Creationism vs. Evolution

[Mr Saturn64 742]

It may have even been Jesus who said "Lucifer would use the Scripture for his own purposes". Point is, he doesn't strike you down. He's subtle and messes with your mind rather than going all Exorcist on you.

[flatron 83]

THIS should be a non-issue. Evolution may have some quirks, but Creation is one giant quirk.

nevertheless:

Catholic religious education puts it like that: The story of Creation is not a scientific explanation of earth, and that's not the purpose of it. Creation is an idea and totally symbolic. Eve beeing made of Adam's rib doesn't make women worth less than men, but is a symbol of them beeing one.(homosexuality was definitely not acceptable back then, but times have changed) The two stories of Creation are more an answer to the why than to the how, and are therefore helpful when seeking the meaning of life, another question that can not be answered.

 

 

As much as I enjoy a good absolute statement, let us try to be more polite in our assertions, and refrain from name-calling, shall we?

 

-NMUSpidey

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

^ One could have said "is a victim of an ID 10 T error".

[KonstantinII 1,106]

The Atheist's cause is a lost one. Theoretical physics proves the existence of God. Now I'll explain. The God resides in another dimensional space than our universe. God sees everything that goes on in our world. To God, our past,present, and future are one. Time is existent in the 3rd dimension only which is our universe. The 4th dimensional "brane" is "above" our world and through it God is able to perceive in ways we can't perceive. It is similar to how the old man observes the 2nd dimension.

Atheists argue that for God to exist, there must be another God to create it, and so on... But since time has no meaning in the 4th dimension this explanation is irrational.   3 dimensional beings have no way of seeing the 4th dimension. Like in this video, God is able to influence on our world and, "put his finger" into ours. Now as a square is a cross section of a cube, a cubs is a cross section of something else...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOuXtONDAN0

And since Atheists refuse to accept scientific ideas Science is obviously the way to go!

[Cobraroll 138]

^[Citation needed]

 

Also, even if that were the remotest little bit of true, it still wouldn't do squat all to prove/disprove any religions. Every religion acknowledges that humans are capable of inventing and worshiping false/non-existing gods (how else do you explain the presence of multiple religions?). Even if a god happened to exist, it wouldn't be compatible with the worldview of any possible religions, practised, extinct or forgotten - apart from one, at the very maximum. What are the chances that, out of history's endless parade of possible gods, that the one you happened to be taught to believe in is the real deal, and he happens to be exactly like the scripture says?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Well, FYI, a four dimensional cube is called a Tesseract.  Howsome-ever, Atheism is an active belief (or disbelief if you like), and to be one you have to work at it.

 

Let's let it sit like this:

 

In the beginning there was nothing -- no space -- no time.  Then God made the big bang, and after that He just let things happen naturally.

[Cobraroll 138]

What about:

 

 - In the beginning there was nothing -- no space -- no time.  Then a pantheon of cooperating gods made the big bang, and after that they just let things happen naturally.

 

 - In the beginning there was nothing -- no space -- no time.  Then, after a weekend of heavy drinking, a flying spaghetti monster made the big bang, and after that He just let things happen naturally.

 

 - In the beginning there was nothing -- no space -- no time.  Then, through circumstances uknown to us, for reasons we can't possibly comprehend, but without the involvement of a sentient mind, the big bang happened, and after that things just happened naturally.

 

 - There never was nothing -- no space -- no time.  It's all one big infinite cycle, of which the Big Bang and the subsequent creation of our universe is just another mundane event, a puff of smoke in the grand scheme of things.

 

 - In the beginning there was another universe -- in space and time.  Then somebody in it screwed up and caused the big bang, and the subsequent creation of our universe, and after that things just happened naturally.

 

 - There are forces and rules of the multiverse that we can not detect, because they don't interfere with space, time or our three dimensions. A freak reaction of such forces, on a plane of existence completely different to ours, made the big bang, and subsequently our universe. Things have happened naturally since.

 

 - In the beginning there was nothing -- no space -- no time. Then THEY turned on the Simulation, which started with the big bang, and after that it has just ran naturally.

 

 - In the beginning there was chaos.  Then chaos culminated in the big bang, and after that things just happened naturally.

 

 

And so forth. You don't have to involve an omnipresent, omnscient being. If you do, it doesn't have to be just one. The "God hypothesis" is just one in the line of many, all of equal probablity of being true because we lack any concrete evidence to prove or disprove them.

[KonstantinII 1,106]

 

 

In the beginning there was nothing -- no space -- no time.  Then God made the big bang, and after that He just let things happen naturally.

Right!

 

Atheism is an active belief

Atheism is a marxist-communist invention. Can you build a space civilization on it? I don't think so.   Science is obviously the way to go.

And then they try to disprove science so you call them active?

[Cobraroll 138]

Atheism is a marxist-communist invention

 

There are better ways to phrase your question.  Please choose your wording a bit more wisely next time. 

Ok, point taken!

 - CRoll

 

Atheism is the absence of active belief in a deity. It wasn't "invented" by anybody, it simply means "not believing". It's the same, concept-wise, as aphilatelism (not collecting stamps) or apianism (not playing piano).

 

I don't walk around "believing there is no god". I "do not believe there is a god". Big difference. One requires active belief, the other quite the opposite of it.

 

In the same way:

 

 

I don't follow American Football. That doesn't mean I go around cheering for nobody, it means I don't cheer at all.

I don't play the saxophone. That doesn't mean I occasionally put a saxophone to my lips and then doesn't play it, it means I don't put the saxophone to my lips at all.

I don't collect football cards. That doesn't mean that my collector's album is empty, it means I have no collector's album at all.

 

And so forth. Absence of belief isn't the same as actively believing against what is proposed. Not that they don't ever overlap, mind you. Many people don't believe in deities, AND they believe deities don't exist. However, only the first of those phenomena would class as atheism. The other would be antitheism.

[Joe 90 358]

In the beginning there was nothing -- no space -- no time.  Then God made the big bang, and after that He just let things happen naturally.

Right!

This is deism, and you'll find major religions don't accept it since the idea of an absentee god scares them.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Are you trolling, or just dumb? Atheism is the absence of active belief in a deity. It wasn't "invented" by anybody, it simply means "not believing". It's the same, concept-wise, as aphilatelism (not collecting stamps) or apianism (not playing piano).

 

I don't walk around "believing there is no god". I "do not believe there is a god". Big difference. One requires active belief, the other quite the opposite of it.

Generally Atheists fall into two categories. One category is of people who simply not believe in God, but who leave the possibility of there being one open. The other category is of people who actively believe in the non existence of God, so who deny even the possibility of God existing. Both are called Atheists, though obviously there is a big difference between the two. 

 

Though obviously Atheism was not 'invented by Marxists' nor is it a lost cause, just like Theism of Deism is not a lost cause. Nor do they 'disprove science' (how does that even work?). 

[MandelSoft 2,769]

Generally Atheists fall into two categories. One category is of people who simply not believe in God, but who leave the possibility of there being one open. The other category is of people who actively believe in the non existence of God, so who deny even the possibility of God existing. Both are called Atheists, though obviously there is a big difference between the two.

I'd classify the first group (where I consider myself being part of it) agnostic Atheists and the second group Anti-theists or deterministic Atheist.

The second group is way more annoying than the first one, because they can also be fundamentalistic about the non-existence of any God, just like some Theist (read: any religion) groups can be fundamentalistic about the existence of there God(s). The thing is with fundamentalists is that they are blind for arguments against their point of view. Try to dispell one of their views, and they will tell you that it's not true, just because it doesn't compute in their heads. I think the same case goes for fanatic Creationists (to get back on topic again)...

 

Though obviously Atheism was not 'invented by Marxists' nor is it a lost cause, just like Theism of Deism is not a lost cause. Nor do they 'disprove science' (how does that even work?).

Yup, I'm curious how Atheism would disprove science. I see it more like the other way around: science can DRIVE Atheism in some ways. It can teach people to be critical and to seek out for other theories and explanations. By exploring our world, we can understand what processes are going on and where we all come from. We can also analyse our own history and we can find things that are not documented in old books, or we can analyse certain passages of the Bible and check in the field if evidence for the stories can be found. I think (and probably research has proved this too) that the Bible is not literally true, but I think people like Moses and Jesus have existed, maybe with less divine powers, but with the ability to inspire people. The Bible is full of symbolism and I think quite some parts are exaggerated. But within every myth there's a core of truth...

But since science cannot prove the existence of God, you can't know if there is one. This is exactly the point of agnostic Atheism: you can assume that there is no God, but you can never be sure of it. However, there's also agnostic Theism, that assumes that there is a God, but again there's no certainty. These points of view are more open to other ideas, because they haven't ruled out the existence (or non-existence) of a God. Part of it is also true to any scientific theory: a proven theory (AKA it has evidence that it is true) is true unless there's evidence found against it. Theories without evidence are not proven and are neither true or false until tests give a result about this...

Best,

Maarten

[Mr Saturn64 742]

Taken care of.

 

 

Are you trolling, or just dumb? Atheism is the absence of active belief in a deity. It wasn't "invented" by anybody, it simply means "not believing". It's the same, concept-wise, as aphilatelism (not collecting stamps) or apianism (not playing piano).
 
I don't walk around "believing there is no god". I "do not believe there is a god". Big difference. One requires active belief, the other quite the opposite of it.

Generally Atheists fall into two categories. One category is of people who simply not believe in God, but who leave the possibility of there being one open. The other category is of people who actively believe in the non existence of God, so who deny even the possibility of God existing. Both are called Atheists, though obviously there is a big difference between

may I quote the Urban Dictionary?

"good Atheist: respectful of other people's beliefs and chooses not to believe and if polite and respectful about it.

Bad Atheist: self absorbed egotistical j***@$$ who is rude and obnoxious about anyone beliefs except their own."


And may I throw this out for a statement on or two: God is energy in scientific terms. The science of energy matches up with God being in everything. If the Big Bang is an explosion of energy, then God IS that energy.

[ROFLyoshi 1,760]

And as I like absolute statements, I say: "Everybody who believes in Creation as it's told by the bible is an idiot"

let's be civil and not rude here, ok?

Inclined to agree here.

I personally believe (note the word believe, meaning my opinion and not something as 100% fact) that the Bible was never intended as literal, but remember the golden rule, "discuss the issues, not each other". So yep, please keep the language of a mature nature.

Back to the point, the burden of proof lies in theists. How can we say, "here it is, He isn't there!"? Seems contradictory.

Are you trolling, or just dumb? Atheism is the absence of active belief in a deity. It wasn't "invented" by anybody, it simply means "not believing". It's the same, concept-wise, as aphilatelism (not collecting stamps) or apianism (not playing piano).

I don't walk around "believing there is no god". I "do not believe there is a god". Big difference. One requires active belief, the other quite the opposite of it.

Generally Atheists fall into two categories. One category is of people who simply not believe in God, but who leave the possibility of there being one open. The other category is of people who actively believe in the non existence of God, so who deny even the possibility of God existing. Both are called Atheists, though obviously there is a big difference between

may I quote the Urban Dictionary?

"good Atheist: respectful of other people's beliefs and chooses not to believe and if polite and respectful about it.

Bad Atheist: self absorbed egotistical j***@$$ who is rude and obnoxious about anyone beliefs except their own."

And may I throw this out for a statement on or two: God is energy in scientific terms. The science of energy matches up with God being in everything. If the Big Bang is an explosion of energy, then God IS that energy.

That other category is usually termed an agnostic atheist: a person who does not believe in God yet leaves a slim possibility that there may be one.

As for the bad atheist, they are usually the militant atheists such as Dawkins and Hitchens who actively promote atheism and discourage theism/spiritualism or on a worse note, dictators like Stalin and Zedong who advocated and enforced state atheism. This was usually punishable by prison.

As for me? I consider myself an active secularist, and I strongly advocate leaving religion out of society as much as possible. Religion (or lack of) is a very personal thing, and I don't think any state religion or atheism should be forced upon a person. Ultimately, this in my opinion reassures human rights and freedom.

[NMUSpidey 3,956]

This is a reminder to all to keep it civil in here.  You are in the midst of a good discussion.  Please continue, but also remember to address each other more politely.  Thank you!

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Boy really threw the cat among the chickens, did I not?  Substitute anything you like for God in my last statement, and nothing changes.  How about God = "We don't know why, nor how?"  (there was no when).

 

"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him." - Voltaire

[Cobraroll 138]

Apologies to KonstantinII. Didn't mean to insult you.

 

 

 

Substitute anything you like for God in my last statement, and nothing changes.  How about God = "We don't know why, nor how?"  (there was no when).

 

If you're going for such a loose explanation, saying "Something we don't know, in ways we don't know, for reasons we don't know, created the universe", why bother to call it God at all? In English, the term "God" (especially when spelled with a capital G) has very strong connotations to the Abrahamic deity. Trinity, prophets, the Bible, the entire package. It's a very drastic step to take from a "great unknown cause of the universe", especially seeing as the proposed definition would, among other things, suit any deity or pantheon conceived by man, as well as an infinite amount of others we haven't thought of yet.

 

Though, I guess it comes down to lingual limitations. It's kinda cumbersome to talk about "that hypothetical deity/event/phenomenom that created our universe" without simply calling it "god" every now and then. A simple three-letter word that gets the point across makes discussion a lot easier, even though it technically isn't the best term to use.

[hym 358]

Generally Atheists fall into two categories. One category is of people who simply not believe in God, but who leave the possibility of there being one open.

 

This is an area where terminology differs.  Many individuals follow the dictionary definition of "atheism" (I am one of those individuals).  Under such a definition, if you leave open even the smallest possibility of the existence of a god, you can't call yourself an atheist (as you don't satisfy the requirement of total non-belief in the existence of a deity).  The phrase "atheist/agnostic" is often used to describe individuals who don't believe in the presence of a god, but aren't really certain about it either.

[Cobraroll 138]

^That would depend on what dictionary you use.

 

As one of the commenters in your link put it, defining an atheist as "one who believes that there is no deity", is "(...) like having to define a person who doesn't collect stamps [as] having the hobby of not collecting stamps."

[ROFLyoshi 1,760]

I like that argument. I usually say "baldness is a hair colour or abstinence is a form of safe sex".

[AkemiAzula 280]

I would consider myself to be a rational scientific person in that as there is no evidence of the existence of Gods, God, or magic of any form, one has deduced they do not exist within our relativity, and thus have no important influence upon said relativity. If suddenly a God appeared and started proving he/she was real I would probably re-assess my 'belief'. 

 

However the existence of a God seems unimportant and bizarre a discussion compared with 'how did the universe appear, where does existence stem from, and what is existence?'. Whether or not some mythical giant man with a magical hammer riding a three legged flying snail created the universe or whether a 'global energy' throughout all dimensions created it, the question of what exactly makes something 'real' and how reality came into being seems more important. The 'god particle' or 'Higgs Boson' is part of this process of understanding this question.

 

There was recently made discovery in background radiation of the presence of what appeared to be other universes similar to our own, and it is my guess that this forms part of an infinite spectrum of similar universes.

[hym 358]

^That would depend on what dictionary you use.

 

As one of the commenters in your link put it, defining an atheist as "one who believes that there is no deity", is "(...) like having to define a person who doesn't collect stamps [as] having the hobby of not collecting stamps."

 

The point wasn't to argue over which definition was correct, but highlight that there are different understandings of the word and/or concept.

[Jasoncw 11,840]

And may I throw this out for a statement on or two: God is energy in scientific terms. The science of energy matches up with God being in everything. If the Big Bang is an explosion of energy, then God IS that energy.

 

The problem with this line of thinking is that the whole point of the bible (and the entire religion for that matter) is God.  And there is a lot of information about God and God even directly does a lot of stuff.  God is clearly defined in the bible.  You could go through it and make a list of abilities and characteristics that God should have.

 

If you propose that God is energy, or anything else from science, if it doesn't match up with what the bible claims about God, then that means that what you're claiming is not actually God, or that everything the Bible says about God is wrong.

 

But the whole reason you're looking for God is because the bible says he exists, and if the bible is wrong about God then there is no reason to be looking for that God in the first place.  In other words, if you believe in God but think that christianity's definition of god is fundamentally wrong, then you're not a christian, you're of some other faith.

[LexusInfernus 908]

This is an area where terminology differs.  Many individuals follow the dictionary definition of "atheism" (I am one of those individuals).  Under such a definition, if you leave open even the smallest possibility of the existence of a god, you can't call yourself an atheist (as you don't satisfy the requirement of total non-belief in the existence of a deity).  The phrase "atheist/agnostic" is often used to describe individuals who don't believe in the presence of a god, but aren't really certain about it either.

 

I prefer the Wikipedia definition over some random online dictionary. 

 

Point being that there have been several philosophers who have debated this issue already. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Atheist
Atheist A"the*ist, n. [Gr. ? without god; 'a priv. + ? god:
 cf. F. ath['e]iste.]
 1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or
 supreme intelligent Being.
 [1913 Webster]

 2. A godless person. [Obs.]
 [1913 Webster]

 Syn: Infidel; unbeliever.
 [1913 Webster]

 

---

 

From my dictionary app.  Pretty succinct.  No discussion is really necessary when it comes right down to the definition.
 

[KonstantinII 1,106]

 

And may I throw this out for a statement on or two: God is energy in scientific terms. The science of energy matches up with God being in everything. If the Big Bang is an explosion of energy, then God IS that energy.

 

The problem with this line of thinking is that the whole point of the bible (and the entire religion for that matter) is God.  And there is a lot of information about God and God even directly does a lot of stuff.  God is clearly defined in the bible.  You could go through it and make a list of abilities and characteristics that God should have.

 

If you propose that God is energy, or anything else from science, if it doesn't match up with what the bible claims about God, then that means that what you're claiming is not actually God, or that everything the Bible says about God is wrong.

 

But the whole reason you're looking for God is because the bible says he exists, and if the bible is wrong about God then there is no reason to be looking for that God in the first place.  In other words, if you believe in God but think that christianity's definition of god is fundamentally wrong, then you're not a christian, you're of some other faith.

 

 

Please view the video I posted. The analogy of God to us is like of Grandfather Physicist to the circle. Those of the lower dimensions can't see him, but he can see them. Therefore you can't prove that God exists unless he reveals himself to you.

[MandelSoft 2,769]

But that doesn't say anything that this higher dimension even exists, let alone the existence of God. This higher dimension could also be the thing that separates us from other universes or something like that. It could just be another kind world without a God...

Mathematically, you can easily go up to more dimensions than the four we know (X,Y,Z and time). Heck, if you write an optimization algorithm you can deal with tens, hundreds or even thousands of dimensions! And some hypothesizes assume that there are more dimensions within our own universe, but we can't see them because they are curled up, just like you fold up a 2 dimensional paper (a rectangle) to make a 1 dimensional object (a line). Understanding a world with more dimensions not a problem for science...

I've watched the video. Only one mention about a God there, but that is just out of context. But most was from the perspective of geometry and stuff. The person in the higher dimension doesn't have to be a God... if there is actually a person up in a higher dimension...

FYI, my brother is studying physics. He is also doing some math stuff for a hobby. He did show me some four-dimensional (or should I say five dimensional?) objects. Heck, he even installed a space shooting game called Adanaxis, which has one extra spacial dimension above our three dimensions. This gives you a bit of a understanding how 4D works. But it remains a 3D projection (actually 2D, since it's on a computer screen) of a 4D world...

Fun fact: gravity is only stable in a three-dimensional world. More or less dimensions will disallow stable orbits. Don't know exactly what's behind it, but ask my brother. He'll know

Best,

Maarten

[Mr Saturn64 742]

And may I throw this out for a statement on or two: God is energy in scientific terms. The science of energy matches up with God being in everything. If the Big Bang is an explosion of energy, then God IS that energy.

 

The problem with this line of thinking is that the whole point of the bible (and the entire religion for that matter) is God.  And there is a lot of information about God and God even directly does a lot of stuff.  God is clearly defined in the bible.  You could go through it and make a list of abilities and characteristics that God should have.

 

If you propose that God is energy, or anything else from science, if it doesn't match up with what the bible claims about God, then that means that what you're claiming is not actually God, or that everything the Bible says about God is wrong.

 

But the whole reason you're looking for God is because the bible says he exists, and if the bible is wrong about God then there is no reason to be looking for that God in the first place.  In other words, if you believe in God but think that christianity's definition of god is fundamentally wrong, then you're not a christian, you're of some other faith.If God is everything and in everything, then he can go elsewhere rather than just within the energy, that's just part of God. There are more parts, omnipresence.

[Jasoncw 11,840]

 

 

And may I throw this out for a statement on or two: God is energy in scientific terms. The science of energy matches up with God being in everything. If the Big Bang is an explosion of energy, then God IS that energy.

 

The problem with this line of thinking is that the whole point of the bible (and the entire religion for that matter) is God.  And there is a lot of information about God and God even directly does a lot of stuff.  God is clearly defined in the bible.  You could go through it and make a list of abilities and characteristics that God should have.

 

If you propose that God is energy, or anything else from science, if it doesn't match up with what the bible claims about God, then that means that what you're claiming is not actually God, or that everything the Bible says about God is wrong.

 

But the whole reason you're looking for God is because the bible says he exists, and if the bible is wrong about God then there is no reason to be looking for that God in the first place.  In other words, if you believe in God but think that christianity's definition of god is fundamentally wrong, then you're not a christian, you're of some other faith. If God is everything and in everything, then he can go elsewhere rather than just within the energy, that's just part of God. There are more parts, omnipresence.

 

 

Yeah but God also needs to be able to lightning bolt people, talk to people, send plagues to people, get virgins pregnant, empower jesus to perform miracles, etc.  And these are things that are not part of the stories that some interpret to be symbolic for the sake of teaching morals, these are from the stories that are supposed to be historical fact.  There also isn't really a thing that is "energy", energy is more like a broad concept which refers to different things in different context.  It's a word we use to describe certain characteristics that different things have, but the energy of one thing doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the energy of a different thing.  There isn't really a single universal "energy" which God could be.  So you'd have to dig into physics and pin down what exact meaning of "energy" you think God is, but I don't think there are any kinds of energies that do the things that the bible says god is supposed to be able to do, and if it doesn't do those things then it's not the christian god.

 

 

 

 

 

And may I throw this out for a statement on or two: God is energy in scientific terms. The science of energy matches up with God being in everything. If the Big Bang is an explosion of energy, then God IS that energy.

 

The problem with this line of thinking is that the whole point of the bible (and the entire religion for that matter) is God.  And there is a lot of information about God and God even directly does a lot of stuff.  God is clearly defined in the bible.  You could go through it and make a list of abilities and characteristics that God should have.

 

If you propose that God is energy, or anything else from science, if it doesn't match up with what the bible claims about God, then that means that what you're claiming is not actually God, or that everything the Bible says about God is wrong.

 

But the whole reason you're looking for God is because the bible says he exists, and if the bible is wrong about God then there is no reason to be looking for that God in the first place.  In other words, if you believe in God but think that christianity's definition of god is fundamentally wrong, then you're not a christian, you're of some other faith.

 

 

Please view the video I posted. The analogy of God to us is like of Grandfather Physicist to the circle. Those of the lower dimensions can't see him, but he can see them. Therefore you can't prove that God exists unless he reveals himself to you.

 

 

In order to move in different dimensions you would need to have god-like powers (in other words, have abilities which shouldn't be possible).  But if you have god-like powers then you don't need extra dimensions to justify what you do, because you're a god and can do all kinds of crazy stuff anyway.

 

And if God's abilities can be described using normal physics, then it means that the god is not a god, but just a normal being that exists in our natural universe.  But the point of god is to be above nature, not to be part of it.  Saying that physics can explain the abilities of the being we call god is basically saying that god is a high-tech alien which has enough knowledge of physics that it can do things that appear supernatural.

 

 

 

I also think that part of proving the existence of the christian god involves proving other supernatural things that exist in christianity, like angels, souls, and heaven.  Because if part of christianity is false, then all of it is false, and if christianity is false then there's no reason to prove the existence of the christian god.

[AkemiAzula 280]

I think a lot of these 'historical' acts in the Bible such as the virgin being impregnated and the sending of plagues would fall under the 'God is energy' belief well, but not the 'God is an anthropomorphic deity with arms and a brain' belief. If the universe is composed of God then everything that happens is God's divine will, and thus any events whether historical or fictional are created by God, the Bible was created by God.

 

Thus if you believe in the energy God belief you believe in science but believe science IS 'God', whatever 'God' means. Newton and Galileo aren't infidels but God's own fingers shifting his creation. But that means terrorists, murderers etc are also God's fingers, which either suggests God is rather a human chap or not so well meaning as thought.

 

At any rate what we do know empirically is that science/our universe is consistent to such an extent that if a God does exist it's influence is either so omnipresent as to be not worth noting, or so distant from our own sphere of existence that our knowledge of science is barely affected by its existence. The point is that evolution is scientifically proven fact, whether or not Gods exist or do not, and if one believes in a God and also understands logical reasoning and empirical evidence analysis, one would be forced to believe in evolution and a God, not one or the other. 

 

Then again some people believe in flying spaghetti monsters and leprechauns and the like. But evolution is a pretty well evidenced reality. The only possible way one could argue for creation is either that all the evidence is bogus and created by infidels (which is nonsense) or that God created all the evidence to test oiur loyalty to him, which also sounds highly suss.