Do you accept the theory of evolution?

[Franklin Richards]

This poll is very unscientific- ironic for folks who support science.

For one thing, the suggestion is that either you can believe in evolution or THE BIBLE. When there are infinite other choices.

I personally know God exists and yet do believe that some evolutionary concepts are reasonable. It simply means there's a science behind Creation. I also don't subscribe to everything in the bible. I see some of it as a useful teaching tool and some of it as a possible re-telling of historic events. Other parts are politics. There is a gigantic difference between belief in God and religion.

Secondly- I see evolution proponents joking about things like a "talking snake" or "parting of the red sea". Which again, is pretty unscientific.

If you support evolution, then it's only by chance that humans developed our ability of verbal communication. But since all species began from a single species, then the possibility for such traits would exist in all species, correct? So by evolutionary standards it isn't impossible that another species could develop the ability of speech.

So, the talking snake is simply God (Who created all these parameters in the first place) or Satan a being of vast cosmic power- evolving or enhancing the speech capabilities of a snake. That or the talking snake was only an illusion in the first place.

The same with the parting of the Red Sea. There are certainly physical forces that could cause a sea to part. It was just God making use of them, since he created them.

A big reason why I believe that evolution is a flawed concept is that ideologies such as Darwinism essentially doom mankind. The idea of "survival of the fittest" is destructive, whereas belief in a benevolent God requires that we find a way to all survive together.

You have evidence? Or do you just "know". As for your last statement, a benevolent god does require the we find a way to survive. Too bad that the gods of Abraham all want us to kill each other or "go be seperate" or kill non-believers. I suppose you are right in the aspect that once you kill everyone who doesn't believe the way you do, the believers will be alone and all together. Or if you convert everyone we will be together.

 

[bgates87]

This poll is very unscientific- ironic for folks who support science.

For one thing, the suggestion is that either you can believe in evolution or THE BIBLE. When there are infinite other choices.

The poll question and options say nothing about the bible or a god. It simply asks if you do or do not accept the theory of evolution, or if you are unsure.

I personally know God exists and yet do believe that some evolutionary concepts are reasonable. It simply means there's a science behind Creation.

Well at least you make no bones about your confirmation bias. You already know what is true, you're just waiting for science to explain the details. Drawing conclusions and then interpreting the evidence to support them is not very scientific.

I also don't subscribe to everything in the bible. I see some of it as a useful teaching tool and some of it as a possible re-telling of historic events. Other parts are politics. There is a gigantic difference between belief in God and religion.

And how do you distinguish between the two? Is there an unabridged bible somewhere with footnotes from the authors about which parts should be taken literally and which should be taken figuratively, which parts are true and which parts were made up by religious leaders to influence their followers? Or are you interpreting it subjectively and choosing the parts that fit your a priori "knowledge"?

Secondly- I see evolution proponents joking about things like a "talking snake" or "parting of the red sea". Which again, is pretty unscientific.

If you support evolution, then it's only by chance that humans developed our ability of verbal communication. But since all species began from a single species, then the possibility for such traits would exist in all species, correct? So by evolutionary standards it isn't impossible that another species could develop the ability of speech.

So, the talking snake is simply God (Who created all these parameters in the first place) or Satan a being of vast cosmic power- evolving or enhancing the speech capabilities of a snake. That or the talking snake was only an illusion in the first place.

It is possible that other species could evolve to develop a sophisticated spoken language. What is extremely unlikely is that snakes could have accomplished this without vocal cords.

The same with the parting of the Red Sea. There are certainly physical forces that could cause a sea to part. It was just God making use of them, since he created them.

So if God is capable of manifesting his power in the physical world, why doesn't he do it any more? Why is it that the almighty god that created the entire universe as we know it and accomplished great miracles in the past has now been relegated to making an occasional guest appearance on a slice of toast? And is it a coincidence that this happened right about the same time as written language was invented and stories started being written down instead of passed down through oral tradition, where they were no doubt exaggerated and changed to suit the tastes of the story tellers?

A big reason why I believe that evolution is a flawed concept is that ideologies such as Darwinism essentially doom mankind. The idea of "survival of the fittest" is destructive, whereas belief in a benevolent God requires that we find a way to all survive together.

It's only destructive if you try to derive an ought from an is. Evolution tells us how life came to be in its present form, that doesn't mean we should be constrained to its principles in the future.

 

[random_havoc]

You have evidence? Or do you just "know". As for your last statement, a benevolent god does require the we find a way to survive. Too bad that the gods of Abraham all want us to kill each other or "go be seperate" or kill non-believers. I suppose you are right in the aspect that once you kill everyone who doesn't believe the way you do, the believers will be alone and all together. Or if you convert everyone we will be together.

Holy ignorance Batman. How about Jesus saying that the most important command other than loving God is to love others as we love ourselves. How about Jesus telling us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. How about Him saying that those who live by the sword will die by the sword. How about the fact that He rebuked his disciples when they tried to use violence to defend him.

Just because people are violent in the name of Christianity doesn't mean they're actually bothering to follow what Jesus said.

 

[Dragon]

Back up a minute here, disregarding the rest of the post or anything else in the topic... what? The options on the poll are "Yes (post your reasons)", "No (post your reasons)", or "Not sure". How the heck is that disregarding the option of things other than the bible when it specifically states to vote and post your personal reasons which can range between anything, not even necessarily a belief in god?

Because in the poll itself you can still only vote yes or no- there isn't an option wherein you can vote as I believe that portions of evolutionary theory are reasonable, but I disagree with other portions and conclusions due to my belief in God.

 

[Franklin Richards]

Unfortunately that book of fables is so wrought with contradictions that ignorant people who cherry pick it only remember the passages like...

Isaiah 52:11, "Depart ye, depart ye, go ye out from thence, touch no unclean thing: go ye out of the midst of her: be ye clean, that bear the vessels of the Lords. " It was a call to the priests, and Levites in particular, and Israel in general, to withdraw from the idolatrous world in view of predictions of the coming reign of Christ on the earth.

Separation is one of the major themes of the Bible. Carried to extremes by some, and ignored or rejected by others, it remains both as a means of spiritual safety for the believer and a testimony to the world of the sufficiency of Christ. Monasteries and convents, along with colonies that withdraw from the rest of a community, exemplify the extreme segments while those that see the mission of the church to be the 'Christianizing' of the world, portray the rejecters.

Then there's...

Matthew 25:31–35

31"But when the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. 32Before him all the nations will be gathered, and he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 34Then the King will tell those on his right hand, 'Come, blessed of my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world;


To say that Abrahamic Religions are inclusive is disingenuous, especially considering one of the most often used verses in Christianity.

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Not very inclusive or community building.

 

[Dragon]

You have evidence? Or do you just "know".

Yes. My life. Your life. I have faith that reaches beyond the physical. Not an easy thing to grasp, but definitely real.

As for your last statement, a benevolent god does require the we find a way to survive. Too bad that the gods of Abraham all want us to kill each other or "go be seperate" or kill non-believers.

I also said in my post that there are portions of the bible that are meant to be political and that belief in God is not the same as religion.

I suppose you are right in the aspect that once you kill everyone who doesn't believe the way you do, the believers will be alone and all together. Or if you convert everyone we will be together.

You're the one bringing killing into the equation, not me. I'm saying that my belief guides me to look for ways that we can all survive together- Survival of the fittest says its okay to kill to survive.

 

[Franklin Richards]

Religion says it's ok to kill if they are infidels.

 

[Dragon]

The poll question and options say nothing about the bible or a god. It simply asks if you do or do not accept the theory of evolution, or if you are unsure.

I know. And that's the problem. You might not accept all aspects of evolution. So you can neither select yes or no.

Well at least you make no bones about your confirmation bias. You already know what is true, you're just waiting for science to explain the details. Drawing conclusions and then interpreting the evidence to support them is not very scientific.

But that's exactly what Evolution theorists do.

And how do you distinguish between the two? Is there an unabridged bible somewhere with footnotes from the authors about which parts should be taken literally and which should be taken figuratively, which parts are true and which parts were made up by religious leaders to influence their followers? Or are you interpreting it subjectively and choosing the parts that fit your a priori "knowledge"?

Yeah. Although I also think that comes from common sense. I believe that God loves all of us and wants us to be happy. So any parts of the bible that suggests we destroy others is BS.

It's kind of like the way evolutionists examine different theories and change them as more information comes in.

It is possible that other species could evolve to develop a sophisticated spoken language. What is extremely unlikely is that snakes could have accomplished this without vocal cords.

Unless the one that created the ability of speech furnished that particular snake with them. Or, as I'd mentioned simply generated an illusion of a talking snake.

So if God is capable of manifesting his power in the physical world, why doesn't he do it any more? Why is it that the almighty god that created the entire universe as we know it and accomplished great miracles in the past has now been relegated to making an occasional guest appearance on a slice of toast?

Who says God doesn't do that anymore? I've seen God move in my life and that of many others. But perhaps at this point it's up to us to make the miracles. I see that as the challenge we face in life.

And is it a coincidence that this happened right about the same time as written language was invented and stories started being written down instead of passed down through oral tradition, where they were no doubt exaggerated and changed to suit the tastes of the story tellers?

Or it could be that some of it is simply true.

It's only destructive if you try to derive an ought from an is. Evolution tells us how life came to be in its present form, that doesn't mean we should be constrained to its principles in the future.

The same with belief in God. Although based on the way that man is moving I highly doubt that evolutionary thought will lead us in a better direction since it makes life more arbitrary and meaningless.

 

[Bat-Mite]

I personally know God exists and yet do believe that some evolutionary concepts are reasonable.

You're not the first person in this topic to state such, nor do I really see how it's relevant to the poll/original post, because the question doesn't ask whether or not you believe in evolution and/or God, it just asks about evolution. Yeah, creationism does deal with God and such, but if you're not a "the Bible is 100% literally true" creationist, I don't see why you have to elaborate. Creationism only concerns those who believe that God magically poofed humans here, or literally formed us out of clay/dirt. Just an aside, but why would such a magical being need to use clay to create someone? Or use a rib to create Eve? He couldn't have created them just by willing it to be so?

Secondly- I see evolution proponents joking about things like a "talking snake" or "parting of the red sea". Which again, is pretty unscientific.

Is any argument that you dislike automatically "unscientific"? When part of this debate concerns those who believe that the Bible is literally true in all aspects, I don't think it's out of line to mock the more ludicrous aspects of the story. Furthermore, though this topic concerns issues of science, very few people posting here are scientists, so every single point of conversation doesn't have to adhere to scientific principles.

If you support evolution, then it's only by chance that humans developed our ability of verbal communication. But since all species began from a single species, then the possibility for such traits would exist in all species, correct? So by evolutionary standards it isn't impossible that another species could develop the ability of speech.

I'm not aware of any snakes with vocal cords. If we were talking about birds, you might have a point, since there are certain species that can mimic human speech. Even then, though, they create sounds via a different organ than what is found in mammals.

So, the talking snake is simply God (Who created all these parameters in the first place) or Satan a being of vast cosmic power- evolving or enhancing the speech capabilities of a snake. That or the talking snake was only an illusion in the first place.

All of which deal with magic powers or a "vision," which is why I still don't see how any of this is relevant.

The same with the parting of the Red Sea. There are certainly physical forces that could cause a sea to part. It was just God making use of them, since he created them.

More magic.

A big reason why I believe that evolution is a flawed concept is that ideologies such as Darwinism essentially doom mankind. The idea of "survival of the fittest" is destructive, whereas belief in a benevolent God requires that we find a way to all survive together.

That "benevolent" god commanded rape, commanded the murder of (male) homosexuals, commanded the murder of "witches", commanded slavery (and continues to endorse such in the New Testament), demanded that women be treated as inferior in both the OT and NT, etc. I would not consider a being responsible for such evil (and who itself claims to be responsible for evil in Isaiah 45:7) to be benevolent by any stretch of the imagination. Another problem here is this word "Darwinism" that you speak of as if people worship Darwin for some unknown reason. Darwin was not any more special than Einstein or Newton or Stephen Hawking... he was not a philosopher, nor should his writings be treated as philosophy. They merely explain how nature functions according to evidence available to him at the time.

As for this "survival of the fittest" concept that you claim dooms mankind, perhaps you should research that phrase. It didn't even originate with Darwin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

The phrase "survival of the fittest" is not generally used by modern biologists as the term does not accurately convey the meaning of natural selection, the term biologists use and prefer. Natural selection refers to differential reproduction as a function of traits that have a genetic basis. "Survival of the fittest" is inaccurate for two important reasons. First, survival is merely a normal prerequisite to reproduction. Second, fitness has specialized meaning in biology different from how the word is used in popular culture. In population genetics, fitness refers to differential reproduction. "Fitness" does not refer to whether an individual is "physically fit" – bigger, faster or stronger – or "better" in any subjective sense. It refers to a difference in reproductive rate from one generation to the next.

 

[Dragon]

Religion says it's ok to kill if they are infidels.

Which is why I don't believe in religion.

Survival of the fittest says its okay to kill everyone.

 

[Franklin Richards]

You can't separate religion and gods. Just like you can't seperate society and ethics. People want to all the time, but you just can't. People are doing things in your god's name.


And don't give me that about survival of the fittest. Yes, it's legal to protect yourself if someone is trying to kill you. No, you can't kill homeless people. That would be unethical.

Ethics.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Which is why I don't believe in religion.

Survival of the fittest says its okay to kill everyone.

The mechanisms behind Evolution are not prescriptions on how to act. How you construct a society is based on all sorts of things, and while Evolution aids in it, you'd hardly look at natural selection and simply use it's findings as a basis for laws or morals. What ridiculousness. That's almost like believing if cosmologists had their way we'd be ruled by the stars, and what we observe in the sky would determine our laws and direction.

 

[:eek:]

Evolution isn't a theory. It's a fact based on scientific findings. To not believe in that is as dumb as believing the earth is flat. Sadly, there are still a lot of dumb people in the world.

 

[bgates87]

But that's exactly what Evolution theorists do.

Except in reverse. Scientists adjust theories to fit the evidence. No scientific theory, no matter how widely accepted it is, couldn't be overturned if new evidence contradicted it. That's the essence of intellectual honesty and integrity. Fit the theory to the facts, not the other way around.

Yeah. Although I also think that comes from common sense. I believe that God loves all of us and wants us to be happy. So any parts of the bible that suggests we destroy others is BS.

It's kind of like the way evolutionists examine different theories and change them as more information comes in.

When a scientific theory is revised it is due to new, objective evidence that doesn't fit the current theory. That's not what you're doing here.

Your theory is that God loves all of us and wants us to be happy. Your source of evidence for this theory is the bible. There is evidence in the bible that contradicts the view that God loves all of us and wants us to be happy. Rather than revising your theory, you choose to dismiss the contradictory evidence. You acknowledge there is a contradiction, but you relieve that cognitive dissonance in an intellectually dishonest way.

Unless the one that created the ability of speech furnished that particular snake with them. Or, as I'd mentioned simply generated an illusion of a talking snake.

Of course you can always appeal to the ultimate cop-out known as God. I can't prove God didn't bless one single snake with the ability to speak. No one can. It's unfalsifiable, and unfalsifiable theories are useless.

Who says God doesn't do that anymore? I've seen God move in my life and that of many others. But perhaps at this point it's up to us to make the miracles. I see that as the challenge we face in life.

A miracle is, by definition, a violation of the laws of nature as we understand them. Have you actually witnessed an event such as this, or are you giving special significance to unlikely events?

Or it could be that some of it is simply true.

Just because there's a chance it could be true isn't a good reason to believe it is true.

The same with belief in God. Although based on the way that man is moving I highly doubt that evolutionary thought will lead us in a better direction since it makes life more arbitrary and meaningless.

On the contrary, to me the idea that none of this had to happen at all makes me appreciate life much more now than I did when I still believed the fairytales of the bible.

 

[Dragon]

You can't separate religion and gods. Just like you can't seperate society and ethics. People want to all the time, but you just can't. People are doing things in your god's name.

People do things in the name of evolution as well (The Holocaust, mass murder in communist countries). Religion is a set of rituals. It has nothing to do with belief in God.

And don't give me that about survival of the fittest. Yes, it's legal to protect yourself if someone is trying to kill you. No, you can't kill homeless people. That would be unethical.

Ethics.

But if you believe in God, you realize that it's also not good to allow someone to be homeless in the first place.

 

[childeroland]

The Holocaust and communist murders were certainly not done in the name of evolution, but in the name of mythical nationalist beliefs, Jewish scapegoating and right-wing/reactionary extremism.

People who don't believe in God also realize it's not good to 'allow' someone to be homeless in the first place.

 

[Bat-Mite]

People do things in the name of evolution as well (The Holocaust, mass murder in communist countries). Religion is a set of rituals. It has nothing to do with belief in God.

Show me proof that those things were done in the name of "evolution." I want direct quotes from Nazis/communists that specifically mention evolution. Also, your comment about religion contradicts the very definition of the word:

re·li·gion/riˈlijən/ Noun: The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.

But if you believe in God, you realize that it's also not good to allow someone to be homeless in the first place.

Belief in God has nothing to do with that. There are many atheists and polytheists who feel that same way. There are many believers in God who would see a homeless person on the street and pass them by, or may even hasten their movements for fear that the homeless person would ask them for assistance. They may even make a rude comment about the presence of said person.

 

[Dragon]

Except in reverse. Scientists adjust theories to fit the evidence. No scientific theory, no matter how widely accepted it is, couldn't be overturned if new evidence contradicted it. That's the essence of intellectual honesty and integrity. Fit the theory to the facts, not the other way around.

When a scientific theory is revised it is due to new, objective evidence that doesn't fit the current theory. That's not what you're doing here.

Which is exactly what you asserted that I'm doing:

You already know what is true, you're just waiting for science to explain the details.

Your theory is that God loves all of us and wants us to be happy. Your source of evidence for this theory is the bible.

My source of evidence isn't the bible. It's my faith and my ability to reason.

There is evidence in the bible that contradicts the view that God loves all of us and wants us to be happy. Rather than revising your theory, you choose to dismiss the contradictory evidence. You acknowledge there is a contradiction, but you relieve that cognitive dissonance in an intellectually dishonest way.

So, in your view I have to either agree with everything the bible says or nothing. I disagree. I don't even agree that the bible is the only spiritual tool that we can learn from.

Of course you can always appeal to the ultimate cop-out known as God. I can't prove God didn't bless one single snake with the ability to speak. No one can. It's unfalsifiable, and unfalsifiable theories are useless.

That's a blanket statement, which is very unscientific. And evolutionists are certainly prone to "copping-out" when asked a question that they can't answer by simply saying this is something "unfalsifiable". It's okay that evolution doesn't have all the answers, but not okay if belief in God doesn't present them in a varifiable way.

A miracle is, by definition, a violation of the laws of nature as we understand them. Have you actually witnessed an event such as this, or are you giving special significance to unlikely events?

Yes I've witnessed events that are in violation to the laws of nature as we understand them. I've also seen unlikely events that I know was the touch of God.

And what does the laws of nature as we understand them mean? That we don't fully understand how nature works, so it isn't that the event is actually in violation- it's just that we don't know everything.

Just because there's a chance it could be true isn't a good reason to believe it is true.

Well, I don't believe there's a chance it could be true. I believe it's true. And I believe the good reason to live by it is because it makes me a better person.

On the contrary, to me the idea that none of this had to happen at all makes me appreciate life much more now than I did when I still believed the fairytales of the bible.

Well, that's your personal experience. Mine is that once I accepted that God is with me I not only appreciated life more, but also my life became infinitely better.

As far as belief in God being a fairytale, again I know that's not the case. And considering that evolutionary theory will never answer all of man's questions, I can't put my faith in it.

 

[Bat-Mite]

When I was a child and Christmas was nearing, I'd look out through my window at the night sky, would see an airplane with a red light on it and swear that it was Rudolph. It was proof. I told everyone about what I saw. When I was stopped believing in Santa, my stories about Rudolph stopped, but I sincerely believed in what I was saying when I was young enough to tell such stories.

Some people will have a dream and swear that it was real or prophetic. Some will have an unusual experience related to drug use, and though they may know that their experience was caused by the substance, they may still regard the experience as something that really happened. This was common with the use of LSD in the 60's.

Experiences such as these are very subjective. One man had an experience that led him to proclaim that the rapture was coming last year... he ended up embarrassing himself in front of the whole nation. What's worse is that he duped other people into believing it as well, thus also embarrassing them, and in some cases causing them to squander their life savings.

As far as belief in God being a fairytale, again I know that's not the case. And considering that evolutionary theory will never answer all of man's questions, I can't put my faith in it.

It sounds as if you'd rather have a convenient answer now than evidence gained through gradual observation, as the latter will always have loose ends and "Goddidit" doesn't leave any inconvenient questions hanging. In other words, it seems like a security blanket used to save yourself from fear of the unknown.

 

[Dragon]

Show me proof that those things were done in the name of "evolution." I want direct quotes from Nazis/communists that specifically mention evolution.

I'm not going to try to give you those. My point is that in those particular situations it was a lack of belief in God that justified those acts- so just as you can hold up religion (And I'm not religious anyway) and say it's the cause of evil- so to is a lack of belief in God.

Also, your comment about religion contradicts the very definition of the word:

Does it contradict the definition?

re·li·gion   /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Show Spelled[ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

I said religion is a set of rituals that have nothing to do with belief in God. Meaning that you don't have to follow those rituals to believe in God. There are many religous people who don't actually believe in God.

Belief in God has nothing to do with that.

Of course it does. If you believe that God loves and values us, then we should in turn love and value each other.

There are many atheists and polytheists who feel that same way.

And that's a good thing. I also see a connection with God as being something that increases my life, my strength, and makes me a better person.

There are many believers in God who would see a homeless person on the street and pass them by, or may even hasten their movements for fear that the homeless person would ask them for assistance. They may even make a rude comment about the presence of said person.

If those "believers in God" have the ability at that time to do anything to help that homeless person and don't then they're failing in their belief. But then- God also knows we're not perfect. We should work to be better as people, but mistakes will be made along the way.

 

[bgates87]

Which is exactly what you asserted that I'm doing:

You already know what is true, you're just waiting for science to explain the details.

The difference is that science doesn't claim to know what is true in advance. It derives truth from evidence, instead of deciding what is true and looking for evidence that supports it.

My source of evidence isn't the bible. It's my faith and my ability to reason.

What is faith? And how is it a source of evidence? And what reasoning led you to the conclusion that there is a benevolent God?

So, in your view I have to either agree with everything the bible says or nothing. I disagree. I don't even agree that the bible is the only spiritual tool that we can learn from.

No. You just need to provide objective reasoning for how you think different parts of the bible should be interpreted. If you don't have objective reasons then you're just picking and choosing the parts you prefer.

That's a blanket statement, which is very unscientific. And evolutionists are certainly prone to "copping-out" when asked a question that they can't answer by simply saying this is something "unfalsifiable". It's okay that evolution doesn't have all the answers, but not okay if belief in God doesn't present them in a varifiable way.

Saying a hypothesis is unfalsifiable isn't a cop-out. It's valid grounds for dismissing that hypothesis. A strong theory is one that could easily be falsified, but hasn't been. The theory of evolution could easily be falsified. Rabbit fossils in the precambrian layer is the famous example given by Haldane. But there is no way to falsify the God hypothesis, because it is always pushed just outside the boundaries of scientific knowledge.

Yes I've witnessed events that are in violation to the laws of nature as we understand them. I've also seen unlikely events that I know was the touch of God.

Such as?

And what does the laws of nature as we understand them mean? That we don't fully understand how nature works, so it isn't that the event is actually in violation- it's just that we don't know everything.

You are invoking something like Hempel's dilemma which I admit is a problem for me as a naturalist. I like the elegance of Beenakker's proposed solution, which relies on the finiteness of the universe to create a boundary between natural and supernatural.

Well, I don't believe there's a chance it could be true. I believe it's true. And I believe the good reason to live by it is because it makes me a better person.

Well, that's your personal experience. Mine is that once I accepted that God is with me I not only appreciated life more, but also my life became infinitely better.

The usefulness of a belief has no bearing on whether or not it is true. And if a false belief proves useful, we'd be better served to figure out what about it is beneficial and discover the truth in that. For example, an ancient tribe that believed dragons lived in volcanoes might benefit from that belief if it caused them to stay away from an active volcano, but they'd be better off in the long run using science to understand the mechanics behind volcanoes so they could predict their behavior.

As far as belief in God being a fairytale, again I know that's not the case. And considering that evolutionary theory will never answer all of man's questions, I can't put my faith in it.

Again I'll point out that by claiming to know God exists you are putting yourself in a bad position to objectively weigh evidence. And the theory of evolution isn't meant to answer all of man's questions. It is only meant to explain the diversity of lifeforms we observe today. It doesn't even try to explain how life originated on earth, that is abiogenesis. If you're looking for a gap to squeeze your God into, abiogenesis is the latest trend.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Most people don't know this, but the Nazis actually burned copies of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species. All his work was banned. Teaching evolution was also outlawed in Germany.

 

[bunk]

All of the church-goers I can think of accept evolution as far as I know. It seems like a person would have to take the bible pretty literally to end up cornering themselves in that way. It's unfortunate.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Whole lotta silly went on this thread there for a while, didn't it?

 

[LuvSupes]

Evolution isn't a theory. It's a fact based on scientific findings. To not believe in that is as dumb as believing the earth is flat. Sadly, there are still a lot of dumb people in the world.

This. Evolution is fact. What is theory is natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, etc...