How does disproving evolution validate your religion?

[The Don]

I mean, creationists keep on making a point to try to "disprove" evolution such as going on about the Missing Link, Crocoducks, and how flawed carbon dating is.

The thing is, how does this prove that some higher power designed life on Earth?

As far as I know, disproving evolution would only mean that the current theory we have for the formation of life on this planet is incorrect. It wouldn't automatically prove there was a higher power and said power designed us.

I'm just curious.

[Nevins]

Because they believe that if evolution cannot work, life would have REQUIRED a creator. And they would be right, its just that we know that this whole evolution thing is real.

[Phier]

Evolution removed almost all the 'need' for God in many peoples minds.

Prior to the theory of evolution, the amazing diversity of life on earth that seemed to fit so well together, cried out for a creator.

If they could 'disprove' evolution, they would gain that back. That being the golden time of religion, where science SUPPORTED religion, and the earth was young and all of lifes questions were answered in a book available to all.

I can understand that longing for a simple, black and white time.

[Ummon]

Evolution removed almost all the 'need' for God in many peoples minds.

Prior to the theory of evolution, the amazing diversity of life on earth that seemed to fit so well together, cried out for a creator.

If they could 'disprove' evolution, they would gain that back. That being the golden time of religion, where science SUPPORTED religion, and the earth was young and all of lifes questions were answered in a book available to all.

I can understand that longing for a simple, black and white time.

I have to say that evolution, by disproving this false reason for believing in God, ultimately will prove to have done a favour to religion.

The reasons to believe in God are far less superficial than colourful flowers and pretty deer.

[germ14]

Its not about proving creation, it is about accepting other possibilties for the origin of life. It is about opening the mind of the scientific community to things like ID, and showing the facts support a Biblical creation.

[mrcrusty]

Its not about proving creation, it is about accepting other possibilties for the origin of life. It is about opening the mind of the scientific community to things like ID, and showing the facts support a Biblical creation.

I'm sorry, what were you saying?

[bushbush]

Its not about proving creation, it is about accepting other possibilties for the origin of life. It is about opening the mind of the scientific community to things like ID, and showing the facts support a Biblical creation.

ID is not science. It's craziness. Science doesn't allow you to imagine a creator. That's not science.

[Vladimir Lenin]

Disproving evolution doesn't validate my religion.

Darwin didn't disprove God, Evolution doesn't disprove God.

[PointOfViewGun]

Plus, I don't think evolution is disprovable.

[Phier]

Plus, I don't think evolution is disprovable.

Actually disproving evolution would be easy. Darwin himself gave reasons it could be, such as the instantaneous 'evolution' of overly complex traits. This is a way ID people try to attack evolution, but they rely on their audience not being versed enough in biology to see how their 'overly' complex organs like the eye evolved in much smaller steps.

[PointOfViewGun]

Actually disproving evolution would be easy. Darwin himself gave reasons it could be, such as the instantaneous 'evolution' of overly complex traits. This is a way ID people try to attack evolution, but they rely on their audience not being versed enough in biology to see how their 'overly' complex organs like the eye evolved in much smaller steps.

Well, if you think that one day there was a ameba and the next day humans then yeah it is. But, evolution is something that happens everyday and it's well observed. I would like some religious person to prove to me that people do not adept to different conditions and viruses, especially HIV, doesn't evolve over time as a self-defense system. Evolution goes in any way. When sport teams move to a higher altitude their bodies evolve to transport oxygen more efficiently. If they go down then it will be reversed and the trait won't pass to their genes but given a long time that they stay there and produce offspring their sons and daughters will be already adapted to the climate or else no one would be able to give birth at higher altitude because of the baby dying. This might be a very cheesy and simple example but it is evolution.

[Yaga Shu Ra]

Plus, I don't think evolution is disprovable.

Find a lifeform that violates the nested hierarchy resulting from the branching process that is evolution. Something like a mammal with cell walls, or an insect with a tetrapod's limb structure, et presto!

[Tacitursa]

Its not about proving creation, it is about accepting other possibilties for the origin of life. It is about opening the mind of the scientific community to things like ID, and showing the facts support a Biblical creation.

Why dont you accept other possibilities other than god?

[germ14]

Why dont you accept other possibilities other than god?

Well, I'm not a scientist, I can believe whatever I want (I may be wrong we cannot tell), but scientists should support the theory which the facts fit best (not evolution) instead of blindly preaching an unprovable theory as undeniable fact.

[Tacitursa]

but scientists should support the theory which the facts fit best (not evolution)

Are you serious?

The facts fit evolution perfectly. If you disagree , tell me what you think the facts fit best.

[Phier]

Well, I'm not a scientist, I can believe whatever I want (I may be wrong we cannot tell), but scientists should support the theory which the facts fit best (not evolution) instead of blindly preaching an unprovable theory as undeniable fact.

If you had even the slightest training in biology by a competent instructor you would know that evolution is both provable and fact.

Reveling in your own ignorance and using that as a shield to maintain your personal beliefs folly.

[PointOfViewGun]

Find a lifeform that violates the nested hierarchy resulting from the branching process that is evolution. Something like a mammal with cell walls, or an insect with a tetrapod's limb structure, et presto!

Finding a lifeform that does not evolve does not disprove evolution. It's like saying just because the building I live does not collapse all other building can not.

[Yaga Shu Ra]

Finding a lifeform that does not evolve does not disprove evolution.

I didn't suggest otherwise.

To elaborate on my previous post:

In a branching process, each of the branches manifests through a distinct character combination (a specific set of traits), ordered in a strict arrangement; a hierarchy, linking these branches into a sequence.
If you would find a lifeform violating this sequence - by "jumping" from one branch to another, that is; without there being a direct link between them - the proposed hierarchy is proven to be faulty.

In this light, the ignorance displayed by Creationist like Kirk Cameron stating something along the lines of "if evolution is true, then why is there no crocoduck?" reaches the level one might consider smothering him with a pillow as doing him a favour, because the existence of a crocoduck would not prove, but infact shred the theory of evolution to bits.

[PointOfViewGun]

I didn't suggest otherwise.

To elaborate on my previous post:

In a branching process, each of the branches manifests through a distinct character combination (a specific set of traits), ordered in a strict arrangement; a hierarchy, linking these branches into a sequence.
If you would find a lifeform violating this sequence - by "jumping" from one branch to another, that is; without there being a direct link between them - the proposed hierarchy is proven to be faulty.

In this light, the ignorance displayed by Creationist like Kirk Cameron stating something along the lines of "if evolution is true, then why is there no crocoduck?" reaches the level one might consider smothering him with a pillow as doing him a favour, because the existence of a crocoduck would not prove, but infact shred the theory of evolution to bits.

Oh, I get it now. It's like evolution is supposed to be one step at a time and if we find a lifeform that took multiple steps at once then it can't evolution? I'll present my argument against that after you validate what I understood.

[boofhead]

I don't believe it matters either way, as a Christian. The Good Book is about the hearts and souls of men soon to die, not about the ''wisdom of men''.

I've never seen the point in arguing creation/evolution the way people so vehemently do. One can argue either way, and with good reason both. I don't think such dogmatic differences should differentiate who is and who is not a part of the Body of Christ. What matters at the end of the day (and indeed, at the End of Days) is whether or not a person is a follower of JC.

If someone proves evolution, or proves it's all a crock, the Faith remains inviolable. After all, there are Christians who believe strongly in creationism and others who believe in evolution.

It.......doesn't..........matter.