Skip to main content

I have asked this question in other threads, but have gotten no thoughts on it, so I thought I would try it this way.

Why do the two have to be mutually exclusive? Are there no other Christians (besides myself) that believe in God's creation that has evolved over time? Why do so many Christians have a hard time believing that organisms evolve and adapt over time? Is it unrealistic to believe that in the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth, but that he has also allowed his creation to adapt and evolve to an ever changing environment? Thanks for the input.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

JDawg,

It's not necessary to separate the two. Many, or perhaps most, Christians understand the overwhelming evidence for the scientific explanation of the Universe.

Some don't, and it's up to them to demonstrate why not. So far, they've been spectacularly unsuccessful in doing so.

You do understand, don't you, that some 45% of Americans respond to pollsters that they accept the Genesis account of creation? A similar amount actively rejects the current understanding of cosmology and biology.

This is not a trivial misunderstanding.

These people vote. America's pre-eminence in world-class science has come and gone. The anti-science attitude of the TweetyBird sweatshirt crowd has eroded our leadership and acceptance of cutting-edge science here in America. Preachers and their victims are mostly to blame.

Your resistance to this travesty, as a Christian, is most important. You are evidence that one must not be stupid to be a Christian. You're in lots of good company, but y'all need to speak a bit louder, IMO.

Best,

nsns
Those are all very good points. As you know I posed the same question in the thread, and it was never asnwered that evolution denies the existance of God. It simply doesn't. It has just become a way that overly-religious people try and create any bit of doubt of science in religious people's minds. It is confused over and over, and doesn't need to be. We have people arguing over so many things, and I don't understand why this has to be an issue as well. I personally do not deny the existance of God, my issues lie with the boundaries religions try and lay down to shroud the churchgoer's eyes to keep them from being able to examine outside evidence from science. Preachers are not scientists, they interpret the Bible, which is in an of itself a very debatable subject. And in doing so they also want to deny any idea that their interpretations may be wrong because of the enormous amount of research science has conducted on evolution.
quote:
Originally posted by Not Shallow Not Slim:
JDawg,

It's not necessary to separate the two. Many, or perhaps most, Christians understand the overwhelming evidence for the scientific explanation of the Universe.

Some don't, and it's up to them to demonstrate why not. So far, they've been spectacularly unsuccessful in doing so.

You do understand, don't you, that some 45% of Americans respond to pollsters that they accept the Genesis account of creation? A similar amount actively rejects the current understanding of cosmology and biology.

This is not a trivial misunderstanding.

These people vote. America's pre-eminence in world-class science has come and gone. The anti-science attitude of the TweetyBird sweatshirt crowd has eroded our leadership and acceptance of cutting-edge science here in America. Preachers and their victims are mostly to blame.

Your resistance to this travesty, as a Christian, is most important. You are evidence that one must not be stupid to be a Christian. You're in lots of good company, but y'all need to speak a bit louder, IMO.

Best,

nsns

Slim , you have a very very bad habit of overstating, misrepresenting and anticipating the actual truth of matters. A combination of the three being present in you posts, logically, one must conclude that you are an intentional liar with the agenda to convince others of your position with erroneous statistics, ignorance of science and claimed facts of which you have NO authority other than you misconceptions.

It’s sickening.

You are always using the term ‘overwhelming’ in regard to evolution, fossil evidence of transition, cosmology and your claim there is no God.

What is overwhelming is your ignorance, intentional or by affect, of all the above subjects; especially God.

As far as science goes, you haven’t a clue as to the disagreement on the part of scientists .

You are not well read enough on any of these subjects to use the term overwhelming.
quote:
Originally posted by buffalo:
quote:
Originally posted by Not Shallow Not Slim:
JDawg,

It's not necessary to separate the two. Many, or perhaps most, Christians understand the overwhelming evidence for the scientific explanation of the Universe.

Some don't, and it's up to them to demonstrate why not. So far, they've been spectacularly unsuccessful in doing so.

You do understand, don't you, that some 45% of Americans respond to pollsters that they accept the Genesis account of creation? A similar amount actively rejects the current understanding of cosmology and biology.

This is not a trivial misunderstanding.

These people vote. America's pre-eminence in world-class science has come and gone. The anti-science attitude of the TweetyBird sweatshirt crowd has eroded our leadership and acceptance of cutting-edge science here in America. Preachers and their victims are mostly to blame.

Your resistance to this travesty, as a Christian, is most important. You are evidence that one must not be stupid to be a Christian. You're in lots of good company, but y'all need to speak a bit louder, IMO.

Best,

nsns

Slim , you have a very very bad habit of overstating, misrepresenting and anticipating the actual truth of matters. A combination of the three being present in you posts, logically, one must conclude that you are an intentional liar with the agenda to convince others of your position with erroneous statistics, ignorance of science and claimed facts of which you have NO authority other than you misconceptions.

It’s sickening.

You are always using the term ‘overwhelming’ in regard to evolution, fossil evidence of transition, cosmology and your claim there is no God.

What is overwhelming is your ignorance, intentional or by affect, of all the above subjects; especially God.

As far as science goes, you haven’t a clue as to the disagreement on the part of scientists .

You are not well read enough on any of these subjects to use the term overwhelming.

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

buff,, When you're right your right. Some other of (his?) characters
follow the same lead.


.
quote:
Originally posted by JDawg:
I have asked this question in other threads, but have gotten no thoughts on it, so I thought I would try it this way.

Why do the two have to be mutually exclusive? Are there no other Christians (besides myself) that believe in God's creation that has evolved over time? Why do so many Christians have a hard time believing that organisms evolve and adapt over time? Is it unrealistic to believe that in the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth, but that he has also allowed his creation to adapt and evolve to an ever changing environment? Thanks for the input.


You seem to be intent on stigmatizing Christians as the exclusivists on this issue. Allow me to balance the equation by showing just how dogmatic and exclusivist evolutionists can be. I first direct you to the words of Sir Julian Huxley. That very prominent evolutionist, in his address to the Darwin Centennial Convocation
in 1959, offered these less-than-congenial views of the role of God as Creator in any sense whatever. Huxley said this:

"Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as the creator from the sphere of rational discussion...I think we can dismiss entirely all idea of a supernatural overriding mind being responsible for the evolutionary process."

Move forward to the modern era and you will find the late Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, truly a major league evolutionist and a co-author of the theory of Punctuated Equilibria. When asked if he believed there was any place for God in evolution, Gould responded that,

"There is no place for God in evolution because there isn't a place for God in that sense in empirical science."

Who is walling off the other side? Maybe both sides, but give the evolutionists their due.
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
quote:
Originally posted by JDawg:
I have asked this question in other threads, but have gotten no thoughts on it, so I thought I would try it this way.

Why do the two have to be mutually exclusive? Are there no other Christians (besides myself) that believe in God's creation that has evolved over time? Why do so many Christians have a hard time believing that organisms evolve and adapt over time? Is it unrealistic to believe that in the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth, but that he has also allowed his creation to adapt and evolve to an ever changing environment? Thanks for the input.


You seem to be intent on stigmatizing Christians as the exclusivists on this issue. Allow me to balance the equation by showing just how dogmatic and exclusivist evolutionists can be. I first direct you to the words of Sir Julian Huxley. That very prominent evolutionist, in his address to the Darwin Centennial Convocation
in 1959, offered these less-than-congenial views of the role of God as Creator in any sense whatever. Huxley said this:

"Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as the creator from the sphere of rational discussion...I think we can dismiss entirely all idea of a supernatural overriding mind being responsible for the evolutionary process."

Move forward to the modern era and you will find the late Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, truly a major league evolutionist and a co-author of the theory of Punctuated Equilibria. When asked if he believed there was any place for God in evolution, Gould responded that,

"There is no place for God in evolution because there isn't a place for God in that sense in empirical science."

Who is walling off the other side? Maybe both sides, but give the evolutionists their due.


You mistake dogmatism and exclusivity for simply being correct.

Science is neither dogmatic nor exclusive. All scientific conclusions are open to revision, and you can participate.

As for Huxley and Gould, perhaps they are simply right? God is not necessary to explain the diversity of species on Earth.


nsns
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
quote:
Originally posted by JDawg:
I have asked this question in other threads, but have gotten no thoughts on it, so I thought I would try it this way.

Why do the two have to be mutually exclusive? Are there no other Christians (besides myself) that believe in God's creation that has evolved over time? Why do so many Christians have a hard time believing that organisms evolve and adapt over time? Is it unrealistic to believe that in the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth, but that he has also allowed his creation to adapt and evolve to an ever changing environment? Thanks for the input.


You seem to be intent on stigmatizing Christians as the exclusivists on this issue. Allow me to balance the equation by showing just how dogmatic and exclusivist evolutionists can be. I first direct you to the words of Sir Julian Huxley. That very prominent evolutionist, in his address to the Darwin Centennial Convocation
in 1959, offered these less-than-congenial views of the role of God as Creator in any sense whatever. Huxley said this:

"Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as the creator from the sphere of rational discussion...I think we can dismiss entirely all idea of a supernatural overriding mind being responsible for the evolutionary process."

Move forward to the modern era and you will find the late Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, truly a major league evolutionist and a co-author of the theory of Punctuated Equilibria. When asked if he believed there was any place for God in evolution, Gould responded that,

"There is no place for God in evolution because there isn't a place for God in that sense in empirical science."

Who is walling off the other side? Maybe both sides, but give the evolutionists their due.

It is not my intent to portray only Christians as exclusivist regarding this issue. It is just that the Christian perspective is the side that I approach this issue from.

I believe that God created the Earth just as it says in the Bible. However, I don't believe that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. I cannot believe that every living creature is found on this planet just as it was at creation. The Earth has changed. Climates change, topography changes. Organisms must adapt to survive in this ever changing environment.

When I have this discussion with my Christian friends, they tend to look at me as if I have an arm growing from my forehead. I don't understand how they can have the faith required to believe in creationism, but no problem questioning (or ignoring completely) the fact that evolution does indeed take place.
Don't fret Jdawg. There's quite a few that do not buy this 6000 year old earth idea.

If you have never read any of St. Augustine's "City of God" Give it a read. He didn't buy into it either and that was almost 1600 years ago and we still have people spouting off that the earth is only 6000 years old.

One of the things I get looks on when I ask concerning the following:

Genesis Chapter 1:

26And 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.

27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

and then in Chapter 2:
And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

6But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

8And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

and in Genesis Chapter 3:

23Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

Kinda gives me the impression that Adam was not the first man. His chosen one? Okay, but was he really the first man? Want to get some looks ask that question. Or just sit back and the watch the fireworks this post is going to set off

Big Grin
quote:
Sez UWsoft:
One of the things I get looks on when I ask concerning the following:

Genesis Chapter 1:

26And 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.

27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

and then in Chapter 2:
And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

6But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

8And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

and in Genesis Chapter 3:

23Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

Kinda gives me the impression that Adam was not the first man. His chosen one? Okay, but was he really the first man? Want to get some looks ask that question. Or just sit back and the watch the fireworks this post is going to set off



Dayumn! Dude! You actually have gone up to people and asked this????
Why?
Genesis 2:18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."


This always puzzled me. Eve seemed like an afterthought, someone that was supposed to keep adam from being lonely. So, who was he supposed to "multiply" with? And no christian will answer the question why adam and eve even had to be created since mankind had been on earth for thousands of years.
quote:
Originally posted by CageTheElephant:
quote:
Sez Slim:
all species extant on the Earth evolved from earlier species through the process of random mutation and natural selection. It took millions of years. And there is perfectly good evidence for it.



Random mutation? "Random" figures in to the forming of millions of complex systems? Please explain.

Find out for yourself. the information is out there. I'm tired of trying to educate the ignorants out there.

If I gave you the information, you'd dismiss it because it was free. Do the research, invest some of your time and effort, and the riches you gather will actually mean something to you.

I could explain it to you, but, as I said, it would be worthless to you as a gift. If you earn the knowledge for your own, it will take on meaning.

Try it.


nsns
quote:
Originally posted by Jennifer:
Genesis 2:18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."


This always puzzled me. Eve seemed like an afterthought, someone that was supposed to keep adam from being lonely. So, who was he supposed to "multiply" with? And no christian will answer the question why adam and eve even had to be created since mankind had been on earth for thousands of years.

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

Genesis 2: 18---------God is talking about creating the beasts of the
earth, not a woman. Adam and Eve were the first people on earth.

An atheist needs to explain why God needed to create Adam and Eve
if there were already people here.


.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by CageTheElephant:

quote:
Sez Slim:
all species extant on the Earth evolved from earlier species through the process of random mutation and natural selection. It took millions of years. And there is perfectly good evidence for it.



Random mutation? "Random" figures in to the forming of millions of complex systems? Please explain.



quote:
Sez Slim:
Find out for yourself. the information is out there. I'm tired of trying to educate the ignorants out there.

If I gave you the information, you'd dismiss it because it was free. Do the research, invest some of your time and effort, and the riches you gather will actually mean something to you.

I could explain it to you, but, as I said, it would be worthless to you as a gift. If you earn the knowledge for your own, it will take on meaning.

Try it.



I've done the research. Some of it is pretty interesting.

In the history of scientific research, living organisms have never formed from non-living matter. (You would need that to start)

No single-celled organism has ever morphed into a multi-cell organism.
(Again, you need to establish this before you even begin to "randomly mutate").

Nothing has ever given birth to something more genetically complex than itself.

Never in the history of science has any mutation benefited an animal's species long term, or made it more genetically complex. Evolution would require billions of these mutations to be happening constantly both today and throughout history, and yet none have ever been observed. All mutations ever witnessed in reptiles, birds, or mammals are either a loss or a scrambling of existing genetic information, and are either neutral or negative to the mutated animal.

Virtually every species of animal has two genders required for reproduction. How this system could have randomly changed from cell division, when it started, and how it manages to be so consistent is inexplicable by evolutionists. How did any species survive before it gained the instinct and ability to reproduce.

No plant has ever morphed into an animal.

Fish are still...fish.


Now, if you’re meaning “variation” within a species, as evolution, then I’m with ya... Wink
quote:
Originally posted by CageTheElephant:
Random mutation? "Random" figures in to the forming of millions of complex systems? Please explain.


cage: 30 second education:

genes mutate due to radiation or miscoding during reproduction. a mutated gene can only have one of the following effect on the organism: positive, negative or neutral. mutations usually result in a hindrance to survival: the organism get cancer before reaching reproductive age, for example.

the coding can result in a neutral mutation resulting in a change that neiher hinders or helps reproduction such as blonde hair.

occasionally a random mutation results in a benefit to the organism. we see this all the time with bugs who develop a resistance to a insecticide: one single bug out of many millions will survive a insecticide, survive to reproduce and pass on that resistance to offspring. that mutation for survival spreads throughout the population.

that is how it works: very small changes on the genome over vast, unimaginable periods of time result in organisms that used to walk the land evolve into whales and dolphins. "monkeys" evolve into humans.

trandom mutation is only one way a species can evolve. the next concept to study is "speciation." this explains how sexual selection results in a species that diverges. a great dane and chihuahua are examples. they are the same species right now in that that they could conceive offspring if the matter were "forced." but they are so different that they will not. given enough time, they will randomly mutate into wholly separate species. this speciation started taking place only 12,000 or so years ago - a blink of an eye in evolutionary terms.
quote:
cage: 30 second education:

genes mutate due to radiation or miscoding during reproduction. a mutated gene can only have one of the following effect on the organism: positive, negative or neutral. mutations usually result in a hindrance to survival: the organism get cancer before reaching reproductive age, for example.

the coding can result in a neutral mutation resulting in a change that neiher hinders or helps reproduction such as blonde hair.

occasionally a random mutation results in a benefit to the organism. we see this all the time with bugs who develop a resistance to a insecticide: one single bug out of many millions will survive a insecticide, survive to reproduce and pass on that resistance to offspring. that mutation for survival spreads throughout the population.

that is how it works: very small changes on the genome over vast, unimaginable periods of time result in organisms that used to walk the land evolve into whales and dolphins. "monkeys" evolve into humans.



Unob...the bug...is still...a BUG! It didn't evolve into anything but...a bug.

As for your last sentence...fantasy.
quote:
Sez Slim:
Cagey,

You're wrong on all accounts. Except that fish are still fish.

A long time ago, a fish became you.

You're tilting at windmills, here. Evolution is a fact. Keep educating yourself, you'll see.


No, Slim
You are simply denying the many pitfalls that are evident in the "theory" of evolutuion. You cannot simply "will" it to be a fact.
You know this...you just don't admit it. Wink
quote:
Originally posted by Unobtanium:
quote:
Originally posted by CageTheElephant:
Random mutation? "Random" figures in to the forming of millions of complex systems? Please explain.


cage: 30 second education:

genes mutate due to radiation or miscoding during reproduction. a mutated gene can only have one of the following effect on the organism: positive, negative or neutral. mutations usually result in a hindrance to survival: the organism get cancer before reaching reproductive age, for example.

the coding can result in a neutral mutation resulting in a change that neiher hinders or helps reproduction such as blonde hair.

occasionally a random mutation results in a benefit to the organism. we see this all the time with bugs who develop a resistance to a insecticide: one single bug out of many millions will survive a insecticide, survive to reproduce and pass on that resistance to offspring. that mutation for survival spreads throughout the population.

that is how it works: very small changes on the genome over vast, unimaginable periods of time result in organisms that used to walk the land evolve into whales and dolphins. "monkeys" evolve into humans.

trandom mutation is only one way a species can evolve. the next concept to study is "speciation." this explains how sexual selection results in a species that diverges. a great dane and chihuahua are examples. they are the same species right now in that that they could conceive offspring if the matter were "forced." but they are so different that they will not. given enough time, they will randomly mutate into wholly separate species. this speciation started taking place only 12,000 or so years ago - a blink of an eye in evolutionary terms.

Uno, I think the conversation here is with yourself.

Nobody on here believes you because there is no evidence for Darwinian evolution. It’s a belief in fairy tales bully. Can’t you see that?

Slim & and the rest of Co. doesn’t really believe your story. Give it up man. Even scientists are abandoning your belief.

We win you lose.
quote:
Originally posted by CageTheElephant:

Unob...the bug...is still...a BUG! It didn't evolve into anything but...a bug.

As for your last sentence...fantasy.


once again, we have the assertion, "i don't understand how this works, therefore proof of god!" can't you see the fallacy here, cage?

ok, so you assert that animals, once "created" do not change. ever. they are fixed in thei current shapes forever.

fossil evidence shows us that of all the various forms of life that have ever existed, only 1% of them survive today. how do you explain-away that? what happened to all those life forms?

if what you say is true, then man, giraffe, zebra and yard bids certainly existed with the dinosaurs. where is the proof of that? hell, not even "proof" but even a smidgen of evidence?

cage, your problem is a lack of imagination. you cannot grapple with infinitesimally small changes in the offspring, generation after generation, over a period of 5,000, 10,000, 100,000, 500,000, 1 million (ten thousand years times ten!), 10 million, 100 million, many hundreds of millions of years. i can dig that. the numbers are astounding. mind boggling.

here is a very quick, 1 minute video that hits only on the evolution of humans back to a very "recent" 7 million years ago. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_6mpl3htvw

you are intelligent enough to grasp this, cage. you truly are.
quote:
Originally posted by Not Shallow Not Slim:
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
quote:
Originally posted by JDawg:
I have asked this question in other threads, but have gotten no thoughts on it, so I thought I would try it this way.

Why do the two have to be mutually exclusive? Are there no other Christians (besides myself) that believe in God's creation that has evolved over time? Why do so many Christians have a hard time believing that organisms evolve and adapt over time? Is it unrealistic to believe that in the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth, but that he has also allowed his creation to adapt and evolve to an ever changing environment? Thanks for the input.


You seem to be intent on stigmatizing Christians as the exclusivists on this issue. Allow me to balance the equation by showing just how dogmatic and exclusivist evolutionists can be. I first direct you to the words of Sir Julian Huxley. That very prominent evolutionist, in his address to the Darwin Centennial Convocation
in 1959, offered these less-than-congenial views of the role of God as Creator in any sense whatever. Huxley said this:

"Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as the creator from the sphere of rational discussion...I think we can dismiss entirely all idea of a supernatural overriding mind being responsible for the evolutionary process."

Move forward to the modern era and you will find the late Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, truly a major league evolutionist and a co-author of the theory of Punctuated Equilibria. When asked if he believed there was any place for God in evolution, Gould responded that,

"There is no place for God in evolution because there isn't a place for God in that sense in empirical science."

Who is walling off the other side? Maybe both sides, but give the evolutionists their due.


You mistake dogmatism and exclusivity for simply being correct.

Science is neither dogmatic nor exclusive. All scientific conclusions are open to revision, and you can participate.

As for Huxley and Gould, perhaps they are simply right? God is not necessary to explain the diversity of species on Earth.


nsns


I think you missed the point. JDawg was bemoaning the fact that so many Christians are too unyielding on the subject of evolution to even acknowledge the possibility that God could have directed the process, i.e. "theistic evolution." What I showed in the quotes I provided was two examples of evolutionists who flatly deny that God had or could have had any influence whatever upon the evolutionary process.

Both sides adhere to an exclusivist view, irrespective of which side you might vote with.
quote:
Originally posted by Jennifer:
quote:
An atheist needs to explain why God needed to create Adam and Eve
if there were already people here.

Easy to explain. He didn't create adam and eve because he doesn't exist. There you go, an atheist's explanation. Now let's hear yours.

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

I've already told you rin jenn jenn, Gn 51:5-15.....God said, Man needs
humor in his life, so he created atheist and man has LHAF every since.

So now man has aminals and atheists,too funny, and after that God
created woman to help the kids with their homework.
Because man had more important things to do. Got it. Thank you.

Next question? Yes, Jennifer.

I still don't know why God put all that green cheese on the moon?

OK, Last one out cut off the lights.


.
quote:
Both sides adhere to an exclusivist view, irrespective of which side you might vote with.



better,

theistic evolution is cool with me. it posits that a "designer" started the process then left the building. until we discover, definitively, the process of how life began on this planet, the "god zapped" hypothesis is possible, i guess. i just don't see the point.

it should be better termed "deistic" evolution. what is the point in worshiping a god that was evidently here a half a billion years ago but no longer has any involvement in the process and seems to have forgotten us.

what possible satisfaction can one receive from worshiping such a deity? what answers does such a belief provide about the true nature of this universe?

if you place god in such a light, he becomes "simply" a vastly superior alien being. again, what's the point?
[quote[uno]what possible satisfaction can one receive from worshiping such a deity? what answers does such a belief provide about the true nature of this universe?[/quote]
Rumor has it that God will give all the believers a universe if their own to rule over.

The believers will get a provision of unbelievers as seed to replenish each universe. Each owner sets it’s own rules and determines ’judgment day’ whenever. The unbelievers will be recycled after each judgment day and the cycle goes on and on for eternity.
hahahahahahahahahahaha

The premise of this thread is silly. "Creationism vs Evolution"!

It's not even wrong. It's out of the question.

Evolution is sound science. Creationism is fluff, blue sky, and superstitious nonsense. There is a reason why most biologists and other scientists won't debate Creationists. Even agreeing to debate gives Creationism credence it does not deserve, as though it is a legitimate alternative to science.

It's not.

Creationism is the prattling of fools, and time will as surely extinguish the insanity of Creationism as Copernicus and Galileo extinguished the "knowledge" of geocentrism. And for the same reason. Creationism is just flat wrong, there's no other way to put it, and those who cling to it are losers for a lost cause.

We are not worried. Truth will out, in the end, even if vigilance is required. That's why I'm here.

nsns

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×