God Created Evolution??

How bout this tought (chances its been posted considering the ammount of replyes religion threads get)   God does exist and he created Evolution. That way both sides win

I pretty much believe that God created the universe and that evolution was a result of God's work. Vyse_The_Daring

That simply doesnt add up. Read Genesis and see for yourself. 

[QUOTE="Vyse_The_Daring"]I pretty much believe that God created the universe and that evolution was a result of God's work. flight78

That simply doesnt add up. Read Genesis and see for yourself.

Not all religous people, including many Chirstians, take a literal interpretation of Genesis.

How bout this tought (chances its been posted considering the ammount of replyes religion threads get)   God does exist and he created Evolution. That way both sides win

GsSanAndreas

*kills the religious thread* Dont worry its dead and wont be coming back...The_One_White

If you don't like religious threads, ignore them. Look for another thread, even if you have to go a couple of pages back.  

[QUOTE="Vyse_The_Daring"]I pretty much believe that God created the universe and that evolution was a result of God's work. flight78

That simply doesnt add up. Read Genesis and see for yourself.

I think you'll find it's Genesis that doesn't add up, sorry. I don't read/follow the Bible. 

[QUOTE="Vyse_The_Daring"]I pretty much believe that God created the universe and that evolution was a result of God's work. flight78

That simply doesnt add up. Read Genesis and see for yourself. 

That sounds fine and all, but it doesn't prove anything. God either created the universe or didn't.CptJSparrow

Yup true. 

I pretty much believe that God created the universe and that evolution was a result of God's work. Vyse_The_Daring

Thats where i stand

God created the universe with the big bang, and the universe and life has evolved since then.

God created the universe with the big bang, and the universe and life has evolved since then.

RevolutionLink

 Read Genesis again Now I ask you? who´s word do you tremble at Gods word or Mans word?

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where does it say and God created an ape like human being and it evolved over millions of years into a human being??

God created the universe with the big bang, and the universe and life has evolved since then.

RevolutionLink

Unlike the idea of evolution, the concept of God has absolutely no forms of emperical proof that can be directly traced to the existence of God.

Why should we keep a completely valid scientic theory, which is supported by an abudence of emperical evidence, and still believe in an idea that lacks evidence?

[QUOTE="RevolutionLink"]

God created the universe with the big bang, and the universe and life has evolved since then.

flight78

 Read Genesis again Now I ask you? who´s word do you tremble at Gods word or Mans word?

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where does it say and God created an ape like human being and it evolved over millions of years into a human being??

And how do you prove that a document that was created by over fifty authors, subjected to over 200 forms of revision, and thousands of different interpretations is the divine word of God?  Please do not cite circular reasoning.  You must first prove the validity of your religion texts, the warrant for your arguements and religious tradition, if you wish to use it as a form of evidence in an arguement.

Unlike the idea of evolution, the concept of God has absolutely no forms of emperical proof that can be directly traced to the existence of God.

Why should we keep a completely valid scientic theory, which is supported by an abudence of emperical evidence, and still believe in an idea that lacks evidence?

FoamingPanda

How bout this tought (chances its been posted considering the ammount of replyes religion threads get) God does exist and he created Evolution. That way both sides win

GsSanAndreas

[QUOTE="flight78"][QUOTE="RevolutionLink"]

God created the universe with the big bang, and the universe and life has evolved since then.

FoamingPanda

Read Genesis again Now I ask you? who´s word do you tremble at Gods word or Mans word?

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where does it say and God created an ape like human being and it evolved over millions of years into a human being??

And how do you prove that a document that was created by over fifty authors, subjected to over 200 forms of revision, and thousands of different interpretations is the divine word of God? Please do not cite circular reasoning. You must first prove the validity of your religion texts, the warrant for your arguements and religious tradition, if you wish to use it as a form of evidence in an arguement.

This is the first time I agree with Foamingpanda, the burdon of proof (not faith) is sitting on the creationists side.

How bout this tought (chances its been posted considering the ammount of replyes religion threads get) God does exist and he created Evolution. That way both sides win

GsSanAndreas

Unlike the idea of evolution, the concept of God has absolutely no forms of emperical proof that can be directly traced to the existence of God.

Why should we keep a completely valid scientic theory, which is supported by an abudence of emperical evidence, and still believe in an idea that lacks evidence?

FoamingPanda

who said evolution is proven? It is still debated among scientists.

Last time I checked, DNA doesn't change over generations. And this is the most important point that those people who try to prove evolution are having trouble with.

[QUOTE="FoamingPanda"]

Unlike the idea of evolution, the concept of God has absolutely no forms of emperical proof that can be directly traced to the existence of God.

Why should we keep a completely valid scientic theory, which is supported by an abudence of emperical evidence, and still believe in an idea that lacks evidence?

crude_darkness

who said evolution is proven? It is still debated among scientists.

Last time I checked, DNA doesn't change over generations. And this is the most important point that those people who try to prove evolution are having trouble with.

[QUOTE="FoamingPanda"]

Unlike the idea of evolution, the concept of God has absolutely no forms of emperical proof that can be directly traced to the existence of God.

Why should we keep a completely valid scientic theory, which is supported by an abudence of emperical evidence, and still believe in an idea that lacks evidence?

crude_darkness

who said evolution is proven? It is still debated among scientists.

Last time I checked, DNA doesn't change over generations. And this is the most important point that those people who try to prove evolution are having trouble with.

[QUOTE="crude_darkness"][QUOTE="FoamingPanda"]

Unlike the idea of evolution, the concept of God has absolutely no forms of emperical proof that can be directly traced to the existence of God.

Why should we keep a completely valid scientic theory, which is supported by an abudence of emperical evidence, and still believe in an idea that lacks evidence?

xaos

who said evolution is proven? It is still debated among scientists.

Last time I checked, DNA doesn't change over generations. And this is the most important point that those people who try to prove evolution are having trouble with.

Who said that anything in life is proven?  Life is a matter of sifting through observations made through sensory experience.  Thus far, the theory of evolution provides the most comprehensive, valid, and overwhelming theory on how humans came to be about.  Terrestrial, and exterrestrial geology, have provided countless forms of evidence for evolution. 

What evidence do creationists have?  Why does the earth explicitly refute and call into question creationist mechanics?  Why do biological organism also refute creationist mechanics?

[QUOTE="FoamingPanda"]

Unlike the idea of evolution, the concept of God has absolutely no forms of emperical proof that can be directly traced to the existence of God.

Why should we keep a completely valid scientic theory, which is supported by an abudence of emperical evidence, and still believe in an idea that lacks evidence?

crude_darkness

who said evolution is proven? It is still debated among scientists.

Last time I checked, DNA doesn't change over generations. And this is the most important point that those people who try to prove evolution are having trouble with.

[QUOTE="FoamingPanda"]

Unlike the idea of evolution, the concept of God has absolutely no forms of emperical proof that can be directly traced to the existence of God.

Why should we keep a completely valid scientic theory, which is supported by an abudence of emperical evidence, and still believe in an idea that lacks evidence?

crude_darkness

who said evolution is proven? It is still debated among scientists.

Last time I checked, DNA doesn't change over generations. And this is the most important point that those people who try to prove evolution are having trouble with.

DNA doesn't change over generations? Really? Then what the hell have I been doing for several months in my genetics class crossing fruit flys to have certain traits? 

[QUOTE="crude_darkness"][QUOTE="FoamingPanda"]

Unlike the idea of evolution, the concept of God has absolutely no forms of emperical proof that can be directly traced to the existence of God.

Why should we keep a completely valid scientic theory, which is supported by an abudence of emperical evidence, and still believe in an idea that lacks evidence?

dainjah1010

who said evolution is proven? It is still debated among scientists.

Last time I checked, DNA doesn't change over generations. And this is the most important point that those people who try to prove evolution are having trouble with.

DNA doesn't change over generations? Really? Then what the hell have I been doing for several months in my genetics class crossing fruit flys to have certain traits? 

How bout this tought (chances its been posted considering the ammount of replyes religion threads get) God does exist and he created Evolution. That way both sides win

GsSanAndreas

That sounds like an excuse. 

It's obvious that if God exists He created evolution. It's beyond me how anyone can think any differently.quiglythegreat

[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"]It's obvious that if God exists He created evolution. It's beyond me how anyone can think any differently.CptJSparrow

[QUOTE="flight78"][QUOTE="RevolutionLink"]

God created the universe with the big bang, and the universe and life has evolved since then.

FoamingPanda

Read Genesis again Now I ask you? who´s word do you tremble at Gods word or Mans word?

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where does it say and God created an ape like human being and it evolved over millions of years into a human being??

And how do you prove that a document that was created by over fifty authors, subjected to over 200 forms of revision, and thousands of different interpretations is the divine word of God? Please do not cite circular reasoning. You must first prove the validity of your religion texts, the warrant for your arguements and religious tradition, if you wish to use it as a form of evidence in an arguement.

This may be for the Chrostian bible but it certainly not the case for the Quran as not a SINGLE word has been changed since it was revealed 1400 years ago; even though the scientific facts mentioned in the Book still matches today's scientific facts. see for yourself: http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_index.html 

Fair enough, this theory is better than the whole Genesis thing.

[QUOTE="flight78"]

[QUOTE="Vyse_The_Daring"]I pretty much believe that God created the universe and that evolution was a result of God's work. ProudLarry

That simply doesnt add up. Read Genesis and see for yourself.

Not all religous people, including many Chirstians, take a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Then you can't take any other part of the bible literal then.  You don't have the authority to say genesis isn't literal but Jesus rising from the grave was. 

You can't pick and choose which stories are parables or true.

[QUOTE="FoamingPanda"]

Unlike the idea of evolution, the concept of God has absolutely no forms of emperical proof that can be directly traced to the existence of God.

Why should we keep a completely valid scientic theory, which is supported by an abudence of emperical evidence, and still believe in an idea that lacks evidence?

crude_darkness

who said evolution is proven? It is still debated among scientists.

Last time I checked, DNA doesn't change over generations. And this is the most important point that those people who try to prove evolution are having trouble with.

Evolution is not being debated by scientist, atleast not by more than a scant few. 

Secondly, DNA changes generation to generation in every organism on earth.  Get with the times.

[QUOTE="ProudLarry"][QUOTE="flight78"]

[QUOTE="Vyse_The_Daring"]I pretty much believe that God created the universe and that evolution was a result of God's work. Donkey_Puncher

That simply doesnt add up. Read Genesis and see for yourself.

Not all religous people, including many Chirstians, take a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Then you can't take any other part of the bible literal then.  You don't have the authority to say genesis isn't literal but Jesus rising from the grave was. 

You can't pick and choose which stories are parables or true.

 Why?xaos

Who has the authority to say which parts are true and which aren't?  Originally the bible was written and intended to be taken literally.  Over time science has shown us that most parts of it are simply impossible i.e. Genesis, reason being a lot of people don't take it literally.

If you start to take things in a non-literal sense, then what's to say that Jesus being the son of God, him rising from the grave, or any other story from being just another parable and not to be taken literally?

Christians can't pick and choose which stories are literal and which one's aren't.  It's backtracking and destroying their case even further. 

[QUOTE="xaos"]

 Why?Donkey_Puncher

Who has the authority to say which parts are true and which aren't?  Originally the bible was written and intended to be taken literally.  Over time science has shown us that most parts of it are simply impossible i.e. Genesis, reason being a lot of people don't take it literally.

If you start to take things in a non-literal sense, then what's to say that Jesus being the son of God, him rising from the grave, or any other story from being just another parable and not to be taken literally?

Christians can't pick and choose which stories are literal and which one's aren't.  It's backtracking and destroying their case even further. 

[QUOTE="Donkey_Puncher"]

[QUOTE="xaos"]

Why?xaos

Who has the authority to say which parts are true and which aren't? Originally the bible was written and intended to be taken literally. Over time science has shown us that most parts of it are simply impossible i.e. Genesis, reason being a lot of people don't take it literally.

If you start to take things in a non-literal sense, then what's to say that Jesus being the son of God, him rising from the grave, or any other story from being just another parable and not to be taken literally?

Christians can't pick and choose which stories are literal and which one's aren't. It's backtracking and destroying their case even further.

[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="quiglythegreat"]It's obvious that if God exists He created evolution. It's beyond me how anyone can think any differently.quiglythegreat

The Bible teaches a literal 6 day creation. Even Jesus interpreted Genesis literally in the gospels. There's no such thing as theistic evolution in the bible. Nor the Gap Theory or the Day-Age Theory. The bible teaches a literal 6 day creation. Read the torah. It is clear! I've been studying the bible about 15 years now. Whether you chose to believe theistic evolution is your problem, but the bible teaches no such thing. Christians who say it does are trying to form the bible to their opinion rather than just accepting what the bible says.
maheo30

Well, parts of the Bible have been added and excised for millenia, so saying that the current version is somehow privileged and "right" seems short-sighted to me.xaos

I think you're misinterpreting me.  I'm not christian nor do I believe the bible is right.  Ok, now that's been said.

What I'm saying is that by saying Genesis isn't suppossed to be taken literal opens up the rest of the bible to attack.  If christians can retrack the validity of Genesis being word for word, what's to stop critics from attacking the notion of the entirety of the bible being literal as well?

Everything from Jesus, Noah, Exodus (which, by the way there is no proof of), and everything in the bible would be open to interpretation.  Which would beg to be ask, if Genesis isn't literal, why is Jesus being the son of God and turning water into wine? 

It's a double standard set by Christians trying to interpret some parts literally and some as metophors.  It underminds the very set of beliefs they built for themselves.