Evolution or God?

[Neversoft]

Do you believe Charles Darwin's theory of Evolution or do you believe that God created life?

Charles Darwin ftw.

And what about Heaven and Hell, think they exist?

I do not.

[:Alpha]

E V O L U T I O N !

[Eamonn]

I choose to believe that God created life.

[Neversoft]

Added a poll.

[benjamin]

Evolution

[Eamonn]

Can't vote on the poll, cautioned.

[womanizer]

evolution

[Neversoft]

Can't vote on the poll, cautioned.

You can't vote in polls if you're cautioned? Man, that sucks!

[Nixt]

Evolution... It just makes more sense :)

[Eamonn]

You can't vote in polls if you're cautioned? Man, that sucks!
I know, what sort of lesson is that trying to teach me :rolleyes: ''You obey the rules or you can't vote on polls!''

[paul♥]

I don't really know.

if i had to make a decision id say Evolution.

[Herman]

God, I just don't see anything true about evolution.

[:Hazel]

Dunno, God seems a safe bet ;)

[Dan2nd]

I think god created evolution

[hit-by-a-car]

:eusa_danc evo, but slightly god

[Dan2nd]

there you go some information I found



In the beginning, God created evolution
The universe is full of wonders, not the least of which is that we mere humans can aspire to understand it. We create scientific theories to describe, organize, and eventually understand the world we see. By scientific, I mean that they make testable predictions, about either the outcome of experiments or the nature of future discoveries. If evidence is found that contradicts a prediction, then that theory has to be modified or discarded. History is littered with the wreckage of discarded theories, from the Earth as the center of the universe to the four humor theory of disease.

Two of our most powerful scientific ways of understanding the world around us are evolution and the big bang. The evidence for these theories is extensive and compelling, although not complete.

The Hubble Space Telescope can see light from distant galaxies billions of light years away, which means that that light has been travelling for billions of years. The farther galaxies are all moving away from us at high speed like the debris from an explosion. The observed proportions of the lightest elements are exactly explained by the high temperatures of such an explosion. The big bang theory describes in detail how the universe has changed from its start in a fiery explosion about 15 billion years ago to its present state. It does not try to explain what started the explosion.

We know from radioactive elements in the Earth's crust that our world is over 4 billion years old. We have found an orderly progression of fossils buried in the Earth, starting with simple organisms and ending with the creatures we see around us. Due to the difficulty of preserving a skeleton for hundreds of millions of years (fossilizing it), we have found examples of only a few of the animals that have ever lived. However, we have found many examples where species changed gradually from one form to another, for example, from land-based mammals to whales. We now understand how traits are passed from parent to offspring. We also understand the general mechanisms of genetic variation and natural selection -- how it is that children are different from their parents and that some will do better than others. Evolution encompasses and explains all of this data, from molecules to animals. Scientists agree that new species evolve from old ones, although we still argue over the details.

One of these arguments concerns how much time it takes a species to evolve, whether it is a lot (a million years) or a little (only a 100,000 years). These time periods are so long that it is not surprising that we have not actually observed a new species emerge. Chihuahuas and Great Danes have been bred from the same ancestor in only a few thousand years; imagine how different they could be in a million years.

Scientists start with the evidence and try to deduce a theory that explains all of it. The vast majority of scientists throughout the world, including many devout Christians, Jews and those of other faiths, have examined the evidence and wholeheartedly accept evolution and the big bang. These theories are an integral part of modern biology, physics, geology, astronomy, paleontology, anthropology, biochemistry, etc. The US National Academy of Sciences recently reiterated its support for evolution and the big bang. Anti-scientists start with a theory (for example: "evolution is wrong") and use only the evidence that supports it.

It is not clear why some people hate the big bang and evolution. Certainly an omniscient and omnipotent God could use whatever means desired to create humans and the Earth. And certainly the Bible is a religious and moral guide, not a scientific textbook. The ancient Hebrews had no need to know about stellar nucleosynthesis or deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). Who is man to say that "God could not have used evolution to create me"?

Science does not threaten God and God does not need to hide in the ever-shrinking spaces that science cannot explain. God's role in our lives was not diminished by Galileo, by our understanding of lightning or by quantum mechanics. It is not diminished by the big bang or evolution.

If God created the universe, is it not a form of worship to explore and seek to understand its wonders?

[ColyTom]

You can believe in God & Charles Darwin. It could just be a certain aspect of the bible that you don't believe.

[fetish]

evolution

[Lycan]

Evolution Ftw,

All religion is just plain rubbish (in my view) anyone read scientology? now thats even funnier cult

[Kymux]

I believe science over religion.

[Dj-Stu]

i belive in god so i think he made everything

[Tash.]

Science always prevails for me, so evolution.

[Jesus-Egg]

Evolution.

[:dallsgreen]

I believe that God created life.

[Smiddy]

It's either going to be Evolution, Creation or Design, (design being "God", not necessarily the god of classical theism (christianity)).

But the term god is "divine", doesn't mean you believe in a religious god, just something which is spacio-tempio (outside space and time).

I personally can't see any reason why all three can't be linked together.
You design something (in god's case, the universe), then create it, then watch it evolve over time. (as it happens, we're the result, but in the future, it might be Evolved again.)

So err I sit on the fence here. :)

[RedStratocas]

Evolution. It actually makes sense as compared to god, and theres proof of it everywhere

[BL!NKEY]

http://images.countingdown.com/images/countdowns/movies/3845191/1011/3880383_main.jpg

'I don't believe in God, I believe in Science' --Eskeleto.

[DJ-Ali]

Proberly Evolution.

[Mentor]

Why do people try to be sciancey and then get it wrong?

God and Evolition have NOTHING to do with each other.
You can have God AND eveoltion
and you can have No god and no evolition.

They are complety unrelated.

I belive the in the christan concept of god, and that the genisis story or evolition maybe?

But then you say dawins theary of evolition which destroys that side to, becuse Dawins Theary is WRONG, even dawin knew it, he never figured out the proccess of inheritance (genetics), which you would have to thank mendal for.
The two wernt put together till much later ether, So dawins theary of evolition isnt actualy the theary of evolution we hold, like all thearys its made predictions, been wrong, been replaced by a better one that isnt wrong. "/

[Biseinen]

Yeah, mentor, has pointed out what I was just about to do. God, thats asking who created 'us' argument and the Evolution is about how we as humans evolved (Or anything else for that matter).

Although, evolution is a proven fact.

[kasi]

evolution. i don't believe in god.

[BL!NKEY]

Although, evolution is a proven fact.

I believe in evolution but it is still not a fact. It is a theory. But so is gravity.

Although Evolution and God might not have conflicts, Evolution and the Bible do and I think that is what the thread is about. The Bible sais the universe was created later then science does. The bible sais humans were poped out with adam and eve. Then again, the bible is just stories and a lot of religious people dont take it literally.

[Canariez]

:D I believe that God created life, but i'm not religous - I just don't believe in some "fact" that someone thought of thats only a possible option!

[Neversoft]

But then you say dawins theary of evolition which destroys that side to, becuse Dawins Theary is WRONG, even dawin knew it, he never figured out the proccess of inheritance (genetics), which you would have to thank mendal for.

Yes, but I am asking IF people believe Darwin's theory not. Not if it was true or false.

[stratosphere]

I chose to believe that God created the world.

[Leuven]

I believe in Evolution.

The thought of this one guy making everything is a load of b*******.

Censored for Religious Issues.

[J1MI]

I believe in evolution because there is evidence

[Biseinen]

I believe in evolution but it is still not a fact. It is a theory.

It's been scientifically proven that Evolution is a fact. Not an opinion like god.

[Mentor]

Yes, but I am asking IF people believe Darwin's theory not. Not if it was true or false.

But anyone who actualy has any knolage of the subject, or didnt fail GCSE sciance knows for a fact dawins theary is wrong, hence doesnt belive it. But still does belive in evolution, and not in theism.

Evolution is FACT. It can be demonstrated in a lab.
The Theory Of Evolution is how we "THINK" this process works, And is constantly being refined to fit with knew scinentic data, hence increaseing its accurasy.

But that doesnt change the fact that the proccess of evolution happens, only that we may not know How it happens exsacty.

[Biseinen]

Well said, Mentor.

[Brody]

i believe in evolution

[RedStratocas]

I believe in evolution but it is still not a fact. It is a theory. But so is gravity.

Gravity is a law, not a theory. So it is a fact.

Like mentor said before, evolution existing is a fact, how it works is still a theory. But we have some idea of it so far.

[exploit]

Evolution :)

[Browney]

I believe in existence. If something is there, I believe it. If I can touch it, I believe it. If I know it's plausible, I believe in it. The way I see my life is, we humans only can see somethings.

Like you're sat on a hilltop in a beautiful valley. Looking forward, all we can see is infront of us. So we know that's there. But until we manage to look behind us, we never know what has been behind us the whole time. Will there still be the hill or will it just be a drop cliff? Until we know what's behind us, we can only know what we see.

That's the way I see it. Which is why I say Evolution.

[Dan2nd]

I believe in Evolution.

The thought of this one guy making everything is a load of b*******.



God isn't a 'guy' and most of the stories in the bible are not meant to be taken as if they are true they are meant to teach us lessons such as Adam and Eve eve ate the forbidden fruit and got thrown out of paradise (sp?) which is meant to teach us not to give into temptation (sp?) from the Devil etc

[Mentor]

God isn't a 'guy' and most of the stories in the bible are not meant to be taken as if they are true they are meant to teach us lessons such as Adam and Eve eve ate the forbidden fruit and got thrown out of paradise (sp?) which is meant to teach us not to give into temptation (sp?) from the Devil etc
Yes, we learnt much from that story, like gods wants us all to have insest? snakes can talk and god likes toying with his creations.

[Dan2nd]

God isn't a 'guy' and most of the stories in the bible are not meant to be taken as if they are true they are meant to teach us lessons such as Adam and Eve eve ate the forbidden fruit and got thrown out of paradise (sp?) which is meant to teach us not to give into temptation (sp?) from the Devil etc


Yes, we learnt much from that story, like gods wants us all to have insest? snakes can talk and god likes toying with his creations.

I said what is in the bold mate =] Lol I respect the fact you obviously don't share my beleifs but nothing or anyone will effect how I feel about my faith and I hope you respect that to =D

[DiscoPat]

Both, the problem with religion is there isnt no evidence of proof,
however science is always ahead as everything is backed up by evidence.

[Robzor]

CHARLES DARWIN FTW !!!!! =]

[8Freak8]

God isn't a 'guy' and most of the stories in the bible are not meant to be taken as if they are true they are meant to teach us lessons such as Adam and Eve eve ate the forbidden fruit and got thrown out of paradise (sp?) which is meant to teach us not to give into temptation (sp?) from the Devil etc

The Bible isn't supposed to be taken as literal, but unfortunately many evangelical Christians are doing just that. I study Religion at College, and my class has had so many fiery debates between the atheists/agnostics and liberal Christians on one side, versus the evangelical Christians on the other side.

The evangelic christians believe that the world was made in 6 Earth days, is 6000 years old and say either we once lived on the Earth with dinosaurs who then became exstinct in the Great Flood (along with most of mankind), or that fossils are put their to test our faith. When asked about radiometric dating, they either claim that the techniques are flawed, or that God is testing our faith.

What interests me, is that there are many obvious metaphors in the Bible, like "the arm of God", and yet some Christians still believe that the entire thing should be taken literally - despite knowing there are metaphors in there.

The most worrying thing is that this type of literal interpretation of the Bible is becoming increasingly common in the UK.

[:Jamie]

God :)

[Smiddy]

Anyone believe the design theory? While we're on the topic.

William Paley devised an idea, using a watch.
The watch must of been designed, and you don't just find them being naturally made, they are "man-made" (and no, i'm not saying the next bit means "it" is a man).
From this he emphasised that the universe is a much more complex concept, and therefore, must of also been "designed", by something which is something us simple lifeforms (even humans) will never be able to truely know.

Just interested. :)

[Dan2nd]

Anyone believe the design theory? While we're on the topic.

William Paley devised an idea, using a watch.
The watch must of been designed, and you don't just find them being naturally made, they are "man-made" (and no, i'm not saying the next bit means "it" is a man).
From this he emphasised that the universe is a much more complex concept, and therefore, must of also been "designed", by something which is something us simple lifeforms (even humans) will never be able to truely know.

Just interested. :)

spot on I learnt that !!!

[Baving]

I am God

[8Freak8]

Anyone believe the design theory? While we're on the topic.

William Paley devised an idea, using a watch.
The watch must of been designed, and you don't just find them being naturally made, they are "man-made" (and no, i'm not saying the next bit means "it" is a man).
From this he emphasised that the universe is a much more complex concept, and therefore, must of also been "designed", by something which is something us simple lifeforms (even humans) will never be able to truely know.

Just interested. :)

Yeah I learnt that.

Also another argument is if a hurricane ripped through a junkyard, how likely is it that a machine as complex as a Boeing 747 could be put together? The universe being many times more complex is therefore even more unlikely to come together by random processes.

The point is though, that if you had a junkyard that was abundant with everything that is needed to make a Boeing 747, and if all of these things had specific charges to attract each other (like molecules), then there is at least a very very very very remote possibility of this happening - as long as you have one constant hurricane in a junkyard for billions of years.

[Mentor]

Anyone believe the design theory? While we're on the topic.

William Paley devised an idea, using a watch.
The watch must of been designed, and you don't just find them being naturally made, they are "man-made" (and no, i'm not saying the next bit means "it" is a man).
From this he emphasised that the universe is a much more complex concept, and therefore, must of also been "designed", by something which is something us simple lifeforms (even humans) will never be able to truely know.

Just interested. :)

Yea, but william's argument doesnt actualy work, for one his choice of annolgy is terrible, becuse Watches EVOLVED.

Not evolution in the organic biological sence, but still evolution.
No person has ever had the magic abilty to create a watch, it took alot of time, and reaserch, and ever more complex designs to get to the current form of watch. These ideas evolved from primative time telling devices such as sun dials up until what they are now.
This means if we apply the anaolgy, The creater diety isnt nessarly perfect, it could have requred millions of attempts to get it right, this earth could be a failed attempt? Ether way, its already not the concept of god christnaty holds.
But then again? a watch is quite simple, the world is not. SO maybe building a ship is a better anaology, but this requres 100's of not nessarly very bright workers to create it, so following the anolagy it would imply multiple gods were needed in its creation?
So his annolgy only implys an imprefect deity, Not god "/
Plus its working on an assumption that all things requre a cause, which also cannot apply to the universe.
Unless you would say:
book's has a cover (watchs have a cause(watchmaker))
All books have covers (all things have makers(clocks, tvs))

But then the next step saying the universe itself (the world in the arguments eyes) is the equilent of then saying "The Libary has a cover"

you see the problem with this kinda of agument (cosmological argument)?

There are litraly 100s of other critisims that can be drawn.


Yeah I learnt that.

Also another argument is if a hurricane ripped through a junkyard, how likely is it that a machine as complex as a Boeing 747 could be put together? The universe being many times more complex is therefore even more unlikely to come together by random processes.

The point is though, that if you had a junkyard that was abundant with everything that is needed to make a Boeing 747, and if all of these things had specific charges to attract each other (like molecules), then there is at least a very very very very remote possibility of this happening - as long as you have one constant hurricane in a junkyard for billions of years.

Also the likely hood of the boeing 747 comeing is the same likley hood as a specific pile of random junk, out of all possible combinations of matearals that is of equal likely hoods. "/
(Stephan hawkins white hole exsample exspress's this idea better (a brief history of time)

[8Freak8]

Yea, but william's argument doesnt actualy work, for one his choice of annolgy is terrible, becuse Watches EVOLVED.

Not evolution in the organic biological sence, but still evolution.
No person has ever had the magic abilty to create a watch, it took alot of time, and reaserch, and ever more complex designs to get to the current form of watch. These ideas evolved from primative time telling devices such as sun dials up until what they are now.
This means if we apply the anaolgy, The creater diety isnt nessarly perfect, it could have requred millions of attempts to get it right, this earth could be a failed attempt? Ether way, its already not the concept of god christnaty holds.
But then again? a watch is quite simple, the world is not. SO maybe building a ship is a better anaology, but this requres 100's of not nessarly very bright workers to create it, so following the anolagy it would imply multiple gods were needed in its creation?
So his annolgy only implys an imprefect deity, Not god "/
Plus its working on an assumption that all things requre a cause, which also cannot apply to the universe.
Unless you would say:
book's has a cover (watchs have a cause(watchmaker))
All books have covers (all things have makers(clocks, tvs))

But then the next step saying the universe itself (the world in the arguments eyes) is the equilent of then saying "The Libary has a cover"

you see the problem with this kinda of agument (cosmological argument)?

There are litraly 100s of other critisims that can be drawn.
You beauty!

Btw, I hope I'm not giving the impression I'm anti-Christian or anything like that, but because I do religion I get frustrated by some Christian point's of view, and have to look into it when I'm home and on the internet lol.

I think both mine and 01101101entor's arguments explain the analogy pretty well.

[Smiddy]

You may say Watches have evolved, but we've always had the resources to make them.
It's the humans themselves who have evolved and gained the extra knowledge on how to develope these watches, adding new technology to it.

It's always been there, but we've never discovered it until the time of it being discovered.

Oh, and btw - I'm not saying I agree with this argument, I was thinking of a counter argument before probably having to give in :rolleyes_
Yea, but william's argument doesnt actualy work, for one his choice of annolgy is terrible, becuse Watches EVOLVED.

Not evolution in the organic biological sence, but still evolution.
No person has ever had the magic abilty to create a watch, it took alot of time, and reaserch, and ever more complex designs to get to the current form of watch. These ideas evolved from primative time telling devices such as sun dials up until what they are now.
This means if we apply the anaolgy, The creater diety isnt nessarly perfect, it could have requred millions of attempts to get it right, this earth could be a failed attempt? Ether way, its already not the concept of god christnaty holds.
But then again? a watch is quite simple, the world is not. SO maybe building a ship is a better anaology, but this requres 100's of not nessarly very bright workers to create it, so following the anolagy it would imply multiple gods were needed in its creation?
So his annolgy only implys an imprefect deity, Not god "/
Plus its working on an assumption that all things requre a cause, which also cannot apply to the universe.
Unless you would say:
book's has a cover (watchs have a cause(watchmaker))
All books have covers (all things have makers(clocks, tvs))

But then the next step saying the universe itself (the world in the arguments eyes) is the equilent of then saying "The Libary has a cover"

you see the problem with this kinda of agument (cosmological argument)?

There are litraly 100s of other critisims that can be drawn.



Also the likely hood of the boeing 747 comeing is the same likley hood as a specific pile of random junk, out of all possible combinations of matearals that is of equal likely hoods. "/
(Stephan hawkins white hole exsample exspress's this idea better (a brief history of time)

[Mentor]

You may say Watches have evolved, but we've always had the resources to make them.
It's the humans themselves who have evolved and gained the extra knowledge on how to develope these watches, adding new technology to it.

It's always been there, but we've never discovered it until the time of it being discovered.
o.0 you could teach an ostraliphithcus to make a watch, are own evolution has nothing to do with are abilty to make wrist watch's, its a technolgy, not some biological exsention of ourselves "/
You cant evolve to have knolwage, you simply need to be able to comprihend information provided to you, aka the abilty to learn.

[Smiddy]

o.0 you could teach an ostraliphithcus to make a watch, are own evolution has nothing to do with are abilty to make wrist watch's, its a technolgy, not some biological exsention of ourselves "/
You cant evolve to have knolwage, you simply need to be able to comprihend information provided to you, aka the abilty to learn.
You said watches have evolved.
We've always had the ability to make watches, we've always had the resources to make watches, they were never put together correctly though.
Of course you learn knowledge over time, otherwise we'd apparently all still be living back in the dark ages, or clobbering other cavemen on the heads with clubs. These idea's were just never properly done correctly, with the right components.

[BL!NKEY]

People think of the chances that life evolved is soo slim and they throw out evolution.

But theoretically if you put 100 monkeys in a room with typewriters for an infinate time they are bound to write an exact copy of one of shaksphere's (sp?) plays.

In infinate time everything is possible. We are lucky that we live in the time where stuff did happen.

[Mentor]

<hypothetical>
You said watches have evolved.
We've always had the ability to make watches, we've always had the resources to make watches, they were never put together correctly though.
And god always had the resorces to make universes?

Of course you learn knowledge over time, otherwise we'd apparently all still be living back in the dark ages, or clobbering other cavemen on the heads with clubs. These idea's were just never properly done correctly, with the right components.
Same with god, so like the wrist watches, we also evoloved, so the argument doesnt help to disprove evolution, just reenforce it.

[8Freak8]

I think the best way to deal with this anology is to read some of Richard Dawkin's books Smiddy ;). Me and 01101101entor probably have a lesser understanding of it.

[Mentor]

I think the best way to deal with this anology is to read some of Richard Dawkin's books Smiddy ;). Me and 01101101entor probably have a lesser understanding of it.
Well to be fair, nether of us did a degree in zooolgy, philopshy etc "/

Plus if i wasnt so lazy and could be bothered to actualy pull up relivent details i could make the argument alot better than im doing by attempting to scrapt together memoerys from reading the critsims from way back when "/

[deltateamaplha]

Hehe I'm not going to post what i think or I'll get beat up * Cries to daddy*

[Twinkie]

Both, the problem with religion is there isnt no evidence of proof,
however science is always ahead as everything is backed up by evidence.

Religion doesn't have to be backed up by concrete proof for one to believe in it. Nor it should as it is faith.

I'm not particularly a religious person or an evolution aficionada.. I'm quite undecided. I don't really care about it though.

[Biseinen]

Religion doesn't have to be backed up by concrete proof for one to believe in it.

For so in this day and age, for it to be accepted as a fact universially, it does. People, unless proven otherwise by solid facts, are praying to the sky.

[PlayaKilla]

Evolution is just some noob who sucked up to callie but now shes left hes nothing which is why he joined runescape but hes prob finding it hard sucking up to the runescape mods!

[Browney]

Yeah I learnt that.

Also another argument is if a hurricane ripped through a junkyard, how likely is it that a machine as complex as a Boeing 747 could be put together? The universe being many times more complex is therefore even more unlikely to come together by random processes.

The point is though, that if you had a junkyard that was abundant with everything that is needed to make a Boeing 747, and if all of these things had specific charges to attract each other (like molecules), then there is at least a very very very very remote possibility of this happening - as long as you have one constant hurricane in a junkyard for billions of years.

Well, as remote as the chance is, there is always a chance. Even if it's 1 in a billion billion billion, there's still that 1 chance. All it takes is for an incredible piece of luck, just once.