ChatterBank0 min ago
If evolution is fact.....
64 Answers
Do you think that god evolves as well (obv assuming there is one)
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sherminator. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
God has changed a bit: he was a crabby old git in the Old Testament, demanding an eye for an eye, calling for genocide against anyone who made war on the Israelites and so on. In the New Testament he's a much more loving figure, with his son poliltely suggesting that only those without sin should cast the first stone. Parenthood sometimes softens people.
zzxxee, monkeys have evolved, same as we have, but in different directions. (They're not actually our ancestors, more like our cousins.)
zzxxee, monkeys have evolved, same as we have, but in different directions. (They're not actually our ancestors, more like our cousins.)
The whole concept of evolution involves creating multiple slightly different versions of the original "blueprint" and getting rid of those that are not so good, and keeping those that are better suited as the next blueprint.
As such evolution can be applied to species which recreate themselves by different generations over time, but should not be used to describe a changing individual.
So unless you are proposing there are numerous Gods continually being created, and the worst Gods going out of existence, then no, God doesn't evolve.
As such evolution can be applied to species which recreate themselves by different generations over time, but should not be used to describe a changing individual.
So unless you are proposing there are numerous Gods continually being created, and the worst Gods going out of existence, then no, God doesn't evolve.
"if the theory of evolution is to be believed and we all evolved from monkeys why do we still have monkeys why havent they evolved ????"
I really do try to be polite on forums, but why do folk continuously ask this ridiculous question again and again and again when the answer is so self evident ?
a) We have *NOT* all evolved from monkeys. All species have evolved from an earlier form, than scientists have chosen to name something else. Consequently both humans and monkeys have evolved from a common ape ancestor.
b) One can refer to a species that has not changed over a long time because they are such a good fit to their surroundings, as having not evolved, although it is not strictly true to say so. Consequently is it perfectly possible for one species to evolve from another whilst the original species still appears to exist.
All that is required is for the original population to split into two where the two groups can no longer meet up and breed. Then if one group stays in the environment where they are unlikely to change, and another moves to one where they are ill suited and driven to change over the generations in order to survive, then you can end up with a new species whilst the old one still seems to be around.
Now can we stop seeing this daft question asked any more ?
I really do try to be polite on forums, but why do folk continuously ask this ridiculous question again and again and again when the answer is so self evident ?
a) We have *NOT* all evolved from monkeys. All species have evolved from an earlier form, than scientists have chosen to name something else. Consequently both humans and monkeys have evolved from a common ape ancestor.
b) One can refer to a species that has not changed over a long time because they are such a good fit to their surroundings, as having not evolved, although it is not strictly true to say so. Consequently is it perfectly possible for one species to evolve from another whilst the original species still appears to exist.
All that is required is for the original population to split into two where the two groups can no longer meet up and breed. Then if one group stays in the environment where they are unlikely to change, and another moves to one where they are ill suited and driven to change over the generations in order to survive, then you can end up with a new species whilst the old one still seems to be around.
Now can we stop seeing this daft question asked any more ?
I disagree. Prior to the theory one had nothing to go on so it would not be self evident.
But now the change & select process has been described. Anyone who knows enough to pose the question must be able to answer it themselves, just by considering the most basic descriptions of evolution. But this crops up in every thread on evolution made as if it is somehow amusing.
Maybe I over-react a bit but I'm getting rather cheesed off with it. There are more difficult questions that can be posed.
But now the change & select process has been described. Anyone who knows enough to pose the question must be able to answer it themselves, just by considering the most basic descriptions of evolution. But this crops up in every thread on evolution made as if it is somehow amusing.
Maybe I over-react a bit but I'm getting rather cheesed off with it. There are more difficult questions that can be posed.