Religious based proof that evolution is correct

[Taure]

Well, here it is, a religious proof of why creationism is wrong and evolution is right. Atheists won't accept this proof, but since they believe in evolution anyway, due to the huge amount of evidence, then that doesn't matter.

This is simply aimed at creationists. Okay, here we go:

1. God exists

I should hope you creationists will agree with this. Also the reason why atheists will reject the proof.

2. God is perfect, omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent and the creator of the universe.

Again, the creationist should accept this.

3. God is, by definition, perfect.

Again, the creationist should accept this one.

4. The perfect God would use the perfect way to bring about his creation.

You can't really argue with this if you accept 3. If God used a less than perfect way to bring about his creation, then he would no longer be perfect, and therefore would no longer be God.

5. Evolution is a far better method of creation than simply saying "Let there be x". It is far more flexible, adaptable, and allows organisms to continue to develop, adapt, and perfect themselves. It is a truly elegant, sophisticated, yet in the basics marvelously simple theory that makes common sense. Simply making something pop into existence seems tacky and shoddy workmanship in comparison.

6. Therefore, evolution is the closer to perfection of the two theories.

7. Therefore, a perfect God must have used evolution, not the literal biblical method, as evolution is the more perfect method.

8. Therefore creationism is wrong and evolution is right.

 

[Schroeder]

Well, here it is, a religious proof of why creationism is wrong and evolution is right. Atheists won't accept this proof, but since they believe in evolution anyway, due to the huge amount of evidence, then that doesn't matter.

This is simply aimed at creationists. Okay, here we go:

1. God exists

I should hope you creationists will agree with this. Also the reason why atheists will reject the proof.

2. God is perfect, omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent and the creator of the universe.

Again, the creationist should accept this.

3. God is, by definition, perfect.

Again, the creationist should accept this one.

4. The perfect God would use the perfect way to bring about his creation.

You can't really argue with this if you accept 3. If God used a less than perfect way to bring about his creation, then he would no longer be perfect, and therefore would no longer be God.

5. Evolution is a far better method of creation than simply saying "Let there be x". It is far more flexible, adaptable, and allows organisms to continue to develop, adapt, and perfect themselves. It is a truly elegant, sophisticated, yet in the basics marvelously simple theory that makes common sense. Simply making something pop into existence seems tacky and shoddy workmanship in comparison.

6. Therefore, evolution is the closer to perfection of the two theories.

7. Therefore, a perfect God must have used evolution, not the literal biblical method, as evolution is the more perfect method.

8. Therefore creationism is wrong and evolution is right.

i hope you didnt take to long to come up with this because it is not very good.

 

[Allister]

could God not have created the universe as we see it in a single thought with the future ability to adapt written in to the genetics when environmental pressures become too stong?

 

[Baggins]

i hope you didnt take to long to come up with this because it is not very good.

Neither is this, no proper criticism at all just an ad hominem attack.

Surely you have some reason why it is poor thinking; why don't you share it with us?

 

[Code-Monkey]

5. Evolution is a far better method of creation than simply saying "Let there be x". It is far more flexible, adaptable, and allows organisms to continue to develop, adapt, and perfect themselves. It is a truly elegant, sophisticated, yet in the basics marvelously simple theory that makes common sense. Simply making something pop into existence seems tacky and shoddy workmanship in comparison.

I would certainly not want to call that a proof, rather just an argument for theistic evolution as opposed to creationism. It seems to have the flavor of the teleological arguments for God.

From a programming perspective, I do agree though that there is something FAR more elegant in programming an algorithm that leads to evolution of mankind as well as all other creatures as we know them as opposed to just hard coding everything from the start.

Many of you are familiar with some computer games out there where you take your character out into some world and interact with it and the other characters or players in that world. Depending on how technical you are, you can probably appreciate that it takes a great deal of time and energy for programmers to painstakingly set every single little detail in that world. If a new programmer came along and instead of requiring some 1000s of hours to set all those details and he instead just wrote down a 500 line algorithm that generated all of it, then I think programmers would hail this person as a programming god and would praise the algorithm as absolute genius...

In short, I agree.

 

[Code-Monkey]

could God not have created the universe as we see it in a single thought with the future ability to adapt written in to the genetics when environmental pressures become too stong?

I would suspect an all powerful God could do that. However... I would say that it wouldn't seem to be very consistent with the Christian God. Otherwise, why would he have gone to the bother of empregnating Mary and then having Jesus grow up for 30 something years before he starts preaching and then wrap up his business at the cross and then the resurrection. Why not just sort of create him as a 30 year old and go from there.

 

[michabo]

5. Evolution is a far better method of creation than simply saying "Let there be x". It is far more flexible, adaptable, and allows organisms to continue to develop, adapt, and perfect themselves. It is a truly elegant, sophisticated, yet in the basics marvelously simple theory that makes common sense. Simply making something pop into existence seems tacky and shoddy workmanship in comparison.

It's elegant perhaps, but it's also needlessly cruel. It requires millions upon millions of years of starvation, pestilence, disease, cruelty and death. Creating things *poof* is a far kinder way of doing things.

Evolution arguably suits a hands-off, amoral god but it's antithetical to a moral, personal, benevolent god.

 

[Allister]

and then having Jesus grow up for 30 something years before he starts preaching

I think that having 30 years of life experience would make him better equiped at preaching and at understanding the plight of the people he was attempting to save.

 

[RealSorceror]

Greetings, Taure. I'm a theistic evolutionist, so I should agree with you, but I think you're proof has some big holes in it.

1. God exists

First, who's God? I'm assuming when you say "creationists" you are refering to Christian Fundamentalists, yes? So this God is probably Biblegod.

2. God is perfect, omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent and the creator of the universe.

That requires quite a number of assumptions as well as a very specififc worldview.

3. God is, by definition, perfect.

Define 'perfect'. The word "perfect" is very subjective, and will likely ruin your proof.

4. The perfect God would use the perfect way to bring about his creation.
You can't really argue with this if you accept 3. If God used a less than perfect way to bring about his creation, then he would no longer be perfect, and therefore would no longer be God.

Maybe. I think its quite an assumption to think that a perfect being will use perfect methods.

5. Evolution is a far better method of creation than simply saying "Let there be x". It is far more flexible, adaptable, and allows organisms to continue to develop, adapt, and perfect themselves. It is a truly elegant, sophisticated, yet in the basics marvelously simple theory that makes common sense. Simply making something pop into existence seems tacky and shoddy workmanship in comparison.

Thats based entirely on opinion. We both know that evolution is by no means perfect. Mutation produces both the good and the bad (and the ugly). There is not a high survival rate among many organisms. Evolution also does not allow for organisms to adapt to sudden changes in the environment, such as natural distasters.

6. Therefore, evolution is the closer to perfection of the two theories.

Evolution is closer to explaining what happens in the real world. I'd hardly call it "more perfect".

7. Therefore, a perfect God must have used evolution, not the literal biblical method, as evolution is the more perfect method.

We don't know that.

8. Therefore creationism is wrong and evolution is right.

True, but not for that reason.

 

[shadowmage36]

Evolution arguably suits a hands-off, amoral god but it's antithetical to a moral, personal, benevolent god.

When you look at some of the things God did in the OT, it is rather clear that He is only those last three on occasion. If you happen to catch him on a bad day, He is liable to do one of several things:

1) Cause the end of civilization (Noah's flood)
2) Obliterate your city from the face of the planet (Soddom and Gommorrah)
3) Turn you to salt (Lot's wife)
4) Send one horrible plague after another, destroying the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent people (Ten Plagues of Egypt)

Something about all that just doesn't jive with the whole "Love your neighbor as yourself" bit.

Personally, I think evolution suits the Judeo-Christian God just fine.

 

[LittleNipper]

When you look at some of the things God did in the OT, it is rather clear that He is only those last three on occasion. If you happen to catch him on a bad day, He is liable to do one of several things:

1) Cause the end of civilization (Noah's flood)
2) Obliterate your city from the face of the planet (Soddom and Gommorrah)
3) Turn you to salt (Lot's wife)
4) Send one horrible plague after another, destroying the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent people (Ten Plagues of Egypt)

Something about all that just doesn't jive with the whole "Love your neighbor as yourself" bit.

Personally, I think evolution suits the Judeo-Christian God just fine.

Innocent, innocent, innocent!?! Tell me who is innocent? Everyone is worthy of hell. It is only by the mercy of GOD that any are saved. Do not speak to me of innocent people until you can show me a perfect person, but then you don't believe in JESUS CHRIST. I think evolution, atheism and paganism are one in the same----contrived.

 

[RealSorceror]

Innocent, innocent, innocent!?! Tell me who is innocent? Everyone is worthy of hell. It is only by the mercy of GOD that any are saved. Do not speak to me of innocent people until you can show me a perfect person, but then you don't believe in JESUS CHRIST. I think evolution, atheism and paganism are one in the same----contrived.

Sorry dude, nobody is worthy of eternal torment. That doctrine is evil beyond measure, and so is any being who uses it.

 

[shadowmage36]

Innocent, innocent, innocent!?! Tell me who is innocent? Everyone is worthy of hell. It is only by the mercy of GOD that any are saved. Do not speak to me of innocent people until you can show me a perfect person, but then you don't believe in JESUS CHRIST. I think evolution, atheism and paganism are one in the same----contrived.

One fact I find intriguing: The United States Constitution specifically says that children of traitors are not to be punished for the actions of their parents. The God of Israel, on the other hand, says that those who disobey him will be punished, along with their descendants, for seven generations. I ask you: What did the six generations following the original offender do to deserve their punishment? Is it their fault they were born to someone who had broken God's law? Does that seem right to you?

It certainly doesn't seem right to me.

 

[michabo]

Something about all that just doesn't jive with the whole "Love your neighbor as yourself" bit.

Personally, I think evolution suits the Judeo-Christian God just fine.

True enough, as far as it goes. But where the OT God doesn't care much about mercy, he does care a lot about personal glorification and respect. Evolution divorces this God from the process of creation which is definitely not something that he would like. The OT Bible God would be as much opposed to evolution as the NT God, just for different reasons.

Support evolution because it is a fact. Don't try to torture the bible into supporting it.

 

[Ishallnotwant]

since God is perfect, why would he waste "millions" of years in making the animals that exist today?

 

[Elduran]

since God is perfect, why would he waste "millions" of years in making the animals that exist today?

Assuming that god exists, why wouldn't he? After all, what's a few billion years to an omnipotent deity?

 

[Tiberius]

4. The perfect God would use the perfect way to bring about his creation.

Assumption. Why is God limited to the most perfect way?

3. If God used a less than perfect way to bring about his creation, then he would no longer be perfect, and therefore would no longer be God.

False. if I decide to go on a trip by walking rather than riding my bike, does that make me less perfect than I am when I ride my bike?

5. Evolution is a far better method of creation than simply saying "Let there be x". It is far more flexible, adaptable, and allows organisms to continue to develop, adapt, and perfect themselves. It is a truly elegant, sophisticated, yet in the basics marvelously simple theory that makes common sense. Simply making something pop into existence seems tacky and shoddy workmanship in comparison.

6. Therefore, evolution is the closer to perfection of the two theories.

7. Therefore, a perfect God must have used evolution, not the literal biblical method, as evolution is the more perfect method.

8. Therefore creationism is wrong and evolution is right.

False. If God had a way of creating what he wanted in an instant, and making sure the end result was exactly what he wanted, then he would have done it that way instead of taking billions of years to do it.

And, for the record, I'm an atheist. This isn't a good argument, as you've made claims but failed to support them.

WHY would God make things in the most perfect way he can?

WHY is evolution better than getting the finished result in a second by snapping your fingers?

 

[reimer]

God is perfect, as you said any Christian shouldn't deny that. Now the problem I have is why did it take a perfect, all powerful, all knowing God 20 Billion years to finally get it right? Sure he might have set it in motion and let it take care of itself and had nothing else to do with it, but then if thats the case then He's a liar cause He tells us that He is involved with His Creation and cares for even the most insignificant features of it. Also to say that He said "Let there be X" is a little inaccurate, X is undefined. And as far as I know we know exactly what He created. Just my veiws on it.

 

[AdmiralBell]

God is perfect, as you said any Christian shouldn't deny that. Now the problem I have is why did it take a perfect, all powerful, all knowing God 20 Billion years to finally get it right? Sure he might have set it in motion and let it take care of itself and had nothing else to do with it, but then if thats the case then He's a liar cause He tells us that He is involved with His Creation and cares for even the most insignificant features of it. Also to say that He said "Let there be X" is a little inaccurate, X is undefined. And as far as I know we know exactly what He created. Just my veiws on it.

It is 13.7 billion years, not 20 billion.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Innocent, innocent, innocent!?! Tell me who is innocent? Everyone is worthy of hell. It is only by the mercy of GOD that any are saved.

Well, since there's a marked lack of mercy shown in the OT, there's little incentive for God to be gentle with us concerning our creation.