it suggests.
Science suggests many things as does religion.
Which makes both entertaining, busy and hugely needy -take for example both sides constant need to be in the media spotlight, etc.
I am not concerned with that aspect. That is the political need which is not related to the ongoing event horizon. With or without religion/science - the event horizon continues.
Whether - as some have suggested, this requires an understanding observer in order to do so (which I do not subscribe to) is another matter. The fact that the event of evolution was/is/will continue to happen is not in question and no amount of discussion/talking/religion/sensation/science/whatever can stop that.
They link to a lot of reputable scientific sources and there is no real argument (except for religionists) that evolution has/is/will happened/happening/happen.
observation is critical thinking versus piecemeal/guesswork.
But I see your point.
That said -apart from human effect- is there any other intellectual entity in the universe to support or refute such suggestions/findings, yada yada?
- Would ease the dilemma and allow us to see the finished product from that sources perspective (not just the leftovers) humans play with), yes? So until that happens, nothing humans provide is valid. That is my point.
Oh. Well - no outside entities to my knowledge have become involved. Odd way to live your life though. I see you only apply it selectively. Wise move.
Myself - I am unlikely to trust an "alien" entity any more than a human.
I don't understand why everything has to be a fight with you. I'm Not angry at all. Evolution is merely a failed attempt of trying to explain what GOD has created.
Rubbish> I see why you are angry though. I think I would be if I had bought into the nonsense you have and then discovered that GOD didn't create us.
That could very well be true. The wishing into existence and the wave of a magic hand from an invisible super being could not possibly be explained with mere insights into natural selection and diversity of species.
Death is not final according to the word of God. And, yes, this conversation, and everything we do in this life matters, because God is keeping a record of everything--including this conversation.
—Matthew 12:36-37 I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”
Ok...that is the funniest thing I've heard today so far
Science is science, it's there whether you think you need it or not.
Science is science, and is here to stay, no one is disputing that. Glad to see I made you smile.
Of course science is there - as is religion.
The two are not valuable necessities since they are necessities themselves -even though humans use them daily as if they were life themselves. Neither has anything to do with Creator or evolution.
Of course not. There is no Creator and evolution pretty much proves that. Science allows us to understand the process, religion prevents us from doing so. Science has also provided us with a number of toys that I am beginning to doubt the value of.
I see you are using scientific advancements this very second. Good for you.
Advancements as opposed or for what? har!
Evolution proves no Creator exists, you say?
By evolution do you mean the entity (Nature) or the applied theory (from either point of view -equation or sensation)?
Both have toys/tools -but are either really providing anything more than a human desire for entertainment and self satisfaction?
Ah - Semantics and un-necessary obfuscation. Wonderful.
How about - the ongoing event horizon?
"There is no Creator and evolution pretty much proves that."
The theory of evolution makes no assertion about the existence or nonexistence of a Creator. It simply describes how, through genetic variation, new species arise over time. Evolution theory is not proof (or even a claim) of the nonexistence of God.
I guess it's not just scripture that can be conveniently (mis)interpreted for political ends, huh?
Sorry - you think there is room for a creator? With a pre-determined developmental destination?
Please - be my guest and explain how that works exactly.
Seriously - I see no room for a Creator with a developmental destination and predetermined design in mind.
I am genuinely interested in this. With an understanding of how evolution works. Where is there room for this?
The term "Creator" implies a planned "Creation" does it not? Or do you mean "creator" as in - "threw stuff in a bowl, added some energy and proteins and waited to see what came out."?
'Cause I could kinda buy that. But - Created with an intention of making something specific? Like us?
Sorry for trolling on your post, Jeff, but perhaps you were unaware of this little biblical tidbit:
"God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them" (Genesis 1:27).
Okay, first, sorry about letting this slide for some days; I've been working on some other stuff.
Mark, if you (generic you) accept the possibility of an omnipotent, omniscient creator, you must accept the possibility that said creator is still at work, still nudging his creation along in ways the we do not (not necessarily cannot, but as yet do not) perceive or understand. Do I know how/why the creator works? Heck, no. I also think that the study of observable phenomena, the fossil record, etc, will eventually lead us to a good/better/thorough understanding of how evolution works.
Q: I knew about that bit of the Bible, yes. I'm not a literal interpretationalist/inerrant-word-of-God type believer. I'm a huge heretic. I believe in God, but I'm far from certain in my belief. I don't believe in God the same way I believe in, say, gravity, for example. It's irrational. I recognize that. And I'm okay with it.
And, without science, your daily life would be a nightmare. Like all believers, they diss science but take advantage of it every single moment of their hypocritical lives.
Yes, god created cancer and science is trying to defeat gods creation. This must be the reason why believers are so upset. Who would dare to defeat one of gods creations and not be sent to a lake of fire for an eternity.
Damn you scientists, damn you all to hell!
Without science in my life, it would be just that, my life. When science wasn't around everyone lived and made it through just fine. Science brings an equal amount of heart aches as it does luxuries. Discuss that with any of the older generation.
Unfortunately, your opinion. You do not know what creates cancer. You're just trying to make blanket statements in order to rely on the convenience of science.
Yes, life in a cave. A bible in one hand and a rock in the other. What more could anyone ask...?
Did they really? How would you know?
That would the generation steeped in myths and superstitions and adverse to any change?
Obviously, your god created cancer, just like he created everything else, right?
Where did anything come from that your god didn't create?
1. blah blah blah your opinion
2. blah blah blah...your opinion again
3. Semi relavent...Well technology is here and not everyone is living just peachy today either. Lots of people are faced with just as much, or even more difficulty. (Car accidents, bombs, guns, drugs etc...)
4.Did God create my computer? No, Apple did.
I can't make it through a day without using math in some capacity.
That's because there is science and technology in your life. I cannot go a day without using some form of math either.
Then you agree that science is indispensable, and to dismiss it is an error.
I didnt read through the thread, not all Christians reject evolution -- I believe in evolution but I am a Christian, the concept of a GOD for me is somewhat in the emotions, I can never justify his existence but I believe he exist etc.
Feelings are the most important things in the world, which you can feel, it is more powerful than the things you can see.
I have got to go and get some work done today.
To argue whether or not mankind is capable of learning everything that there is to know ???
I'm not going to argue that issue. I'll just keep my opinion that we can never know all of the unknown.
To believe that this realm of reality is all that there is doesn't sound very scientific to me.
Quantum physics is knocking down doors in the scientific world.
Odd that you choose to ignore what we do know then.
What we do know is that life after it exists does evolve when the necessity requires it. I think that it may be attempting to evolve but the environment does not allow a successful transformation (yet) I just have trouble understanding or agreeing with the THEORY that inorganic material can convert to organic material.
When we assume certain facts beyond the scope of proof, that extention is theory.
Dear me. The theory of evolution seeks to explain the proven facts that life evolves. The proven fact that men were not created in our present form.
It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the beginning of life as we understand it.
You are perfectly fine with the THEORY that inorganic material can convert to organic material. Your entire belief system rests on this happening.
You just think it needs a majikal GOD to do it. LOLOLOLO
You also seem perfectly fine with the 100% totally unproven idea of this majikal god with no facts to back it up.
SO - I am going with - hypocritical.
What part of my statement above are you argueing with?
You want to argue, so you inflict beliefs upon me so that you can argue. I see you doing that a lot. Well done.
All of it.
You feel comfortable with accepting certain things with zero facts, but
then claim that other things are merely theory and not to be accepted.
this is the typical hypocrisy of believers in a god.
Yet you accept and argue for a god - with absolutely no facts or proof whatsoever. This is hypocrisy.
Hey Jerami, do not hurt yourself while you work.
Humankind will never know everything there is to know, but what we do already know is all knowable.
That's the best statement you made in this post.
Reality is all that there is Jerami. What other forms of reality is there? Is the question you meant to ask. We know there are other Dimensions, we just cannot nor have the ability to get to those places.
The science community, which encompasses every field of discovery is always expanding, because our exploration of reality is a forever expanding subject. Just a thought.
PS, Marcus, is it actually evolving or devolving?
How do we really know for certain?
That is something either side cannot bare to think about...
Well - The term evolution is this case would better be "changed," as I understand some changes could be considered "devolved."
But - as I understand it - the changes have generally evolved into more, rather than less complexity. Which - could also be considered "devolving."
Sometimes the simplest is the best. Who knows - maybe the Amoebas have all the answers and we should be asking them?
You reject scientific facts? Why would you do that? Does it prove your invisible friend does not exist?
Quit sidestepping and give them that proof -scientifically or what-have-you already, man.
all this would stop if you would show the humanoids proof.
But, that's exactly what we've been asking you for all along... proof of your invisible and undetectable super being.
I guess you really don't get it, yet.
It is the responsibility -and duty- of the one refuting (the prosecutor) to provide proof/evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, against the defendant. YOU are the one charging there is no such Creator. So, those who believe are the defended.
BTW, circumstantial evidence, here say and "well I just think there isn't" are invalid.
I often wonder why believers must resort to openly lying about who is making claims and who is questioning those claims. Is it from sheer ignorance or do they actually know they are lying to protect their beliefs?
It certainly is an interesting aspect to the psychosis of religious indoctrination and why the natural altruistic morals and ethics of humans must be eliminated in order to be replaced with cult alienation and protection from the outsider.
Here say, there say, we all say, hearsay.
wha-, who? ooooooh lookie here, lookie here.
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/44065?p … ost1027450
"my" Ism? Budda scotch (Mike Myers voice). But due be a gentleman an answer the bloody question -with proof.
"Moo chase Gray C Ace, Me Go!"
That's weird to come from you. You're already aware of proof for evolution.
I poopy on it as well with a torpedo large enough to sink Atlantis - again!
Hard work, rigor and dedication to understanding the world is but fecal matter to the indoctrinated. How uncaring and heartless they are to their fellow men who give their lives in the pursuit of helping us understand ourselves better and build better lives through knowledge and sharing of ideas.
They help us to be better humans while the religious stamp them into the earth, only to happy to defecate in their faces, spewing forth their gods wrath in blindingly hysterical glee.
But, the hard work, the rigor and the dedication to understanding will continue and flourish, and someday soon the insanity will end.
cough, bullsh!te. They don't help you -because like religion- they lead you.
Oddly, you seem equally indoctrinated into an alternate method called science.
Seems, the pendulum swings both ways.
Rigor and hard work requires and demands critical thinking, critical function.
You appear to have neither -only suggestive, cynical, deflective and submissive attitude.
The wrath of scientific gods paints a far darker picture than the Hebrew one...
Might want to re-read those scientific documents.
To think, to synthesize information critically, to take the time and effort to understand is forbidden to the believer, and something most certainly to be feared and avoided at all costs, lest the indoctrination lose its footings and bring into question the very foundations of belief.
To the believer, thinking and indoctrinated belief can only be conceptualized as one and the same.
And where prey tell did you imagine that crud from? Your own limited experience? No believer is limited to the methods of determination.
and what cost is there to believer or not? Who imposed this mental taxation?
Which most certainly pertain to science also. But you evade again the point of critical thinking which is subjected to neither your equation nor their sensation approach.
Q, you are so obviously venting about your experiences, or lack there of, with the sensation side of the house you both live in. A funny couple science and theology are. Identical, yet willfully opposing each other. For what? Do you or they gain any value or substantial gratification by belittling the other? Certainly not. Do you or they have absolute provable answers -less the standard human injection? Absolutely not! So just give it up already. Lick your wounds and move on. Your quest is no better than theirs. Abusing her is not a show of true strength and character, but weakness and contempt. Also, her lack of interest in your hunting techniques is no better.
While science tries to find the answer to everything spending billions upon billions of dollars for research, experiments, etc. . . Christians are feeding starving children with donations of food, money, seed etc. . .
That is a short list of only a few christian charities.
There are thousands of huge charities which are not Christian based.
Science has helped make life better for millions of people, it has extended life spans, reduced disease, and reduced suffering from common ailments.
That research and experimentation is why you are still alive past the age of thirty.
Do you know where all those charities started? The first chatiable organizations in the USA were Christian based in the late 1700s.
Science has wasted a lot of money to try and figure things out instead of helping the needy.
Just so you know, I live past the age of 30 because of God. Science has nothing to do with it.
Had to come back and edit. The first Christian charities started in the early 1800s.
Not a link to one of my hubs.
Evolution has been witnessed occurring ... in recent times and today ... among certain salamanders in California. It's no longer a theory - it's a proven fact.
Also, the Pope has validated evolution ... and the possibility there could be life on other worlds
If the leader of one of the largest congregations in the world (the Roman Catholic faith) can move to accept all of this, then why can't the rest of us step in line and walk forward.
According to the Pope ... none of this invalidates the existence of God. In fact, he sees God as the driving force of evolution and the possible creator of life on other worlds.
While many of us choose not to believe in God, we still believe something tangible is responsible for everything around us. Religion calls it God - science calls it nature. The only difference is that scientists don't subjugate themselves to serve nature's written will.
Evolution does not disprove God, nor does a 5000 year old tome offer proof.
As best said ... "It's what one is willing to believe that is truth in their heart. And he'd be a fool to turn away in disbelief from that which truly stands before him."
Religion and science hate each other because they both seize upon the same idea ... explaining all that happens around us ... from either a scientific point of view of a spiritual one. If only you would substitute the word God for nature, and vice-versa, you would see both speak the same language. The only difference is that men of science see themselves as free, whereas men of God see themselves as servants.
Serve as you will or lead yourselves. Free will gives that choice to one and all of us. For if it was not truly a choice, then no choice would exist to be made ...
I disagree. Evolution does not disprove "a" god, but it pretty much demolishes the biblical "created in His own image in 6 days" god.
His own image was what? A Brontosaurus - oops - that didn't work - I know - I'll wipe them out and try mammals.
“About 5,000 years ago the Sumarians originated many Pagan religions and beliefs. One of these beliefs or religions was the Myth of Evolution. According to the Sumarian Epic, life originated in water and then evolved to land creatures. This same concept was also accepted by Ancient Greek Philosophers called "Materialists". Thus Ancient Greece became the junction point of Materialist philosophy and the Myth of Evolution. The Pagan Romans later chose to embrace this same Myth in their dynasty. These 2 idol worshiping Pagan cultures heavily influenced the modern world in the 18th century. Some European intellectuals were influenced by ancient Greek sources who accordingly adopted Materialism with one common belief. They were completely against the very idea of a monotheistic religion.” Charles Sobo
We have only observed phenotypic changes (variation in eye color, hair color and texture and size) and adaptations IN populations or families, but we've NEVER witnessed the quantum leap miracle required for the evolutionism model of common descent.
The Pope also condones and hides child molesters should we all step behind that too? You're losing credibility using the pope as an ally. "Roman Catholics were known for adopting many old pagans rituals (cannibalism, mary or mother goddess worship, the "infallible" pope, the church is true the Bible is false, evolution, priest celibacy, etc). All which are unbiblical, heretical and blasphemous, and is one of the reasons that the protestant church formed."
There are laws of nature and laws require a lawgiver, God.
No yoshi, almost man-made religions accept evolutionism. Evolutionism itself is a religion. Christianity and evolutionism are in conflict, not because of facts, but because of worldview.
I think what many people cannot accept is change and it seems an unfortunate fact that the more religious a person is the less likely they are to accept a new idea or a new interpretation on something that was once widely accepted.
If Charles Darwin had been around at the same time as Copernicus, nearly 500 years ago, when he theorised that the Earth revolves around the Sun then undoubtedly he would have been branded a heretic and suffered at the hands of the Christian church.
Choosing to ignore scientific fact simply because it contradicts ancient religious doctrine is not defending faith; it merely reinforces ignorant intolerance and hinders the natural development of our mind.
I’m sorry to say that religious intolerance is both alive and well today. It is an unfortunate sad fact of life that many people believe in Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny and God. Nothing we do or say will ever change their minds so no matter how much evidence is produced to support the evolution of life by natural selection they will neither accept it nor change their minds. A sad fact but true.
Evolution dipsroves the christian god, but not necessarily the existance of A god or overall creator.
Christian religion is based on the fact that god created everything, if that is wrong, what else is?
We find a great many religions boast creationism in the form presented by their own sets of myths and superstitions. We also find they boast all things were created as they appear today.
We can infer and inject evolution into any creation myth, but we are bound by the creation story itself and the explanation it provides as to our origins.
Natural selection and diversity of species simply do not support the claims of those creation myths.
Which still does not refute Creator being everything.
Evolution is a process/method, not an entity.
Perhaps one method -which only humans define so- is one attribute of Himself.
To be textual, it states "the worlds were framed by the words of his mouth." So that would present the visual of a bubble, and in it is everything we humans call universe. So His own breath is in that bubble every increasing -as evolution and universal expansion are defined.
The old 'god is everything' argument is nothing new, however God is also meant to be infallible, in which case, the story he relayed to man kind regarding Genesis suddenyl causes some major problems.
Remember te Old Testament is the word of God, the new Testament is the word of Man.
Soli, the notion of Testaments is strange to hear from you.
This is the issues root, perhaps. Neither is 'the word' of Creator, but elements of those words/events transcribed.
Oddly, taking evolution and big bang and the Mosiac account, all seem to meet up. Something caused everything to form into this universe. The infallible mention rests solely on the human perspective of those events. So, Creator is still infallible, human perception fallible.
Having spent quite enough time in Christian circles as well as Judaic neither disputes the method of evolving, in fact they emphasize the point of intervals and events that took place.
The formation of the universe, introduction of light/stars/moons, etc, development of the planet, its atmosphere, the separation of land from water, the appearance of plant life, animals, fish, birds; the elements of dinosaurs, giants and a change in that process called flood, etc. Could the only disputable factor be the mention of time? days? Why is it impossible to believe the basic formation of life took so long? If you have all the ingredients, how long would it take someone to bake a cake- 30 minutes, 45 maybe. The same energy/elements/molecules in the cake are the same ones in the universe, yes?
Perhaps the explanation is not accepted by evolutionists and various scientific groups -and religious groups also. But, I don't think Christianity refutes it. I do think Christianity refutes the scientific view of those events because of the removal of Creator from it.
taking you own compounds and mixing them together to form a cakes is much different to the process of evolution.
Evolution is a godless theory, and while you can apply God to it in some ways, it just doesn't fit with teh rest of Gods theory which talks about how he created everything, including man, from scratch.
I am interested in theology, and have read both the old and new testament, along with lost bible verses such as the dead sea scrolls.
It did not take me long to realise that the bible can barely be used along with modern day Christianity, and that the religion of Christianity, and the bible is now becoming more and more seperate.
It is surprising how much of the bible has been removed in the last 30 years, nevermind in the last 500.
Unfortunately most of these forum topics bring up arguments, on both sides, which have long since bene proven futile, or proven wrong.
not so far off.
that is what propaganda does.
As for my cake mention: all the elements, turned molecules, turned chemicals, turned vitamin, mineral, dairy, grain, etc. are all from the same premise -nature uniting and transforming into something else -evolution.
Also noteworthy, from the Christian perspective, humans are predestined to go through an evolutionary transformation -as depicted in the resurrected Y`shua and others accounted for in the letters transcribed called New Testament.
Even more is that the whole of humanity is to go through this process, yet some -because they have not evolved passed the 'old' mental stigma of sin, will not fully survive this event and so be removed post evolution. (EDIT: according to evolution, this event is defined as natural selection)
Maybe Christians and evolutionists are missing the connection between? (so you know, i say that as a question, even though to me it is an emphatic statement).
Often, believers will use concepts completely foreign to them and use them to describe their religious beliefs in an attempt to create the facade they know what they're talking about.
Ahhh - Lying for Jesus? I see - not convincing me of anything other than I am right.
You have no morals. None.
Thanks, but all you really did was admit to not understanding evolution, and I couldn't agree with you more.
I am glad we both agree it was a ridiculous blanket statement.
No, I agree with your admitting of you not understanding evolution.
Of course I don't understand it, because it's not true. It's like asking me to understand 1+1=3. It doesn't make sense. And you know what Judge Judy says?"If it doesn't make sense, it's not true sir."
Whether it is true or not is irrelevant... not understanding it does not give you the right to pass judgment.
You haven't taken the time to read or understand '1+1' as yet, which is why you mistakenly presume the answer is 3. You simply haven't done your homework. Few, if an believers have actually read about evolution.
You should take your own advice and apply it to Christianity.
Yes, I have read extensively on the topics of micro/macro evolution, stabilizing/directional/diversifying selection. Not to mention it was taught ad naseum through elementry/High School/ and college.
Lastly, you still haven't told me what Λ =
ediggity, which version of that are you looking for, i know of two.
Go ahead and say what ones you know. I'm referring to Q's belief....
one in calculus, especially with regard to computer sciences. And way back in the day, saw it in a nutrition course, used to measure or is a micro-liter.
and now see i was incorrect.
i thought that was the symbol lambda.
Then i do not know what it is
No, not those either. This one Λ is actually the most important. One day Q will tell us all about it.
Yes, it is Lamda, you were correct when you said that. it's just the big one. The biggest of them all. Little lambda is for wave length.
see, you make me look for it. lol.
it could refer to "logical and" -which i found in my special characters list for writing...
Of course, we still wonder what you're talking about. Perhaps, this is a game of 20 questions?
It's not a game at all, it's your belief. Keep studying.....
Why don't you just explain yourself rather than playing games. What exactly do you want to know?
I simply want you to tell me what the value for Λ is. It is not a game, it is a serious question. I figured you might know since you are quick to bash religion, and write about how people of faith are blind. Yet you are blind in your own belief. You believe in something that is incomplete, and you defend it as if it is the only thing that's correct. If you keep studying your beliefs in science (mainly physics) you will come across Λ.
And, I asked you which value of Lambda you wanted, but you never responded with an answer, so how am I supposed to read your mind?
That was my point, I have come across a number of references to Lambda. Which one are you referring? Simple question.
You only gave me small Lambda which is used for wavelength, and I told you it was used for wavelength. This Λ is the only one that really matters, and it's the one you argue about the most. Simple answer, well actually not
Which upper case Lambda do you refer? There are several?
It is the eleventh letter in the greek alphabet and amongst a number of other scientific references, it is the wavelength of a wave.
Those are correct, but not the correct answer for what I'm asking, and small lamda is used for wavelength. Keep studying your belief and I'm sure one day you will run into it.
Do you know what you just agreed with.
Do you know what Facade means??? You just revealed yours..
Creationists believe that the Bible is the literal Word of God and therefore everything else is wrong !
However, if the Biblical version of events depicted in Genesis used by creation theorists to debunk the Darwinist version of evolution by natural selection was to be believed; then during the six days their God took to create everything wouldn’t that put Dinosaurs and Man on the Earth at the same time ?
No reason to think they weren't.
Talmud shows a much broader view of creation than the present biblical transcripts. Many Hebrews acknowledge evolutionary concept as part of creators methods. The most notable point: even if evolution wiped out every creature, the only creature valuable to Creator, is humans...
I reject the evolutionism model, because I accept science over vain speculation.
I'm not sure if I am really qualified to comment here as I have a very simple faith. I guess faith is something you either have or you don't - it's a very personal thing which is why I would never say anyone was wrong in their beliefs. But, it does seem to me that the book of Genesis has everything in the right order, darkness, light, oceans with some creatures in it, then land and then some creatures on it and then humans. I guess the only thing is the timescale but who knows how long a day is for God? I do believe in Evolution but I also find it incredible that someone who wrote all that time ago could have got the order of everything right?
Since I believe in the Bible as absolute truth and the Bible indicates God created all things in 6 days, then it is impossible for me to belive in the theory of Evolution.
Let me confess. Q ... I realy do like you, cause you are as messed up as the rest of us.
And if everyone could listen as well as we speak we might find some understanding.
You sir do have some truth that you have expressed. as does everyone else that have posted on these forums.
When we admitt that we do not have the answers ... and begin to listen, then we might ?? find some truth. We all have a little piece of the truth. We just gotta bring it all together instead of fighting.
I'm not talking about a truth, Jerami. Truth is for philosophical discussions and has little to do with the world around us.
Religions preach about ultimate truths but we find they have very little meaning in the real world and usually wind up contradicting it.
There is a difference between microevolution and macroevolution. The theory of macroevolution is the one where humans evolved from primates.
The evidence for this is sketchy whether you believe in the Bible or not.
Microevelotion is well proven and Bible believing Christians would be very ignorant to reject it, since it in no way contradicts the creation theory. The basic theory is that different genes present themselves in each generation. If certain traits, say dark fur in the polar regions, prove dangerous, animals with those traits will die off. The species is exactly the same, reproducing after its kind, but different traits are being displayed.
I agree completely...
And the evolution om man does have a missing link which can be explained with in the creationalists theory as well??
Correction, Learner. Humans are a species of primates. So are apes and monkeys. Likewise, lions, tigers, and ocelots are species of cats.
Q said ....I'm not talking about a truth, Jerami. Truth is for philosophical discussions and has little to do with the world around us.
If that is true then what is the importance of convincing others of any particular philosophical point of view???
Here are my beliefs. Evolution is a definate part of our ecosystem. All beings have the ability to "evolve" so they can adapt to their surroundings. The evolutionary theory is something completely different. I have an extremely hard time believing that mankind started as an ape or monkey. I am a Christian and I believe in creation. However, scaring away from evolution in itself is rediculous. Animal adapt all the time to their surrounding by evolving. The concept of earth beginning 6000 yrs ago is in my opinion only earth as we know it. I believe in dinosaurs. I believe there was something way before mankind or what we know of it. Closing yourself off to what was before us is the wall that most "creationists" tend to forget. God is eternal and Adam and Eve were only the beginning of mankind. Genesis was only the beginning of the earth as we know it. We do not know what was before it. And I would also like people to understand that science can be very wrong, it is not a perfected concept. Just because a theory can be prooved visually or statistically does not mean it is correct.
but human beings are far more older that 6000 years..earliest homo sapiens are traced to 2 lakh years..the first bunch of humans..
Darwin never said man started as an ape or monkey.... that was the argument put forward by the anti Darwinists to debunk his theory which only said an Ape like creature to give an understanding of shape and original form.
This has been the founding argument all along the inablity of various religious groups to accept that man has evolved at all and that somehow in the image of his God he is somehow perfect.... That and their inablity to accept the fact that man is just another animal spieces on this planet.
Actually you can thank the secular intellectuals of the Enlightenment for the emergence of charity and relief work.
Before that the main priority for the church was Imperialism, holy war and burning heretics.
let me guess hardwork of christian charity organizations, help the needy and then convert them into Christianity, take advantage of kids and women. errm, yeah.
I suppose I should admit that I am a fairly tolerant person and whatever people chose to believe is entirely up to them, ‘Whatever get’s their paddles in the water of a morning.’
However, I do have a lot of trouble understanding anybody who, because of a book, stopped thinking 5,000 years ago. Yet the same people have no problems accepting and using every manmade discovery and invention for their benefit.
Of course you realise that the Bible was put together with a certain amount of political selection by those in power at the time. Written 5,000 years ago and was based purely upon a bunch of stories told to illiterate tribesmen who were told the Earth was flat by the same teachers !
Plus you are also saying that over the last 5,000 years mankind has made no significant educational or scientific gains.... Tell me how do you keep the draughts out of your cave and do you still cook over an open fire using dried Bull Shit...?
by Shakka James16 months ago
Meaning, I want to know if you think evolution is a process of God's work. If you even believe in evolution.
by thetruthhurts20098 years ago
Rules of this forum, no swearing, no straw men arguments and no FSM nonsense. Most importantly remember, Ridicule is not an argument. Enjoy. If want to continue to believe you come from a rocky soup. You...
by Baileybear7 years ago
Or do they find it too much of a threat to their beliefs?
by Sheila Craan2 years ago
Does the theory of evolution make sense to you?
by Phocas Vincent2 years ago
Is it possible to truly be religious as well as believe in the evidence of science with theories such as evolution, the Big Bang and dinosaurs existing prior to man not along side? (Please keep it clean and civil guys,...
by emdi8 years ago
Please post your views, can science and religion go together?
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.