G-d exists. Evolution exists.

Here we are in 2007 and we’re all slipping backwards in time. We’re going back to the hypothesis of Lamark scientifically, and to the paganism that existed before Christianity—calling it “progress” or “advancement.” The fact of the matter is, evolution and G-d can and do co-exist.

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” --Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941. The fact of the matter is, the more Einstein studied the universe, the more he peered into the deepest corners of physics, the more he was convinced there was a G-d.

By denying G-d, you are only denying your own existence. If one’s intelligence is correspondent with one’s intellectual acumens (insight) and education then such a statement is a function of ordinary thinking, isn’t it? =P

Misinterpretation

The nexus of science and theology is actually biblical and can be found in the actual words of the original Hebrew in the bible. The very first word of the Bible, “בְּרֵאשִׁית” was mistranslated into English as "In the beginning" is a testament to one's position of G-d having created other existence prior to the existence related in Genesis. G-d said "בְּרֵאשִׁית" or "In a beginning" which is an indefinite article (construct form grammatically) and not the definite article "In the beginning."

The most correct way to translate the beginning of Genesis 1:1 would be, “In a beginning of G-d creating Heaven and Earth”. Note: The word ‘created’ has an appropriate exegesus (biblical interpretation) of the language. The first elements of creation is “In a beginning” or ‘time’. G-d first creates time. Then G-d “create ex nigilos” (Latin) or “creates something out of nothing.”

Evolution

G-d created humankind with evolution, the ability to adapt to circumstances and situations and to live with a sense of dynamics. G-d ordained us, mandated us to subdue the universe. That is a declaration of learning science, or becoming knowledgeable. G-d then creates transcendental space (Heaven), and physical space (Earth) connected through a time-space continuum.

Perhaps I will be able to explain a time-space continuum best using science fiction. If we were able to create a satellite that could travel faster than the speed of light, the camera or telescope of the satellite would see Earth’s history, or light reflected off the earth perhaps even millions of years ago, still traveling somewhere in space.

Denying evolution because of one’s religious beliefs threatens the intellectual ability to interpret and understand that there’s a certain level of culpability humankind has for its own actions. There is a definite sense among evolution deniers of a pre-determined, pre-disposed life circumstance under which we relieve ourselves of liability and culpability of our own actions. In other words, the very same retrograde tendencies (against free will) that we saw during the Middle Ages is now occurring in circles among evolution deniers.

The Transcendent Bible / Torah

In the original Hebrew Bible, the five books of Moses, is a volume that transcends time, transcends space, transcends culture. It is a book that establishes the moral and ethical imperatives that guide our lives so that we can live sound, decent, ethical, correct lives. That is what the Bible is, and it can be taken at many different levels: literally, figuratively, as a historical document, as a legal document, as a moral limit in which we strive to ascertain, ect.

I believe sincerely that every word of the Bible / Torah is the word of G-d. Now, what those words mean (exegesus; the interpretations, understanding) is up for interpretation. The understanding of the concepts, for example, “An eye for an eye” was actually mistranslated from “An eye instead of an eye,” meaning that revenge does not mean compensation. [1]

According to the Bible, if someone knocks out your tooth, are you required to knock their tooth out? Of course not! In other words, the written law is supplemented by the oral tradition, or 63 tractates of the Talmud. That oral tradition defines the language and the sensibilities of the written Bible. In other words, it interprets it for the average reader. It is an interpretive volume that teaches us not to take revenge instead of compensation.

There are understandings of equity and jurisprudence and there are provisions for compensation. There are issues that are extraordinarily important to realize. There are a number of punishments that are meted out for murder, for example, at various levels. The only question is how do you define which punishment is correct for each circumstance.

G-d’s Ability to Adapt

If you still believe evolution is false, I would direct you to understand several phenomenons. The creationism of the biblical account is absolutely in its entirety correct. The fact of the matter is that the principle of adaptation is interpreted differently.

The Bible indicates that G-d is proactive and responsive. I’m going to identify a narrative that takes place in the time of Moses. The children of Israel are with Moses in the desert and G-d has given them the laws of inheritance. The laws of inheritance are directed towards the sons of the fathers. One of the families has only daughters. The daughters come to Moses, and complain that they have been excluded by virtue of their gender.

Moses said, and I’m paraphrasing, ‘That’s a really great point. Let me check it out.’ He contacts G-d, and he tells G-d of the problem. G-d says that they have a valid position and gives them the right to inherit within certain parameters. This is a G-d that is proactive, a G-d that is involved, concerned, and a G-d that adjusts.

It is our belief paradigm that G-d is omnipotent (all powerful), omniscient (knows everything), and that G-d is perfect. Now, if G-d is perfect, how can G-d make a mistake? The answer is that G-d does not make mistakes. The mistake is in our misunderstanding and misinterpretation of that which G-d does.

A cumulative knowledge of the ancients, of the language, of the culture, the philosophy, the theosophy, and the theology, far be it from any of us to assume that we have even the slightest inkling of what it is that G-d is doing.

Carbon Dating

Carbon dating is carbon dating. The essence of examining the physical attributes of organic compound is not against G-d. Every organic compound by definition has carbon. If it has carbon, it is an organic compound. We can with a reasonable degree of accuracy determine the dating and origin by virtue of the analysis of degrading carbon atoms in comparison to non-degrading carbon atoms.

The fact of the matter is that G-d speaks in language that can be understood by humankind. When G-d says “evening” or “morning” or “# day” of, he is speaking in cardinal numbers, indicating order. The unit of time, or a “day” could be a billion years. They are not fixed days, but rather fixed epochs of history.

Man’s Inhumanity to Man

The core principle of Judeo-Christian teachings is the sacredness of human life. He who saves a single life, it is as though he has saved the entire world. This teaching is unfortunately being lost by all the hate being slung as rhetoric coming out against Christians and Jews today. These beautiful transcendental humanistic teachings are essential to our survival of human beings.

This current theme of man’s inhumanity to man is what’s playing out on television, on the internet, in the games, and in the movies day and night. This social barbarism is descending mankind into madness allover again. What we thought we left behind in the last millennium is coming back to haunt us, perhaps even worse than the last century.

In the last century, over 100,000,000 people were slaughtered by atheists, pagans, and Marxists such as Hitler (Pagan), Stalin (Marxist, Atheist), Pol Pot (Marxist, Atheist), and Mao Zedong (Marxist, Atheist). Over 100 million killed because of the false prophets of communism and paganism, and I am afraid that we are going backwards towards these teachings.

One has to be optimistic to survive-- optimism tempered with the realism of our very uncivilized civilization. We have lost our sense of stability, but we have not yet fallen into the abyss of which I spoke. However, we are losing ground very quickly.

It is a ‘shout-out,’ to use the vernacular of the day, and as course and abrupt reminder that we have got to reassess and revaluate our moral compass and get back online here. We’ve got to learn that our future as a human race, our future as a civilization is very much a function of our ability to reintegrate a sense of decency, kindness and culture that is rooted in understanding the divinity that is manifested in every human being.

A: That answer is simple. G-d has always existed as energy, and as energy was able to take form, G-d took form. Scientifically, energy cannot be created or destroyed. If energy cannot be created, then how did life become the way it is? There is only one answer, G-d.

Q: (relating to G-d’s adaptation) It is our belief paradigm that G-d is omnipotent (all powerful), omniscient (knows everything), and that G-d is perfect. Now, if G-d is perfect, how can G-d make a mistake?

A: The answer is that G-d does not make mistakes. The mistake is in our misunderstanding and misinterpretation of that which G-d does.

Q: If G-d is omnipotent, why didn’t G-d simply push a button and create everything in it’s final state all at once? Why is there an absolute order to the creation process?

A: Because G-d wanted to teach us, and make sure we understood that the creation of one single human being took an enormity of preparation. Everything that exists in this world is a function of the divine preparation. Nothing happens in an instant. In other words, this laborious process of creating life is to teach us the divinity of every human life, the sacred nature of every human life.

Q: What does G-d want of us?

A: G-d wants us to care about eachother.

[1] http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/goldberg

P.S: I don’t expect many people to care or understand what this topic is about. I made this post after seeing the posts arguing whether G-d and Science both exist, and instead of debate, they simply want to regurgitate half-truths to express their own feelings and religious or non-religious beliefs.

You're welcomed.TheHimura

copy/paste/wall of text

god doesn't exist

G-d? Why not "God"?firedonut

[QUOTE="TheHimura"]You're welcomed.Thanks-

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]

copy/paste/wall of text

god doesn't exist

Thanks-

[QUOTE="Thanks-"][QUOTE="TheHimura"]You're welcomed.TheHimura

Yes that was a waste, If you wrote that and I will assume you did to suite my argument, you must be of enough intelligence to realise that no matter how much effort and fact you put into somthing you will barely every change the views of some one on the internet. Some people who apose you may even have the same beliefs as you but will argue agianst your point as a means to seem cool among their internet peers.(I sound very protencious don't I?) biocunsumer

While Evolution is a scientific fact, no statement regard the existence or non-existence of God can be said to be scientifically derived.

In the absence of such proofs, the most reasonable answer vis a vis Occams Razor and plenty of other rational arguments, is to state that no such being exists until there is evidence.

If one has to derive a statement depending on available sources of information and reasoning, then in light of a proof, the highest probability falls to the Athiestic position as being very likely true. However this is all irrelevent as the question of Gods existence is purposeless. Everyone is born Agnostic about the concept of a God and only becomes presented with the Theistic/Atheistic case because of a social need to quantify belief and an assumption that morality is linked to religion.

Much like being asked whether you like Mauve or Fuschia, the question is only relevent because it is brought up and haragued upon and is otherwise irrelevent. The same exists for religion. Most people only cite their beliefs in what I'd like to call check-box syndrome, that they say so because they have to.

Most live in a nebulous understanding and practicing of their beliefs up till old age when the questions of mortality become more apparent. The only bad part is the extent with which religion seems to want to control the lives of other people beyond that of the one believer.
 Atrus

[QUOTE="Atrus"]While Evolution is a scientific fact, no statement regard the existence or non-existence of God can be said to be scientifically derived.

In the absence of such proofs, the most reasonable answer vis a vis Occams Razor and plenty of other rational arguments, is to state that no such being exists until there is evidence.

If one has to derive a statement depending on available sources of information and reasoning, then in light of a proof, the highest probability falls to the Athiestic position as being very likely true. However this is all irrelevent as the question of Gods existence is purposeless. Everyone is born Agnostic about the concept of a God and only becomes presented with the Theistic/Atheistic case because of a social need to quantify belief and an assumption that morality is linked to religion.

Much like being asked whether you like Mauve or Fuschia, the question is only relevent because it is brought up and haragued upon and is otherwise irrelevent. The same exists for religion. Most people only cite their beliefs in what I'd like to call check-box syndrome, that they say so because they have to.

Most live in a nebulous understanding and practicing of their beliefs up till old age when the questions of mortality become more apparent. The only bad part is the extent with which religion seems to want to control the lives of other people beyond that of the one believer.
 Thanks-

althought what "lack of coincidence" prooves the existance of god?

[QUOTE="Thanks-"][QUOTE="Atrus"]While Evolution is a scientific fact, no statement regard the existence or non-existence of God can be said to be scientifically derived.

In the absence of such proofs, the most reasonable answer vis a vis Occams Razor and plenty of other rational arguments, is to state that no such being exists until there is evidence.

If one has to derive a statement depending on available sources of information and reasoning, then in light of a proof, the highest probability falls to the Athiestic position as being very likely true. However this is all irrelevent as the question of Gods existence is purposeless. Everyone is born Agnostic about the concept of a God and only becomes presented with the Theistic/Atheistic case because of a social need to quantify belief and an assumption that morality is linked to religion.

Much like being asked whether you like Mauve or Fuschia, the question is only relevent because it is brought up and haragued upon and is otherwise irrelevent. The same exists for religion. Most people only cite their beliefs in what I'd like to call check-box syndrome, that they say so because they have to.

Most live in a nebulous understanding and practicing of their beliefs up till old age when the questions of mortality become more apparent. The only bad part is the extent with which religion seems to want to control the lives of other people beyond that of the one believer.
 yoshi-lnex

[QUOTE="Atrus"]While Evolution is a scientific fact, no statement regard the existence or non-existence of God can be said to be scientifically derived.

In the absence of such proofs, the most reasonable answer vis a vis Occams Razor and plenty of other rational arguments, is to state that no such being exists until there is evidence.

If one has to derive a statement depending on available sources of information and reasoning, then in light of a proof, the highest probability falls to the Athiestic position as being very likely true. However this is all irrelevent as the question of Gods existence is purposeless. Everyone is born Agnostic about the concept of a God and only becomes presented with the Theistic/Atheistic case because of a social need to quantify belief and an assumption that morality is linked to religion.

Much like being asked whether you like Mauve or Fuschia, the question is only relevent because it is brought up and haragued upon and is otherwise irrelevent. The same exists for religion. Most people only cite their beliefs in what I'd like to call check-box syndrome, that they say so because they have to.

Most live in a nebulous understanding and practicing of their beliefs up till old age when the questions of mortality become more apparent. The only bad part is the extent with which religion seems to want to control the lives of other people beyond that of the one believer.
Thanks-

[QUOTE="Thanks-"][QUOTE="Atrus"]While Evolution is a scientific fact, no statement regard the existence or non-existence of God can be said to be scientifically derived.

In the absence of such proofs, the most reasonable answer vis a vis Occams Razor and plenty of other rational arguments, is to state that no such being exists until there is evidence.

If one has to derive a statement depending on available sources of information and reasoning, then in light of a proof, the highest probability falls to the Athiestic position as being very likely true. However this is all irrelevent as the question of Gods existence is purposeless. Everyone is born Agnostic about the concept of a God and only becomes presented with the Theistic/Atheistic case because of a social need to quantify belief and an assumption that morality is linked to religion.

Much like being asked whether you like Mauve or Fuschia, the question is only relevent because it is brought up and haragued upon and is otherwise irrelevent. The same exists for religion. Most people only cite their beliefs in what I'd like to call check-box syndrome, that they say so because they have to.

Most live in a nebulous understanding and practicing of their beliefs up till old age when the questions of mortality become more apparent. The only bad part is the extent with which religion seems to want to control the lives of other people beyond that of the one believer.
azargushasb

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="Thanks-"][QUOTE="Atrus"]While Evolution is a scientific fact, no statement regard the existence or non-existence of God can be said to be scientifically derived.

In the absence of such proofs, the most reasonable answer vis a vis Occams Razor and plenty of other rational arguments, is to state that no such being exists until there is evidence.

If one has to derive a statement depending on available sources of information and reasoning, then in light of a proof, the highest probability falls to the Athiestic position as being very likely true. However this is all irrelevent as the question of Gods existence is purposeless. Everyone is born Agnostic about the concept of a God and only becomes presented with the Theistic/Atheistic case because of a social need to quantify belief and an assumption that morality is linked to religion.

Much like being asked whether you like Mauve or Fuschia, the question is only relevent because it is brought up and haragued upon and is otherwise irrelevent. The same exists for religion. Most people only cite their beliefs in what I'd like to call check-box syndrome, that they say so because they have to.

Most live in a nebulous understanding and practicing of their beliefs up till old age when the questions of mortality become more apparent. The only bad part is the extent with which religion seems to want to control the lives of other people beyond that of the one believer.
 Thanks-

and for somebody who claims to be a scientist, you don't have a very scientific mind, your beliefs are full of assumptions and a certain lack of evidence, nobody ever taught us about coincodence it's just common sence, events occur and interact, therefor 2 unrelated events will interact, it's not complex, and you're saying that everything is a coincodence is a direct contradiction of the delusion of free will.

and atheism has never harmed anybody, but let's not forget about the crusades so quickly.....

Actually, intelligence dictates against the supposition of a deity without any evidence.

Secondly,  you are attributing a statement regarding the existence of God to an overarching unanimous organization. There is no such thing as a unanimous Atheistic moral principle and to suggest that it was the largest killer of last century is blatently false.

In fact, seeing as how you could only arrive at such numbers regarding deaths (one would think heart disease kills more people in a century anyway), you are likely attributing mass genocidal regimes into this figure exempting the fact that the targeting of the populace in most of these, particularly the establishment of so called lesser races stems from religious sources. Adolf Hitler even states in Mein Kampf that prior to the Christian parties influence on the already presiding religious intolerance to Jews, Hitler couldn't have cared less about them much less call for their annihilation.
Atrus

Edit: Also, I do account the murderings of genocidal regimes into my 'killed by atheism' statistic.

You are dealing with the argument that G-d is the only force that can bypass and circumvent scientific laws, creating matter and energy where there was once none. Creating a physical space and transcendental space where there was once none. This is the only reasonable explination that I can determine. It certainly sounds better than life being mere coincidence.Thanks-

[QUOTE="Thanks-"]You are dealing with the argument that G-d is the only force that can bypass and circumvent scientific laws, creating matter and energy where there was once none. Creating a physical space and transcendental space where there was once none. This is the only reasonable explination that I can determine. It certainly sounds better than life being mere coincidence.Atrus

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]

copy/paste/wall of text

god doesn't exist

Thanks-

[QUOTE="Thanks-"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]

copy/paste/wall of text

god doesn't exist

tequilasunriser

This is actually a good argument up until the end, where you said essentially that Hitler was infulenced by Christians. That is untrue. Hitler was obviously a Pagan, and there is plenty of evidence to support this. Moreover, Hitler had plans to enslave the Christians once his 'Aryan' dream was born. Moreover, Mein Kampf is just another facet of Hitler's propoganda machine.

Edit: Also, I do account the murderings of genocidal regimes into my 'killed by atheism' statistic.

Thanks-

[QUOTE="Thanks-"]

This is actually a good argument up until the end, where you said essentially that Hitler was infulenced by Christians. That is untrue. Hitler was obviously a Pagan, and there is plenty of evidence to support this. Moreover, Hitler had plans to enslave the Christians once his 'Aryan' dream was born. Moreover, Mein Kampf is just another facet of Hitler's propoganda machine.

Edit: Also, I do account the murderings of genocidal regimes into my 'killed by atheism' statistic.

Atrus

The anti-Semitism of the new movement was based on religious ideas instead of racial knowledge.
-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exposed." [Adolf Hitler speech on April 12, 1922, published in My New Order, quoted in Freethought Today April 1990]

"Not until my fourteenth or
fifteenth year did I begin to come across the word 'Jew,' with any
frequency, partly in connection with political discussions.... For the
Jew was still characterized for me by nothing but his religion, and
therefore, on grounds of human tolerance, I maintained my rejection of
religious attacks in this case as in others. Consequently, the tone,
particularly that of the Viennese anti-Semitic press, seemed to me
unworthy of the cultural tradition of a great nation."
-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

"I was not in agreement with the
sharp anti-Semitic tone, but from time to time I read arguments which
gave me some food for thought. At all events, these occasions slowly
made me acquainted with the man and the movement, which in those days
guided Vienna's destinies: Dr. Karl Lueger and the Christian Social
Party."
-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)


How many of my basic principles were upset by this change in my attitude toward the Christian Social movement! My views with regard to anti-Semitism thus succumbed to the passage of time, and this was my greatest transformation of all.
-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

Even today I am not ashamed to
say that, overpowered by stormy enthusiasm, I fell down on my knees and
thanked Heaven from an overflowing heart for granting me the good
fortune of being permitted to live at this time.
-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)


Certainly we don't have to
discuss these matters with the Jews, the most modern inventors of this
cultural perfume. Their whole existence is an embodied protest against
the aesthetics of the Lord's image.
-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

The best characterization is
provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself.
His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to
true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the
great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret
of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even
took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of
all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an
instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to
the cross, while our present-day party Christians debase themselves to
begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange
political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties-- and this against
their own nation.
-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

The fact of the matter is, that politicians as devious as Hitler will say anything in order to get elected. I suggest instead of browsing Christian hating websites for your facts, you ask a history professor if Hitler was a pagan or a Christian. Until then, keep your false salvations to yourself.

P.S: I have forbidden>

Thanks-

G-d? Why not "God"?firedonut

I think my life will continue successfully without reading all of that, but thanks for the heads-up.

Actually, a real intelligent man would ponder the reality of his own exsistence, his impending demise, and the reason for both. If you cut out the debate and just look at what Jesus said, it all makes incredible sense! I'll sum it up so you can understand it in a nutshell, "Love other people" "Love your God" "Treat others the way you would want them to treat you" why is that so hard for some people to grasp??? Pure and simple: without God there is no reason for morality. without morality there is no reason for law. without law everythig would be utter chaos.Nova_Mongoose

[QUOTE="Nova_Mongoose"]
Actually, a real intelligent man would ponder the reality of his own exsistence, his impending demise, and the reason for both. If you cut out the debate and just look at what Jesus said, it all makes incredible sense! I'll sum it up so you can understand it in a nutshell, "Love other people" "Love your God" "Treat others the way you would want them to treat you" why is that so hard for some people to grasp??? Pure and simple: without God there is no reason for morality. without morality there is no reason for law. without law everythig would be utter chaos.Atrus

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]

copy/paste/wall of text

god doesn't exist

Thanks-

While Evolution is a scientific fact, no statement regard the existence or non-existence of God can be said to be scientifically derived.

In the absence of such proofs, the most reasonable answer vis a vis Occams Razor and plenty of other rational arguments, is to state that no such being exists until there is evidence.

If one has to derive a statement depending on available sources of information and reasoning, then in light of a proof, the highest probability falls to the Athiestic position as being very likely true. However this is all irrelevent as the question of Gods existence is purposeless. Everyone is born Agnostic about the concept of a God and only becomes presented with the Theistic/Atheistic case because of a social need to quantify belief and an assumption that morality is linked to religion.

Much like being asked whether you like Mauve or Fuschia, the question is only relevent because it is brought up and haragued upon and is otherwise irrelevent. The same exists for religion. Most people only cite their beliefs in what I'd like to call check-box syndrome, that they say so because they have to.

Most live in a nebulous understanding and practicing of their beliefs up till old age when the questions of mortality become more apparent. The only bad part is the extent with which religion seems to want to control the lives of other people beyond that of the one believer.
 Atrus

 Negative, I said a lack of God gives no basis for morality or law. What are these sets of "natural laws" you talk about? Do people really have them? You see, I'm in the Army and have heard stories of people throwing themselves on a grenade to save there buddies, an animal would never do that...it goes against every rule of "survival of the fittest" but it does show what truly seperates us from the animals-love. BTW we are not trained to do things like that. As for "religion" I have my own issues with that. But I'm one of those "Christian" people who does crazy obscure mystical things like "praying". Tell me what's wrong with my moral philosophy? "Do to other people as I would have them do to me" and "Love my God"Nova_Mongoose

Evolution is a theory and is flawed. It is just as impossible to disprove God as to prove him. Another topic on this forum is about a man who fell 2 miles with no parachute and lived. There is no scientific explaination of this. Read my sig..it says it all.Trashface

[QUOTE="Trashface"]Evolution is a theory and is flawed. It is just as impossible to disprove God as to prove him. Another topic on this forum is about a man who fell 2 miles with no parachute and lived. There is no scientific explaination of this. Read my sig..it says it all.Atrus

Whether evolution is fact is actually irrelevant to the original issue. The poster was saying evolution and  God can go hand in hand which is true. Evolution  could be a method of God. As far as proving the existance of God..if that did ever happen which it won't, then there would no longer be any such thing as faith which is a cornerstone of religion. It would make it easy for everyone to believe eliminating any seperation between the "wide road" amd "straight and narrow". That's theological though and pretty much irrelevant to the original post. It's possible that evolution is a factual method designed by God. That's what the original post is about.

Take my advice, stick to software engineering. You haven't made the existence of God any less ridiculous.-Karayan-