Is the Role of Man in Evolution Merely Fiction?

[War Room]

Creationists have appropriated Evolution as the origin of life or cosmic evolution. But one thing you must realize is that Darwins daughter Anniewas Charles and Emma's second child and first daughter. Charles admitted that she was his was favorite of all his children. Her death at age ten from typhoid-like fever extinguished any remaining conventional theistic feelings in her father.

• The death of Annie heavily influenced Darwins work, this is fact.
• Darwin did hold conventional Christian beliefs throughout his life, fact.
• Darwin did maintain religious belief until the death of Annie, also fact.

The question here is Evolution of man from a creationist pov simply fiction and revenge against God and Christianity?

[Rockin']

No. With all of the prescription drugs, chemical spills and nuclear accidents, it will affect evolution of the man as well as the planet until we just destroy ourselves and the planet. All for what? Some fiat currency backed only by the govirnments word that prints it...............Rockin'

[QueensburyRules]

Creationists have appropriated Evolution as the origin of life or cosmic evolution. But one thing you must realize is that Darwins daughter Anniewas Charles and Emma's second child and first daughter. Charles admitted that she was his was favorite of all his children. Her death at age ten from typhoid-like fever extinguished any remaining conventional theistic feelings in her father.

• The death of Annie heavily influenced Darwins work, this is fact.
• Darwin did hold conventional Christian beliefs throughout his life, fact.
• Darwin did maintain religious belief until the death of Annie, also fact.

The question here is Evolution of man from a creationist pov simply fiction and revenge against God and Christianity?

- -Naw, just U graduating from Barney BigBoys to Harry Potter see thrus...

[Marchegiano]

I'm confused, did Darwin write a book called the evolution of man? Or Role of man in evolution? I don't know these books TBF I only know origin of species and descent of man.

Darwin's the first and so hardly matters anymore. It's like having an issue with rockets and talking about Braun while ignoring the fact that 0 rockets today are built using 40s-60s tech exclusively.

So, I'm confused. Is this about a book or the general theory and why so much importance on the beginning of a thing that's changed?


Far as creation goes, I've always wondered why the two are presented as if they're different. Evolution merely describes the details for how a creature like the dogbear:1280px-Amphicyon_ingens.jpg can lead to modern animals like the bear, dog, and seal respectively.

And, what has always bugged me since I was like ten is they both point to the same end result. Evolution claims living things adapt to their environments. It claims instincts are handed down knowledge coded directly into a species' dna. A thing that can not evolve because it is adapted to all things and has the knowledge to know all things is a god. It is just like a god. God talks about unity and presence. The Orthodox church is heavy into union with God. The Catholics and Protestants both agree heaven and eden are more about the presence of God than a place. All things are created with the divine spark, we all have God in us and he knows us because we are he. Made in his image and all that ****. All things in this universe seek equilibrium, or, a return to God. As we evolve do we not become more divine like? Modern man looks to control the climate. Doesn't matter if you believe we need to or not, we are doing it, and, it is God-like to even try.

That said, I don't believe in evolution or gods. I just struggle to see why both camps think their **** negates the other. I have never had a hard time marrying them and only ever had a hard time buying into their ****.

Plenty of holes in both theories but neither disproves the other. They're both managed by zealots who are too narrow minded to be true believers or true scientists. I know of no great scientific discovery attributed to God and seen as evidence of God since Islam discovered the atom. Used to be scientific discovery was holy, righteous, God wants you to figure it out and be god-like. Then the atom was discovered and the higher ups of Islam decided that since the atom and atomic physics are so chaotic they are meant to be ineffable and so starts the era of no Abrahamic religion seeing natural discovery as a good thing. Decidedly Satan's work. Which is sad because the God guys were good scientists until they decided not to be. Now everyone's ****** and argues about ****** **** that isn't actually contrary unless you make it be contrary.

[OldTerry]

Creationists have appropriated Evolution as the origin of life or cosmic evolution. But one thing you must realize is that Darwins daughter Anniewas Charles and Emma's second child and first daughter. Charles admitted that she was his was favorite of all his children. Her death at age ten from typhoid-like fever extinguished any remaining conventional theistic feelings in her father.

• The death of Annie heavily influenced Darwins work, this is fact.
• Darwin did hold conventional Christian beliefs throughout his life, fact.
• Darwin did maintain religious belief until the death of Annie, also fact.

The question here is Evolution of man from a creationist pov simply fiction and revenge against God and Christianity?

Belief in evolution is not compatible with the Christian Bible's teaching that man was created. So no matter what Darwin professed to believe religiously he certainly stopped believing the Bible account of creation.

I believe God's creation and the complexity of it prove creation and disprove evolution. The order in the universe did not happen by chance and neither did life. The earth has exactly the right conditions for life to exist and the way the ecosystem works with the symbiosis between living creatures could not have happened by chance. DNA which contains the blueprint for each creation (plant and animal) had to have been written by someone (God) and instilled into living cells at the moment of their creation.

Evolution teaches that the first living cell came into existence against mathematically impossible odds, something that would have to be repeated countless times in order for a extremely simple living creature to come into existence. Next, this mindless creature had to somehow decide it needed to see, hear, smell, etc. so it spontaneously developed complex organs to do these things (eyes, brains, ears and so forth) and did it against impossible odds to do so.

Without God there is no purpose to anything including our lives. It is far easier for me to believe in a creator than to put faith in the pseudoscience of blind chance. However there is one caveat, belief in God is to acknowledge accountability to him.

[4truth]

The theory of evolution is the result of scientific observations. The story of creation is just that.

[FinitoxDinamita]

It was adam and eve lmfao

[Citizen Koba]

Creationists* have appropriated Evolution as the origin of life or cosmic evolution. But one thing you must realize is that Darwins daughter Anniewas Charles and Emma's second child and first daughter. Charles admitted that she was his was favorite of all his children. Her death at age ten from typhoid-like fever extinguished any remaining conventional theistic feelings in her father.

• The death of Annie heavily influenced Darwins work, this is fact.
• Darwin did hold conventional Christian beliefs throughout his life, fact.
• Darwin did maintain religious belief until the death of Annie, also fact.

The question here is Evolution of man from a creationist pov simply fiction and revenge against God and Christianity?

Wait, what? You think that Darwin 'invented' evolution because of his anger at God and Christianity? Like evolution is a device like a combustion engine or a light bulb that didn't exist before Darwin invented it? The level of miscomprehension in your idea almost defies belief, a bit like arguing that massive objects only started attracting each other because Newton penned the Principia.

OK so at this point in time the essential ideas contained in the Origin are experimentally proven beyond any reasonable doubt, although new - and sometimes major - developments and refinements continue to occur such as in the field of epigenetics and in our symbiotic relationships with the microbiomes with which we co-exist. Living things evolve and change responsively over time (and not just as individual organisms but as part of an interdependent biosphere) and it is an essential component of our ability to adapt and survive.

Barring some kinda huge and deliberate cover-up by an omnipotent being (God) for reasons best known to itself the timeline laid out in the Bible is also demonstrably innaccurate and if one takes the scripture as the unfiltered words of an almighty you gotta be thinking it's deliberately set out to test humanity's faith, but I guess that kinda goes with the territory anyway...

However if you genuinely are a believer and are willing to acknowledge that the scriptures may be less than literal transcriptions of God's words there does remain plenty of scope for faith in a higher power... Science does not yet know how or why the creation singularity (call it the Big **** perhaps) occured, nor what existed before it, nor why this particular universe or planet happened to have precisely favourable conditions for life (or if it's just a matter of having enough rolls of the dice)... So could 'God' have set the whole damn thing in motion? Struck the cosmic billiard ball 15 billion years ago? Could God have designed life in such a way that it would adapt and evolve? Sure. Right now, and for the foreseeable there's no-one who can prove different.

Myself I never believed in God, never really got it conceptually (though I have had some pretty deep spiritual experiences over the years that give me a bit of a handle) but FWIW I've seen it wonderfully expressed by Scientists of faith that for them Scientific discovery is a bit like uncovering the beauty and majesty of God's plan.

*EDIT: Oh yeah and just from context and your usage of the term it also appears you got a totally ass backward idea of what a 'creationist' is, either that or you just express yourself really, really badly:

Creationism is the that , and aspects such as the , , , and , originated with acts of

The term creationism most often refers to belief in ; the claim that the universe and lifeforms were created as they exist today by divine action, and that the only true explanations are those which are compatible with a interpretation of the found in the 's

So like creationists are the other guys, y'know, like the ones who believe God made it all in a week or whatever, as opposed to what are usually described as 'Darwinists' or rationalists.

[JimRaynor]

Whatever Darwins motivations were for evolution, the fact still stands that evolution exists and helps explain and predict many outcomes in nature and life. In fact if we were a lot more honest and accepting of the role evolution plays in our world and society as a whole then we'd be a lot better off.

[BrometheusBob.]

Belief in evolution is not compatible with the Christian Bible's teaching that man was created. So no matter what Darwin professed to believe religiously he certainly stopped believing the Bible account of creation.

...

Without God there is no purpose to anything including our lives. It is far easier for me to believe in a creator than to put faith in the pseudoscience of blind chance. However there is one caveat, belief in God is to acknowledge accountability to him.

A literal take on the bible would be incompatible with evolution, but a belief in God is not necessarily so. Evolution is just an explanation for the changes that occur in species over time. But you can believe in it and believe that this process was set forth by God. Although I'm not religious and don't see it that way myself.