Aren’t We Genetically Encoded with a PREDISPOSITION to EVOLVE?  Does Evolution PROVE the Existence of God?
362754
We re not genetically encoded with a predisposition to evolve, bt a predisposition to survive.\nTherefore any advantageous features that allow survival would be retained...an accumulation of these factors result in evolution, and is done purely on the basis of chance/mutations hence it taking millions of years to occur.\nIt does not prove the existence of God as science doesnt prove anything just supports hypothesis, but supports the evidence of chance and survival of the fittest.\nt\nps if u like u can say how this amazing coincidence that all these "chances" have culminated in striking concordance to produce the human, which has such a minute probability...may have something to do with the wonders of god...if u want ;)
1034859
Ok, how can you believe in evolution? I mean really, the complexity of animals, and well every living thing, came about by accident!! At least we have the bible that was inspired by God! And was correct about allot of scientific things way before man figured it out!\n\n 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.\n\nAll you have is a theory that we came from nothing!\n\n\nNo, I am not mad, just stating the obvious.\n\n\nloj
111018
I am not sure how it all came to be as it is.  I wonder sometimes if perhaps we created ourselves.  I mean, through reincarnation, we have the opportunity to become better and better,and perhaps we have more will and power than people realize to become more advanced.  I know, that sounds hair-brained, but it is just a wild idea I had.\n\nI think it is possible that God guides the evolution process, causing the mutations that will become beneficial, or survival advantages.\n\nI think there is a whole lot more to evolution than we realize.  I think there is something marvelous about it and random mutations do not fully explain it to me.  I think there must be some mechanism which actually somehow accelerates mutations when the need for a change is present.  Whether that mechanism was put there by God or not, who could really say?\n\nAs the Rig Veda says, "who really knows, who can say, from whence it came?  Maybe God knows, and maybe even he does not."
376973
Evolution is correct, although some find it emotionally unsatisfying.  However, if we go further back, we can think about the amino acids that all living organisms are made from.\nWhen the earth was much younger, carbon and many other elements and compounds were dissolved in the sea.  Over time, lightning strikes and other forces caused these chemicals to bind into amino acids.  Amino acids, although not alive, of course, are the basic building blocks of all life. If you think about evolution including this period of amino acid evolution, you may be more satisfied with your understanding of evolution.\nNow, if you're looking for a "why" we happen to be, I'd say there is no why.  We exist simply because of a series of chemical accidents.  \nYes, we're a small world in a huge cosmos.  Some argue that we must not be random because the chance of our world existing is so tiny.  I say that given the size of the universe, randomness certainly explains life on Earth.  As an analogy, flipping heads 100 times in a row is very unlikely, but if you flip the coin 100 trillion times, well, your odds are pretty good.  \nLastly, we exist, and therefore are able to argue about how we come to exist.  We have to accept that this unlikely series of events did happen because here we all are.  Inert minerals on planet YR-74298 are not sentient, and therefore don't have the luxury of arguing such things. (smile)\nOh, btw, IQ 147.  Was that what you wanted?
224608
"Dr" Hovind is a complete charlatan, and the arguments as far as Earth's rotation and the distance to the moon are fradulent.\n\nIn any case, I know a number of people, including one who is a priest, who believe in both God and evolution.  In this viewpoint, God is more of a supreme architect who created the basic structure of the universe, and evolution is one of the ways in which this universe operates, giving rise to life in all its complexity.  It's a reasonable viewpoint, given that you can neither prove nor disprove God.  Personally, I don't find God necessary, so I don't include such a being in my view of reality.  Can I prove this?  No, not really.  But a believer in God can't prove to me that this being exists, either.  As far as whether you're a creationist of an evolutionist, I'd say you're an evolutionist since you believe that life diversified through evolution.  Darwin was also a believer in God, although not a personal God you could communicate with.  His viewpoint was much more like the school of theological thought that was very popular at the time called Deism, which proposes a God that exists as a permeating force, but which does not perform miracles, or give prophecy to individual humans.  In other words they view God as more of a force of nature than an anthropomorphic God.   So, if the originator of the theory of evolution could believe in God, and felt that he was learning about the works of this God by understanding nature, then I'd say someone who believes in God and considers the process of evolution to be one of the achievements of that God is an evolutionist.  \n\nThe idea that a belief in God and acceptance of evolution as a scientific throught are impossible to hold at the same time is a straw man set up by religious con men who are mostly interested in controlling people's thought for the purpose of building up their own political power.  By creating a false dichotomy, they can get people to isolate themselves from other schools of thought, which makes them easier to control.
1164641
By God of course.  Every other belief is just a theory withouth any proof.  The proof that we were created by God is not only the Bible but everything around us.  It makes no sense to believe in evolution, because why has evolution taken a break for a very long time? Huh!  Charles Darwin was a scumbag, I bet he got hit with that evolutionary rock multiple times.
881611
Evolution is a fact, backed up by science. God is a hypothesis, 'backed-up' by the bible. The problem is that the bible is not backed-up by anything.
1021262
There is ample physical evidence that proves that evolution has taken place and continues to take place to shape the development and genetic variability of life on this planet.  \n\nSo evolution definitely exists.\n\nThe fact that evolution exists, however, does NOT mean that god does not exist.\n\nIf you believe in god (I don't, but evolutionary biology has no part in that belief), then there is no reason that god cannot be the hidden driving force behind the physical laws of the universe that work together to cause biological evolution to take place, and eventually lead to the evolution of sentient creatures such as human beings who are capable of a measure of understanding of god's universe.\n\nThe only discrepancy between a belief in god and an understanding of biological evolution is reconciling the hard, verifiable evidence of geology and paleontology with a literalist, fundamentalist reading of the first two chapters of Genesis.\n\nIt is only if you insist that Genesis MUST be absolutely, physically true that there is any conflict between the two.  Note that a literalist reading of Genesis also requires that the Earth be flat.  \n\nJust as the fact that the Earth is round doesn't disprove the existence of god, the fact that evolution occurs and has occurred to form the diversity of life seen today does not disprove god's hand in that process.
173278
Wait a minute people! Let's be honest with Pastor. \n\nOf course evolution, and the rest of science, requires a kind of "faith." In fact it requires two inter-related "faiths," or constructs not subject to further analysis.\n\nThe most rudimentary one is rooted in the concepts of logic. Or, put another way, scientists "assume" certain elementary building blocks of logic, for example axioms. They also have a qualified "faith" in the scientific method.\n\nThere is a  difference between this "faith" and what the asker is referring to as "religion." Scientists require predictable, reproducible results from their theories. Luckily for religious & non-relgious folks alike, scientists are NOT faithful to the particulars of a theory. In fact, when empirics call for it, a whole theory can be discarded by the its very authors. It has a self-correcting dynamic - BECAUSE IT DAMN WELL HAS TO WORK IN THIS WORLD. \n\nThat last element is inimical to most religious dogma. That "faith" requires a vast array of perpetual and unchanging tenets. It even provides for the logically impossible by positing forces necessarily beyond the reach of reason. \n\nThis gives that "faith" a great advantage over science. It is impervious to any force that pretends to question it.
529829
God and evolution are not an antithesis.  God spoke life into existence but he also placed within each creature the ability to adapt and evolve.  \n\nI do not believe there is life out there. However, even if there were it wouldn't change my belief in Christ.  I'd say what a wonderful Creator we have and move on.
118058
We don't get any choice in  who we descend from. Secondly, you could argue that God planned the evolution process as many Christians argue - it is the position of the Anglican church. The Catholic position is that man may or may not have descended from the apes but God is responsible for man having a soul. Secondly, any development of evolution must ultimately be the result of God's work whether it be through evolution or other mechanisms.\n\nIndeed, Christianity or other religions with similar cosmology do not claim that man is descended from God - rather, the claim is that God made man. In Christianity, Jesus is the son of God and thus God's only descendant. \n\nI assume you are aware of the famous riposte from Thomas Huxley who invented the term agnosticism to Bishop Samuel Wilberforce.\n\n"If the question is put to me would I rather have a miserable ape for a grandfather or a man highly endowed by nature and possessed of great means of influence and yet who employs these faculties and that influence for the mere purpose of introducing ridicule into a grave scientific discussion, I unhesitatingly affirm my preference for the ape."
711783
Evolution doesn't cease to exist simply because there is no need for it.  Genetic variation and mutation are always going to occur.  However, the 'natural selection' aspect of it may not be applicable.
317337
Yes. Any mutations (new ideas) that occur with data that is being viewed in an evolutionary sense and that survives or persist (such as Islam and Christianity), are examples of evolution.\n\nThis is not biological evolution per se, it just follows the same algorithm.  Some Christians will have a hard time buying this, partly because their religion has in many ways, demonized the word, 'evolution'.  Some just see monkeys when they hear that word, they have a hard time getting beyond that because it would break down big chunks of their belief stucture and who they feel they are inside.
924301
These are two good reasons for believing in evolution instead of these silly notions. We come from earlier life, through the familiar process of selection, reproduction, and variation. That earlier life comes from even earlier life. At some point in the distant past there was some primitive first life. It came from inorganic matter. \n\nWhere that matter came from is not clear, but we're making progress on understanding that. The leading contender, I believe, is that it DID simply pop into existence. I think that someday we may even understand how that is possible, but I'm confident that no-one today understands it.
782924
genetic predisposition
1016992
Well, I think so.  I'm a biologist who accepts the fact that evolution occurred, but I don't use that to try to prove that God doesn't exist.  I'm also a born-again Christian who doesn't doubt a single word in the Bible.  Evolution is nothing.  I frankly don't see what the big deal about it is.  The real enemy is Materialism- those pseudoscientists who think the physical universe is all that exists.  That's not the same thing as evolultion.  One can still believe in God and simply think evolution was a tool He used at times.  But you can't be a Materialist and still believe in God at all.  People should understand that they're disputing about a worldview, not about facts.
1023236
Well, I'm a Christian biologist, and I know many others who are.  I accept that evolution occured, but I do think it was necessary for God to direct it.  There are too many irreducibly complex systems at the cellular level, and too many astronomically unlikely coincidences that would have had to take place, if natural selection were completely responsible for the phenomenon.  Even a time span of billions of years is just not enough to account for it, statistically speaking.  That's my professional opinion, and I'm far from the only one who thinks so.