Did God create Evolution?

[Samus Aran]

Evolution has been observed. 

And someone religious could argue that God's work has been observed. See?

There's really no winning here. Quit trying.

[MurderWithFries]

I think the difference between the observed evidence with evolution in comparison to God's work is that its reproducible and observable. You can see genetic change, you can see change in body structure, and all that. With God's work it is all based on faith and no one can really observe it or reproduce it.  The faith element is really what causes them to be different.

[Daddy]

And someone religious could argue that God's work has been observed. See?

With no evidence though
The evidence for "God's work" will only appear so to that believer.

The evidence for evolution being observed is tangible. There is no opinion of whether or not that bacterium has evolved a resistance to a drug that did not exist 1000 generations before it.  It's there to see.

There's really no winning here. Quit trying.

The issue is trying to make an argument to discredit proven facts by using something without any evidence rather than going the catholic church route and attempting to reconcile them.

[rdl]

wait kaz what are you doing? i thought you dont debate this kind of stuff.

i always found it humorous how in like the bible and stuff, there's always verses saying people who dont believe jesus/muhammad/moses merely because they cant see God are idiots. because according to the average atheist, all the miracles are lies, jesus is a lie, muhammad was merely a poet, moses was a druggie and god doesnt exist because he hasnt paid a personal visit to every person to say "hey buddy i exist here touch my hand".

im not gonna argue further. i just needed to say that because that's always bugged me. feel free to rip me apart.

[Daddy]

god doesnt exist because he hasnt paid a personal visit to every person to say "hey buddy i exist here touch my hand".

Now that's just a strawman. An atheist never goes "Because I've never seen God I know he doesn't exist".

It's that there is no evidence that he exists.

I've never seen a dodo, molecule, albino person, extrasolar planet, or explosion but I know they exist/existed. There is physical evidence of each. There is no physical evidence that God existed.

There is a holy book that even the religious claim was written by man that claims God exists and told them to write it, but it has just as much credibility as The Boble. You can't prove Doodthing did not come to me in math class and tell me to write it and record his image on my Mac.

[Slim]

Basically what I'm saying is, the way things are now, taking both scripture and the evolution of science into account, neither an atheist or a Christian will ever be able to prove the other one wrong. That's all there is to it.

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. It's up to them to prove their assertion, not up to others to prove their assertion wrong.

And someone religious could argue that God's work has been observed. See?

They could argue that, but they shouldn't expect anyone to take them seriously unless they can show that they have some actual basis for calling it "God's work"; otherwise, their claim can be dismissed.

i always found it humorous how in like the bible and stuff, there's always verses saying people who dont believe jesus/muhammad/moses merely because they cant see God are idiots.

Where's the humor?

because according to the average atheist, all the miracles are lies, jesus is a lie, muhammad was merely a poet, moses was a druggie and god doesnt exist because he hasnt paid a personal visit to every person to say "hey buddy i exist here touch my hand".

Strawman.

[sans culottes]

The theory of evolution can easily exist with creation. The bible said god created everything, but it diidn't say he created everything as is. In fact, it doesn't even mention how he created everything. Human evolution would go against the bible since the bible specifically mentioned god sending down the race of men, but I don't see how non-humans evolving goes against the bible.

[guff]

The bible said god created everything, but it diidn't say he created everything as is. In fact, it doesn't even mention how he created everything.

i've heard tell that archaeologists have recently unearthed an ancient text which they've dubbed "genesis" which contradicts these claims, though its inclusion in the bible is still controversial

just kidding, it's the first chapter of the old testament 

Human evolution would go against the bible since the bible specifically mentioned god sending down the race of men, but I don't see how non-humans evolving goes against the bible.

"everything but humans evolved" goes against science, so uh yeah that doesn't work too well

There's really no winning here. Quit trying.

i wrote down a fantastic argument to this, but i don't want anyone else to see it STOP QUESTIONING ME THERE IS NO POINT YOU ARE JUST WASTING YOUR TIME

goddamn is it just me or is there a reason that the "it's pointless" sentiment seems to be one-sided 

[the shortest route to the sea]

goddamn is it just me or is there a reason that the "it's pointless" sentiment seems to be one-sided 

It stems from a false sense of superiority which makes one feel that the surroundings are of the same opinion. Also there's not much cyclicality here, just bad argument syntax.

[reeper]

Evolution exists for two reasons, genetic variations in offspring and survival of the fittest. If you believe in god and that he "created" those two things good for you.

[Ch�shū]

I think when asking a question like this you must ask yourself "what is God?" 

Based off of the probable backgrounds of most of the users here I'd have to say that when the word God is mentioned most people think of the Christian faith. 

Personally I have no faith in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or any other organized religion.  However, I do feel that it's possible that there could be a god or diety of some sort.  Overall I lean more towards the side of being an atheist...but unlike many people who hold similar views as me, I do feel that there's a possibility of there being a deity of some sort.  Does this mean that there's an afterlife or that this god of sorts is even interested in our moral standings?  Not necessarily....

But I think that the universe is far more beautiful and mystifying than people notice.

Evolution and the universe interests me far more than Christianity or any other religious dominion does.  I look up at the sky every night and when I do so, I don't try to make up and follow some bogus reason for why we're here, but rather wonder what's out there in the universe....

I don't believe that we as humans are here for any defined reason.  We are here by chance.  The accidental combination of a billion factors.  Venus is too hot for us.  A perpetual hell of extreme heat, sulfuric acid rain, and the human perception of death.  Mars is too cold and remote.  Earth, is like heaven for humans.  We evolved here.  This is our home.  And hopefully one day we'll encounter other life and learn the secrets of their existence as well.

[YPrrrr]

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. It's up to them to prove their assertion, not up to others to prove their assertion wrong.

Isn't saying that there are no divine beings just as much of a claim as saying that there is one? It would be one thing to ignore those claiming that divine beings do exist, but there seems to be a lot of effort put into trying to disprove divinity as well. It's one thing to say, "where's your proof?" and another entirely to completely dismiss the idea. Really atheism must be held as much to that standard as theism considering the amount of time spent by some athiests in trying to disprove the theists' beliefs. Believing there is no god and criticizing those who think there is one (or many) are not inextricable

[Slim]

Isn't saying that there are no divine beings just as much of a claim as saying that there is one?

Who makes that claim (in bold) with certainty? I don't, and I don't know of anyone who does.

It would be one thing to ignore those claiming that divine beings do exist, but there seems to be a lot of effort put into trying to disprove divinity as well.

No, there's effort put into exposing the absurdity of various mythologies and the logical inconsistency of different conceptions of god, which is an entirely legitimate endeavor. Anyone trying to "disprove divinity" in the abstract is misplacing their effort I'm afraid, since it's not something that can ever be absolutely disproved, as I've stated before.

It's one thing to say, "where's your proof?" and another entirely to completely dismiss the idea.

The claim that a god exists is unfalsifiable, and thus is not a scientific proposition. Something that's unfalsifiable can be dismissed by science since science does not deal with unfalsifiable claims.

Really atheism must be held as much to that standard as theism considering the amount of time spent by some athiests in trying to disprove the theists' beliefs. Believing there is no god and criticizing those who think there is one (or many) are not inextricable

Atheism is not an ideology: it can't be held to any "standard." Also, how atheists spend their time is irrelevant to the validity of their position.

[Ch�shū]

Isn't saying that there are no divine beings just as much of a claim as saying that there is one? It would be one thing to ignore those claiming that divine beings do exist, but there seems to be a lot of effort put into trying to disprove divinity as well. It's one thing to say, "where's your proof?" and another entirely to completely dismiss the idea. Really atheism must be held as much to that standard as theism considering the amount of time spent by some athiests in trying to disprove the theists' beliefs. Believing there is no god and criticizing those who think there is one (or many) are not inextricable

I'm sorry but I must disagree with you on this matter.

The main point brought up by atheists is this.  Why worship something that has no means of physical evidence?  Using the Judeo-Christian beliefs as an example; the largest piece of "proof" that they have is a book written by multiple people over the course of several thousands of years, and then translated multiple times adapted to various societies.  I feel that most atheists aren't trying to "disprove" the existence of this god per say; but are rather trying to use logic in the situation.  Do you really believe that a senior citizen herded two of every species of  every land animal into a giant boat, sailed the seas for a long amount of time and then successfully repopulated the Earth?

And another reason why atheists try to disprove the existence of a known deity.  The fact that it holds back the progress of civilization as a whole.  In all reality I have no qualms with people worshiping whom they want in the quarters of their own homes and the depths of their own minds.  As a free nation this is one of America's greatest virtues.  But when these muddled beliefs come in contact with others they can be quite corrosive.

I would not by any means of the word call myself an atheist; but I can understand their point and their struggle.  Religion is very serious factor in the superego of man.  It intertwines and connects itself into the very fiber of one's mind shaping moral viewpoints.  The line that decides what is "evil" and what is "good" in a man's mind can be a very dangerous one.  Atheists like Richard Dawkins struggle to see people freed of these illogical dogmas, and in the process, the same mental bonding of religion and mind that happens within the beings of the religious has happened to Dawkins...but in a very different way.

Dawkins cannot stand to see the world continue to trott down it's current path in the illogical storm of religion.  Religious people (some of them) cannot stand to see people of different faiths whether it be an atheist or someone from a different religion question them; as their religion is tied to the very core of their beliefs. 

Religion and mythology evolves along with civilized creatures.

I'll stick with logic.

Honestly, I doubt anything I wrote above this will make any sense.  I am VERY VERY high right now.  And as I know people may look at this post now and think that I'm a druggie showing off my rebellious tendencies, I just trail off sometimes and I must apologize for such an annoying trait 

[Slim]

Atheists like Richard Dawkins struggle to see people freed of these illogical dogmas, and in the process, the same mental bonding of religion and mind that happens within the beings of the religious has happened to Dawkins...but in a very different way.

Please clarify what you're trying to get across in this sentence.