Thread title = "God or evolution?" No duh a man couldn't create this. The whole concept is based on the fact that a God created it. God:    /gɒd/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [god] Show IPA noun, verb, god⋅ded, god⋅ding, interjection –noun 1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe (dictionary.com) Not sure if I'm reading this right, but I think you are asking, if there is a god, where did he come from? if not, disregard the following. It is incredibly hard and maybe impossible to fully wrap your mind around the concept, but a widely accepted belief is that God has always been around. he never began, he just always has been. The only way I can attempt to make sense of this is the belief that God is outside of time, which is hard to understand, but it makes sense. for more on that, read Mere Christianity by C.S Lewis Now I understand that that is all quite unbelievable, but so is the idea of this amazingly vast and extravagant universe coming from nothing at all. A good book you might find intriguing is A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson. edit: original was FULL of typos.
honestly the whole god created the earth and man in 7 days thing is just way too far out there for me... I just can't even attempt to believe that and i'm usually a pretty open minded person when my religious friends try to explain this to me... so right now i believe in evolution which just makes much more sense logically. I know that's just like believing in the whole god thing but i like to look at logic and well... all the logic i have points to evolution...
I believe in evolution because, despite my Catholic education, it IS possible for all the right conditions to have been met to make life and matter. Even though it is highly improbable, it is not impossible.
http://www.google.ca/search?q=missing+l ... nk&oi=ddle Woo hoo! Now we get to go through decades of debate attemping (unsucessfully, most likely. but what do I know?) to squelch any doubt with respect to the fact that this is concrete proof. I, for one, am excited. :| <- This is me trying hard not to make any bad "Ida" puns. Ida lemur? No, you da lemur. :nope: <- And this is me, sadly disappointed in my failure. I bet that scientists called it that on purpose.
You know... I think that it is impossible to proof each of the theories 100%. Nevertherless I believe in evolution, because it seems pretty logical to me, I (sadly) don't belive in any kind of higher entity (life would be so easy) and evolution really makes sense... Just look at the way dogs develop... It's really the same concept.
I believe in evolution too. God could have created everthing, but to believe it, I would need someone to prove it or something. For these things, I am rational. Science makes more sense to me. Maybe there's a "Supreme Being", but I don't think it would have create the universe.
People often assume the idea of God and evolution are entirely incompatible. That is only true if you're a hardcore fundamentalist that believes in the factual inerrancy of the Bible (I can't even begin to state what's wrong with that). If you're mature and reasonable enough to admit that a book written thousands of years ago by humans, often hundreds of years after the events they are describing, a book that has been rewritten, translated, retranslated, altered, added to and manipulated might just not be the tome of all truth, then one can quite reasonably believe in God and evolution. It is not God and evolution that are incompatible, it is the Bible and evolution.
Evolution could be a product of god.. Well enven if you follow the theory of big bang there is space for god.. Then god would be the source of energy.Still I don't believe in a personal God, that just doesn't make sense.
My thoughts exactly. Essentially, there's no way to prove either way. Because no matter how many miracles you see, there's always a chance that it's explained by some of the infinite science that we don't understand yet. On the other hand, any scientific evidence of a lack of god you point to could simply be a deity obscuring his presence. Actually, it would make sense for religion to support evolution, because where's the fun in giving us all a test if God removes all doubt that he's watching?
I said both because both make sense like someone once said nothing can ever dissapear only change form like when your "life" leaves your body there must be a place for it And yeah i think we evolved from apes just look at the lead singer of supergrass i think that makes sense http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwjXgskUN50
ok.. I believe God and evolution are completely incompatible, and I believe that God created the world. if you don't believe that God is real and powerful, then of course it makes sense to believe in evolution. part of believing in God is faith because of how defiant of physics and logic God is. =)
This is why there have been wars over this topic. There must be a seperation between church and science. I watched Angels and Demons a few weeks ago, but never did liked it as these kind of topics will always have some kind of conflict. For me, I believe that God created everything and that evolution is a process that just came about.
But whyyyyy! How can anyone believe in God when there's no proof. It's just like believing there are little elfs or.. Gremlins. Anything. Why do you believe in God? Fear, how you were raised, how?
Why wouldn't you believe? You have nothing to lose. If you do believe, if you're good, you live on for eternity in paradise. Everything happens for a reason, so you can't really control things like who dies when and why. God has a master plan. There are so concepts so grand and complicated that, as a mortal human, you won't be able to understand until you ascend into heaven as a angel. So why bother learning math? You weren't meant to learn trig until you die and go to heaven.
I am god only. that crap about animals "evolving" in to humans, is what what I said it was, CRAP! That is all I;m saying, I am not flaming or ranting. Just saying.
I believe in God only, although I do understand things about microevolution, which I take it as a form of adaptation. But if you think of it logically, it is nearly impossible that we came from a single-cell organism. In the first place, how could a single-cell organism evolve into a multi-cell organism if there were only single-cell ones around. 2 of them can't just join together and create a multi-cell one. Evolution is just a mere theory create by scientist, there are still many flaws with their theory. The talk about humans being evolved from apes has its basis on the fact that our DNA's are similar, but does that show that we really evolved from an ape? Take this example. Think about the original Porshe and the Volkswagen "Beetle" cars. Both have air-cooled, flat, horizontally-opposed, 4-cylinder engines in the rear, independent rear suspension, two doors, trunk in the front, and many other similarties. Why do this 2 cars have so many similarities? Because they had the same designer! If we humans were to have no similarity at all to any other sort of living organism, how would it reveal to us that all of us were created by the same Creator? We would think that there must be many creators instead of one. Also, if humans were to be different from other living organisms, we would have nothing to eat since we eat other organisms for their amino acids, sugar etc. We would never be able to use any of these chemicals if they were all different from what we have. One other example is a claim by Evolutionists that useless organs are the "leftovers" of evolution, such as flightless bird's wings, male nipples, human appendix etc. First, we cannot prove that these organs are totally useless, its just that their function are simply unknown and will be discovered in the future. This happened with more than 100 formerly alleged useless vestigial organs in humans that are now known to be essential. Second, even if the organ were no longer needed, it would prove devolution instead of evolution. Particles-to-people evolution model needs to find examples of nascent organs, eg, those which are increasing in complexity. Of course, there are many arguments that opposes creationism that simply can't be answered. I'm not here to argue over these 2 points of view but I'm merely stating my opinion on facts that I came across. Any argument between creationism and evolution would never lead to a conclusion since both parties will never be willing to accept that his/her view has been disproven.
On the contrary, single celled organisms CAN evolve into multicellular ones over time. Say we have a single celled organism named Cell A. Cell A is a basic organism, undergoing diffusion and whatnot just to keep it's own metabolic activity active. As time passes, many Cell A's clump together, joining in a similar fashion as a school of fish. Then, Cell B's and Cell C's all join in, and all of a sudden you have a multicellular organism. It isn't that a single celled organism just spontaneously became multicellular; it may have joined with other organisms at the time to achieve multicellularity. You say "two of them [single celled organisms] can't just clump together to make a multicellular one," but this is exactly how multicellular organisms are able to live. Our major ATP source, the mitochondria, have a different set of DNA than the rest of the cells. Most likely, the mitochondria was engulfed by an ancestor of our body cells; basically "clumped together" and evolved into the cells that we exhibit today. Also, the single celled organisms did evolve from basically rocks, mush, and free-flowing organic molecules, didn't they? So becoming multicellular doesn't seem TOO unrealistic. About vestigal organs, the time frame in which mammals have been more prominent in the world [now] has not been a very long time. In evolutionary terms, we are infants. Fast forward 5 million years in the future and THEN check to see if we have any appendixes or male nipples. I don't think we will. Just my thoughts ^^