According to progressive creationism, God created the universe, life, and humanity, but he did it over a period of time billions of years long. As various species evolved from earlier species, God intervened periodically to give the process a helping hand. Without God's assistance, evolution would never have progressed as rapidly as it did on our planet.

Theistic evolutionism maintains that God only created the universe and simple life, not any complex form of life, including humanity. The idea is that after God created a very simple life form on our planet about three billion years ago, he departed the scene and allowed evolution by means of natural selection to take over.

Either way, it is GOD who is responsible for evolution and science does not tell this to us! Was Darwin wrong to neglect god's contribution to evolution?

Views: 717

Replies to This Discussion

jeremy belcher

Cool down! It is ironic and knowing that I am  a strong atheist, I haoped you would easily understand it! So, cool down.

 Seriously ? "cool down "!!!!!, if you think that was me losing my cool  then you have yet to face really hostile questioning. And if you do not expect to be questioned about your O.P. and your motivation for posting it, why post in the first place ?

jeremy belcher

'Cool down' are not offensive words. I thought that you are a bit annoyed so I used these words. What is so offensive about these words? What doubt do you have about my motivation?

No I am not annoyed if I was I would have said so, and at no point did I even intimate that I found cool down offensive, you have assumed I am offended, thats all.

 As to your motivation for the original OP I still have no idea what that might be

Jeremy, I quite agree with you. Madhukar has used this strategy before ... writing as a christian would write, and it upsets me every time he does it. He claims to do it to jar our thinking but jarring doesn't do it for me; I just feel disgust. If he would qualify his statement as you suggested, I could just laugh and remember Madhukar has an ineffective way of making a point. 
Madhukar, I didn't like it before and I don't like it this time. And by the way, I am mad! Think of a little banty chicken with ruffled feathers and we can both laugh.   
OK! I will make a deal with you, Madhukar, I will know you are atheist even when you write as a believer, and you can know I am a little banty hen clucking about the sky is falling. Maybe we can both lighten up a bit.  

Hi Joan

 I think the problem Madhukar has is that he underestimates the reasoning power of his target audience and seems to assume that we have never read a book or participated in a discussion about the problems posed by religion. Which I believe is a little bit patronising to say the least.

 As far as I can see he also assumes that when he writes as a believer and is questioned about it he feels that a legitimate defence is  to play the hurt feelings card "eg you know I am an Atheist so why are you annoyed with me?" even when we are'nt particularly.

If he is going to continue to post provacative material he should at least stand up and explain why ? That in itself may produce some constructive dialogue. He may also find that people would be less inclined to call him out as a troll.

Just religion trying to 'fit it' and trying to make the claim for a God more substantial by agreeing with scientific views and putting "God did it" to make it suit them. When we create things we design them to carry out a function with minimal resource usage and wastage. So, I highly doubt a God would have made the human body so irrefutably complex to the point where important functions are being carried out on a very sub-microscopic level.

Creationists are desperate to involve god in the evolution process as they know that otherwise god's very existance will become questionable.

Nailed it right on the head :)

We know this already and the OP was really quite offensive. Do you think we're all ignoramuses here?

I would urge you to temper your postings and keep them OT for this site Madhukar - we're a more educated bunch that you might be used to... And from the following post on another site, this is clearly not the only place you (appear) to be courting controversy.

I'm inclined to think you're a troll too - its not a language barrier, but it may be one of etiquette.

Marc, I need help with definitions:

OP  does that mean Original Person? 

OT  I looked up the OT Definition and got 84 answers, but I assume it means, ???

Maybe:   Off Topic, On Topic, or ...


OP = Original Poster.

Personally, I'm wondering why we've degenerated into acronyms.  The 17 characters saved aren't worth the confusion to people who don't know message board lingo.




Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service