Welcome to Gaia :: god and evolution both exist?

Not all nouns are persons places or things, they can also be ideas, which evolution is, can you see evolution or touch it, or hear it's calls of improvement, I think not, it does not exist, just like running does not exist. you can run or evolve, but you can't have an evolution or a running.
If god exist so much then prove it.

Science explains how. And, if you need it, religion explains why. They're not essentially opposed. Heck, if you read Genesis as a metaphorical, poetic account of the formation of the world, it's actually surprisingly accurate.

I wasn't saying they were stupid for doing it, in fact it is a necessary move. They, like all things, must change as the environment changes. This is an incredibly hard thing to do for an idea, for you see, familiarity breeds contempt, and ideas are easily contemptible, so to keep an idea alive for a long time, you need to constantly change it so as to keep it unfamiliar. I myself am not a christian, but neither am I anti-christian (I had hoped that my previous post implied that), for I am not an evolutionist atheist (see sig for slightly more comprehension). However, this does not mean that reasonable debate cannot be had between any factions so long as a mediator of sorts is (at least partially) available, and I personally believe that any debate over an issue of this magnitude is well worth hearing whether it's stupidly done or not. For if we did not have bad and illogical arguments, we wouldn't know what they are. Admittedly we do have too many stupid arguments and once again, familiarity does breed contempt, ergo your response.

I would like to inquire, though, as to whether or not you believe in an objective reality, or merely the process of obtaining one?

"there is nothign new under the sun" refers to the state of matters, not the state of theories.

"Theologians who have studied the Bible in-depth, in its original languages, agree that parts of it were meant to sound more poetic than historical. If you don't like it, take it up with a real theologian."

Yes this is true: I'm not exactly new to the topic. However it does not mean i have to agree with that viewpoint, since there are also plenty of theologians out there that take genisis literally. It is highly unfair and ignorant to paint all theologians with the same brush in hope to aid your side of the debate... Some parts of the bible are clearly highly poetic, such as revelations and psalms; however genesis when referred to by most rabbis would fall under the "pentateuch." or first five books. traditionally these books have been taken to be very literal, not that tradition makes it right, but don't mock my intelligence by claiming that theologians [assumedly referred to as a whole] disagree with me by consensus. lol its rather foolish...

Again i pose the question: why, when given the choice, would you pick the more liekly to be errant of the two choices? it can be compared to cumulative errors, the more assumptions made, the less stable. In science we, for the most part, thrive for the answer that has the least "rounding error" or in this case "assumption error." Say the two possibilities are these: God created the world through means of evolution, or God created the world in six days. alone, both of these statements require a minimum amount of trust in the supernatural. But when the text itself supports one of the two... it becomes evident that the more correct answer to assume would be the one supported by the text.

[not to mention evolution has myriads of flaws...]

Well Technically God did create us and We are still evolving Otherwise How did we come up with electricity , Motor cars Ect ect

Agreed, however, i'm not sure "evolving" is the right way to say it... because we evolving technologically speaking, but not in the general evolutionary way... point taken tho. biggrin