Welcome to Gaia! ::

So, we're made in God's image, right? So (some people say) there's no way evolution could ever be real. (Despite, you know... the proof.)

So, where's it say that God doesn't change? That his image doesn't shift over the millenia, and, in turn, effect our form? Because everything else in the known universe changes. So why even assume that God wouldn't?

(... I could be wrong, of course. It might say somewhere that he doesn't. But you'd think people would have used it in evolution arguments if that were the case.)

That is untrue. Evolution is a scientific theory, which is considerably different than the standard usage of the word "theory". For example, even gravity is still "just a theory" in scientific terms.

This is a decent starting point for proof that evolutionary theory is correct: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

For further discussion, please go to the "Evolution and Creation" thread in this forum.

Back on topic, I can't say I've ever heard "Because we were made in God's image, evolution can't be true!" before. While there are plenty of nonsense Creationist arguments out there, that doesn't seem to be a particularly common one.

'Cuz they're stupid. (Not all Christians, just the Creationists.)

Although their excuses tend to vary. Many are based on the assertion that because the Bible is true, Genesis must be interpreted in a way that contradicts evolutionary theory. A more clever excuse that has gained in popularity is the idea of "irreducible complexity," saying that the universe is too complex to have originated by any manner except the design of a greater being.

In any event, "reasons" for Creationism tend to focus more on attacking evolution then asserting that because evolution is flawed, God must have created the universe.

Wait wait, first you should define what you mean by "evolution." Evolution does exist, as it is just the process of developing or gradual developement. But as far as evolution gos, there are chemical, cosmic, stellar and planetary, organic, macro-, and micro- evolutions.

One side step: I abhor the statement that just Creationists are stupid as said above. That's alike to saying, oh, no Catholics are saved. It's no one's place to say either.

But Creationists don't start out theories solely to contradict evolutionary theory. A proper conduct of a Creationist would be to start observations from a certain base, idea, or neutral standpoint and see how the results may or may not vary from other theories such as evolution. Any conclusions would be based on the observed or interpreted data.
May I inquire as to what kind of Creationists you've met beforehand?

Fair enough, but it's safe to say that this is referring to what is commonly known as "evolutionary theory", or the theory that evolution explains the state of life on the Earth.

"Macro-evolution" is probably the term you're looking for, even if the distinction is a nebulous one.



The kind who don't do that. And frankly, none of them do. It'd be nice if they actually did, since disproving their arguments would be even easier that way, but they don't.

Hmm... but how about this: maybe there's more than one way to be perfect. Just because something changes doesn't mean it has to be getting better or worse. What I mean is, just because we used to be different, that doesn't have to be because God made a mistake. It could be exactly what he intended.

To everyone else: Sinner's pretty much got it covered. ^^; Thank you Sinner.

After rereading his original post, I'd still say that you're misinterpreting it.

No, no, Sinner's right, I was indeed wondering why it was assumed that God does not change. Sorry it wasn't too clear.