Evolution vs. God

[theophilus]

If you believe that there is scientific evidence that the theory of evolution is true you should watch the movie Evolution vs. God. You can download it here:

http://evolutionvsgod.com/

[Danieltwotwenty]

There is no versus, the two are not mutually exclusive.

[Silvertusk]

Agreed

[neo-x]

how long will you shun science? *sighs* you have dragged down god into a petty competition with human knowledge?

[DowTingTom]

If you believe that there is scientific evidence that the theory of evolution is true you should watch the movie Evolution vs. God. You can download it here:

http://evolutionvsgod.com/

You missed out the "for $20" bit after "you can download it here"

I'd have thought that it'd be a good idea to let people download it for free and then pay what they think it is worth.

If it's as good as it says then it's priceless to me. However, they seem to have put all the rubbish bits in the trailer for some reason, so it doesn't look like it would be worth $20 to me. Strange marketing, that.

I take it you don't believe in evolution, OP - and that furthermore you think that if it were proven to be true it'd pose a problem for belief in God? I guess you're in that uncomfortable stage where there is lots of evidence and anyday now there could be proof, so you're looking for any way to disupute it, even if that means willfully misunderstanding and misrepresenting what people are saying, as shown in the trailer?

[Thadeyus]

Having seen quite a bit of Mr Comfort's other works...I am not hopeful for the quality of this product. Still...there might be hope that such will change.

Very much cheers to all.

[hughfarey]

About half-way through the trailer the interviewer sums up Prof Myer's contribution thus: "To summarise, the observable evidence you give me for Darwinian evolution is bacteria becoming bacteria; there's no change of kinds." The interviewer implies that he is not disputing the possibility of one organism giving rise to a different organism as long as they are both in the same kingdom (Bacteria, say, or, um... animals...). His words are directly analogous to saying: ""To summarise, the observable evidence you give me for Darwinian evolution is animals becoming animals; there's no change of kinds." I wonder if he knew what he meant?

[Car]

I was looking yesterday the human evolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution. And it is clearly that evolution has happened,step by step although not observable it happened.If you notice the skulls you will see they are slowly start to change and as closer we get to our "times" the more we look alike,I mean take a look at the skull of homo erectus and how similar is to ours..So in that perspective I cannot believe that someone created us.I know it's hard but that how things happened.
Does anyone have a opinion on this?

[neo-x]

car, I'd say if you dig a lil bit down you will find that the DNA holds the key to evolution. You don't have to look at fossils, just look at how DNA has been replicated and everything falls into place. When I was a YEC and found this out, it literally shattered my views, or the version of my dogmatic faith.

Evolution happened, thats for sure, the only route left for the theist to decide is what he chooses to believe. Some believe God made everything and evolution goes in the trashcan, others believe that God directed evolution, yet others think God did not even direct it evolution at all, the dice rolled and kept on rolling...so here we are.

[Car]

I must say that I am really sad that God might not exist,though I am searching a lot to find an answer because I want the truth

[hughfarey]

Car, it sounds as if you used to adhere to a form of Christianity that believes in the literal truth of the Bible, and have come to realise that such a belief, however interpreted, is simply incompatible with any rational view of the universe as we understand it. Luckily, those forms of Christianity are both well outside the main stream, and globally-speaking, in a very small minority. Modern scientific understanding about the origin of the universe, the earth and life, as well as how it all works today, is not opposed but embraced by the major forms of Christianity. The Wikipedia entry on "The Catholic Church and Evolution" explains how the biggest Christian denomination has come to terms with science and completely rejects literalism, and Googling other denominations' views will reveal a similar synthesis.

The "Evolution vs. God" film is such a puerile exercise that it ought to make even convinced creationists wonder who their friends are. It is founded on two fundamental tenets that are transparently incorrect, namely that evolutionists are all atheists, and that belief in evolution is as much an act of faith as belief in God. The meat of the film begins with a demand for observable evidence of a process which is extremely slow - akin to watching a plant for a minute or two in the hope of observing it grow. Next it looks for evidence of a "change of kinds," but uses the word "kind" in such a variable way that it includes entire living kingdoms (e.g. bacteria) and individual species (e.g. humans), and just about everything in-between (fish, birds, cats, dogs). Comfort gets most of his fun from accosting university students on the street, only giving us very brief glimpses of his interviews with their professors. He then goes completely off the rails by suggesting that because his interviewees cannot create a rose from nothing, that is some sort of evidence for intelligent design! He is on slightly firmer ground in suggesting that some vestigial organs (such as the coccyx and appendix in humans) retain some physiological relevance, but doesn't (of course) conduct much of a comprehensive survey.
Halfway through the film Comfort wanders completely away from evolution, touching on atheism, moral absolutism and life after death. He pitifully misunderstands "survival of the fittest," comparing Hitler's massacre of the Jews with a lion eating an antelope, and giving the fact that students would rather save their "pet dog" rather than their "rotten neighbour" as another example of it. That's the end of his exploration of evolution. The rest of the film is a tacky attempt to show that atheism and evolutionary views are merely attempts to escape from moral accountability, coupled to a bit of dogmatic proselytising.