Does the theory of evolution really negate God's existence??

[Schroeder]

Almost all biologists would disagree with you.

Evolution is as proven as anything in science. Look it up yourself, do not trust creationist propaganda.

yes your right evolution is, the theory is not. the theory is just many many examples of evolution in action. the problem is that all the examples of evolution never lead it into another classification of animal as in going from a fish to amphibian etc. I do not trust anybodies thinking i seek it out myself and make a decision on that. I use many peoples thinking as well but can decide on my own.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

I respectfully disagree. It is at this point the most disagreement arises. It is at this point that there will always be disagreement and one side will never win out. It is at this point that science stops and religion starts.

Creationists were never a side. Creationists were rejects who didn't know they weren't in the race in the first place.

 

[Schroeder]

I've never met someone who became an atheist because they accepted evolution.

On the other hand I've known a lot of people who have become atheists because they were told they had to be young earth creationists and that evolution was satanic and atheistic and, therefore, abandoned Christianity.

That certainly proves nothing in and of itself, though even enough anecdotal testimony, if consistent enough, starts to seem rather telling.

-CryptoLutheran

Well you can say it all you want doubt your prove it. Every atheist i know believes in evolution dont now any that doesnt. If they abandoned christianity over such things they werent one or a very strong one to begin with. And seeing how you dont know who is saved or not makes your claim baseless. and i have never met an atheist who came to know Christ through the theory of evolution. Never meet anyone who was convinced of God and Christ and salvation through evolution.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Well you can say it all you want doubt your prove it. Every atheist i know believes in evolution dont now any that doesnt. If they abandoned christianity over such things they werent one or a very strong one to begin with. And seeing how you dont know who is saved or not makes your claim baseless. and i have never met an atheist who came to know Christ through the theory of evolution. Never meet anyone who was convinced of God and Christ and salvation through evolution.

I don't know any atheist who doesn't believe the earth is round and that it orbits the sun. I've never known an atheist who came to Christ through heliocentrism, never met anyone convinced of God and Christ and salvation through the belief the earth is spheroid.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[GOD is LOVE is GOD]

at least when it comes to the whole evolution theory?? I've heard from many other people that it is false and that if you believe in it that you are contradicting God's faith. . . . really?? It doesn't really seem this way, maybe I'm mistaken (if I am please correct lool) but it seems to me that the belief in evolution is harmless to one's faith as to how God revealed his creation. Do some folks tend to take Genesis' verses out of context?? Are some things misused to support or debunk evolution??
I personally am undecided when it comes to this thing, so I have no particular creationist or theistic evolutionist leanings, either.

Romans 1:20
New International Version (NIV)
20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Scientific evidence for evolution is abundant, we cannot ignore what has been discovered in nature. The evidence is not questionable. Science (because it studies the created universe) can help me to appreciate what God has done. Science describes creation.

In regards to the evolution of man (from a common ancestor), biological evolution is the smallest part of what Genesis is describing. Genesis is primarily a faith account. The human spirit did not evolve. It was created by God in a sudden, miraculous, and creative act of supreme love! That's what Genesis 1-2 is all about. The creation of humans does involve our long descent from previous and lower life forms, but the most important aspect is our spirit and our relationship with God Almighty! God stepped into a biological line of succession and made something spiritually special happen. When God "breathed the breath of life" into Adam's physical body, at that moment the earth saw something new that had not been witnessed in 4.5 billion years of history. He became a "living soul" - A new creature that lived in the spiritual image of God; capable of talking with God, walking in His ways, and returning God's love freely and joyfully - separating us from the animals.

I do not believe that the Bible calls me to bear false witness about God's creation. As more evidence in nature becomes available, the more we can learn about God and his creation. We should stop looking at everything with blinders, with a human perspective of what we think God's intentions were. God tells us to look at nature, not discount what we find. What do you think people thought of Galileo when he discovered that the earth revolves AROUND the sun, and not the opposite - which the bible seems to suggest? Many Christians dismissed him with the wave of their hand. But what this teaches us (or should) is to observe and learn from nature, then take ANOTHER look at scripture, and see what God is really saying! Not the other way around.

 

[artybloke]

I do not believe that the Bible calls me to bear false witness about God's creation.

That's it in a nutshell, really. Creationism bears false witness about God's creation, therefore it's a lie.

 

[Schroeder]

That's it in a nutshell, really. Creationism bears false witness about God's creation, therefore it's a lie.

always good to have an opinion. much easier then actual fact.

 

[lesliedellow]

No it doesn't negate God's existence.

YECs try to make Genesis answer a question it was never meant to answer - the scientific one.

The Bible's focus is quite rightly upon God. The author of Genesis 1 wasnted to ascribe creation to God's omnipotent power, and that alone. He also wanted to ascribe to God's creative activity those things which were commonly seen as the preserve of pagan deities - such as the heavenly bodies and agriculture.

 

[Lilly Owl]

at least when it comes to the whole evolution theory?? I've heard from many other people that it is false and that if you believe in it that you are contradicting God's faith. . . . really?? It doesn't really seem this way, maybe I'm mistaken (if I am please correct lool) but it seems to me that the belief in evolution is harmless to one's faith as to how God revealed his creation. Do some folks tend to take Genesis' verses out of context?? Are some things misused to support or debunk evolution??
I personally am undecided when it comes to this thing, so I have no particular creationist or theistic evolutionist leanings, either.

When God is ubiquitous, I think evolution is just God at work changing his creation to fit his will.
People often condemn Darwin for his discoveries. And yet he didn't author holy writ. He saw through human eyes what was God at work. And he tried as best he could to put it into language we could understand.
It doesn't mean evolution is contrary to God. How could anything be so, when God is eternally present and powerfully active creator within all of creation infinitely?

God is!
We poor humans are just trying to figure out what "is", is.

 

[lesliedellow]

Well you can say it all you want doubt your prove it. Every atheist i know believes in evolution dont now any that doesnt. If they abandoned christianity over such things they werent one or a very strong one to begin with. And seeing how you dont know who is saved or not makes your claim baseless. and i have never met an atheist who came to know Christ through the theory of evolution. Never meet anyone who was convinced of God and Christ and salvation through evolution.

Francisco Ayala is a professor of biology, as well as being a priest. He tells about students who were brought up as creationists. At the beginning of the course they come to him ans say, "I will write what you want me to about evolution, but don't expect me to believe any of it." Then time passes, for the first time they have the evidence for evolution set before them by people who know what they are talking about, and they find they have no option to believe it. At that point they become atheists.

"That's tragic," is Ayala's comment.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

at least when it comes to the whole evolution theory??

belief in naturalistic darwinian evolution removes the need for there to be a god. in that case, continuing to believe in god, is just desperation.

 

[lesliedellow]

belief in naturalistic darwinian evolution removes the need for there to be a god. in that case, continuing to believe in god, is just desperation.

Crap. If there was a scientific theory which was a more viable alternative to evolution, and it seemed more likely than evolution, then evolution would be dead, because you don't need two alternative scientific theories to explain the same thing. But religion and science are about different things. Religion about the Creator and hios creatures; science about the physical laws and processes within that creation.

The relevant question is not whether God "needs" to exist, to fill some explanatory gap, but whether he actually exists. You exist without filling an explanatory gap.

 

[Stephen3141]

at least when it comes to the whole evolution theory?? I've heard from many other people that it is false and that if you believe in it that you are contradicting God's faith. . . . really?? It doesn't really seem this way, maybe I'm mistaken (if I am please correct lool) but it seems to me that the belief in evolution is harmless to one's faith as to how God revealed his creation. Do some folks tend to take Genesis' verses out of context?? Are some things misused to support or debunk evolution??
I personally am undecided when it comes to this thing, so I have no particular creationist or theistic evolutionist leanings, either.

As always, I ask what you mean by "evolution".

The current Neo-Darwinistic theory of evolution is based on randomness (random mutation).
As the Intelligent Design authors have demonstrated, randomness is not powerful enough
to produce the complex specified information that we see in biological life.

For the current theory of evolution to work, it needs a background intelligence to guide
the mutations, so that they would arrive at the complex information that we currently
see in biological life. But, if that happened, then the process would not be RANDOM
mutation, and would not be the current scientific theory of evolution.

The hard sciences need a new theory of "evolution", that is not based on
randomness. And they don't have one, yet.

 

[sfs]

The current Neo-Darwinistic theory of evolution is based on randomness (random mutation).
As the Intelligent Design authors have demonstrated, randomness is not powerful enough
to produce the complex specified information that we see in biological life.

Demonstrated according to whom? Not according to almost all biologists, including Christian biologists.

 

[Yuwang]

"at least when it comes to the whole evolution theory?? I've heard from many other people that it is false and that if you believe in it that you are contradicting God's faith. . . . really?? It doesn't really seem this way, maybe I'm mistaken (if I am please correct lool) but it seems to me that the belief in evolution is harmless to one's faith as to how God revealed his creation. Do some folks tend to take Genesis' verses out of context?? Are some things misused to support or debunk evolution??
I personally am undecided when it comes to this thing, so I have no particular creationist or theistic evolutionist leanings, either."

Evolution is a hypothesis, that some folks think is a proven matter. Even if the evolution hypothesis explains some details, it is mostly about fossil evidence to which they attach an absolute idea, not fully supported, but they call it all "scientific". Real science is a lot more than that.

 

[Yuwang]

Evolution is a hypothesis, that some folks think is a proven matter. Even if the evolution hypothesis explains some details, it is mostly about fossil evidence to which they attach an absolute idea, not fully supported, but they call it all "scientific". Real science is a lot more than that.

Stephen3141 wrote: "The current Neo-Darwinistic theory of evolution is based on randomness (random mutation)."
Good observation, Stephen.

Evolving Creation Process is Human Destiny, 1947 by Compt Du Nuoy. This Man proves that there is such a thing as deliberate, intelligent design involved in creating Earth and the critters and people of all races on it. Without this book and the evidence & Logic presented therein, one is limited to believing every thing came by accident & chaos which they label as "evolution.
If folks like the chaos accident view, so be it. Every one makes choices based on their judgements, right or wrong.
A major goal in life should be to make correct Judgements, because we can perish from bad judgements.

 

[sfs]

Evolution is a hypothesis

I assume by 'evolution' you mean common descent. Common descent was a hypothesis in 1850 or so. It has long, long been so well supported by so many kinds of evidence that scientists have long since come to treat it as a fact.

Even if the evolution hypothesis explains some details

Gross understatement.

it is mostly about fossil evidence

That wasn't even true in Darwin's day, much less today, when we have the wealth of genetic data supporting common descent.

Real science is a lot more than that

Might I ask what field of science you work in?

 

[Yuwang]

I assume by 'evolution' you mean common descent. Common descent was a hypothesis in 1850 or so. It has long, long been so well supported by so many kinds of evidence that scientists have long since come to treat it as a fact.

Gross understatement.

That wasn't even true in Darwin's day, much less today, when we have the wealth of genetic data supporting common descent.

Might I ask what field of science you work in?

Of course there is common descent. It does not prove that all life was a matter of chaos, which is how some folks view the universe.
And common descent does not prove how genetic differnces arose.

 

[sfs]

Of course there is common descent. It does not prove that all life was a matter of chaos, which is how some folks view the universe.

'Common descent' means that living species are descended from common ancestors, e.g. that humans and turnips share an ancestor. Do you accept that or reject it? You certainly seem to be arguing against it.

And common descent does not prove how genetic differnces arose.

No, but study of those genetic differences shows that they arose by mutation.