If you accept evolution, how do you NOT become an atheist?

[xSilverPhinx]

WE decided that anything that could mate and produce viable offspring could be called a "species"

So yeah, are wolves and dogs one species or two considering they can mate and produce viable offspring?

[Ali]

WE decided that anything that could mate and produce viable offspring could be called a "species"

So yeah, are wolves and dogs one species or two considering they can mate and produce viable offspring?

Can 1/2 dogs 1/2 wolves mate and produce fertile offspring?  (I know they can mate, just don't know off the top of my head about the fertile offspring part).  If so, then yes, they are the same species.  Crazy, right?   

[xSilverPhinx]

WE decided that anything that could mate and produce viable offspring could be called a "species"

So yeah, are wolves and dogs one species or two considering they can mate and produce viable offspring?

Can 1/2 dogs 1/2 wolves mate and produce fertile offspring?  (I know they can mate, just don't know off the top of my head about the fertile offspring part).  If so, then yes, they are the same species.  Crazy, right?   

They can, though I don't know if this applies to all wolves or just those closer to dogs such as the grey wolf and timber wolf. But yes, they do produce fertile offspring.

[Mocha Chief]

Oh man I can't believe I found this one! I recently made this connection and I've also wondered how people can know that Evolution has been proven, yet still not convert to Atheism

[Harmonie]

The leap from accepting evolution to no longer believing in God is a large one.

I always thought that Christians accepting evolution could justify doing so by thinking of God in a more Deistic way, in that he created the universe, created life, set evolution into motion and then sat back and let it go its own. Meaning that Genesis is not meant to be taken in a literal sense.

Some Christians are probably realizing that the evidence is stacking up too much against them, and instead of going down the road of "Satan planted it here to fool us" (which is grasping at straws to us Atheists - well, I have to speak for myself here, surely I'm not alone), they decide to accept it anyway. They think that if they can merge modern science discoveries with the story of the Bible, then they have a way of keeping Christianity relevant, and allowing them to keep on believing in God.

(Sorry if anything I said was nonsensical or ill-informed. I am only now just starting to debate on this subject. I'm here to learn!)

[Firebird]

The leap from accepting evolution to no longer believing in God is a large one.

I always thought that Christians accepting evolution could justify doing so by thinking of God in a more Deistic way, in that he created the universe, created life, set evolution into motion and then sat back and let it go its own. Meaning that Genesis is not meant to be taken in a literal sense.

Some Christians are probably realizing that the evidence is stacking up too much against them, and instead of going down the road of "Satan planted it here to fool us" (which is grasping at straws to us Atheists - well, I have to speak for myself here, surely I'm not alone), they decide to accept it anyway. They think that if they can merge modern science discoveries with the story of the Bible, then they have a way of keeping Christianity relevant, and allowing them to keep on believing in God.

(Sorry if anything I said was nonsensical or ill-informed. I am only now just starting to debate on this subject. I'm here to learn!)

Not at all nonsensical, I think that's pretty accurate.
It's also interesting to note that Darwin's theory was not very controversial among Christians when it was first published. It was only at the beginning of the 20th century that a group of fundamental Christians began arguing that it violated Christian teachings about the beginning of time.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

As I have argued before, there is no essential conflict between Darwinian evolution and Christianity.  It's only if one insists on a hyper-literal interpretation of Genesis that an artificial conflict arises.  There is nothing about Darwinian evolution that controverts 1) the idea that there is a creator God; or 2) the idea that the historical claims about Jesus in the New Testament are essentially factual.  How God chose to bring about life and the origin of species on the earth is a separate matter from the claims of Christianity.

[En_Route]

As I have argued before, there is no essential conflict between Darwinian evolution and Christianity.  It's only if one insists on a hyper-literal interpretation of Genesis that an artificial conflict arises.  There is nothing about Darwinian evolution that controverts 1) the idea that there is a creator God; or 2) the idea that the historical claims about Jesus in the New Testament are essentially factual.  How God chose to bring about life and the origin of species on the earth is a separate matter from the claims of Christianity.

Strictly, yes. Though it might be remarked the fact that the Christian God should choose to bring about homo sapiens in such a protracted, messy and in many ways strikingly inefficient manner does seem rather odd for such an omnipotent being. But then the Christian God is a pretty odd and inscrutable guy all round.

[Twentythree]

There is a prevailing idea that the christian god made man in his image (image referring to consciousness and free will) and that in order to accomplish this God set in motion the necessary elements for evolution to work in order to ultimately create a being with true free will. If god himself tightens all the nuts and bolts he may engineer into the being a bias toward god. Evolution provides a path where god creates conscious free will by proxy thus giving mankind a choice to accept or reject him. I find this an amusing stretch of the god concept and a desperate attempt to assimilate god into modern science but nonetheless it does illustrate how God or god concepts can coexist with evolutionary theory.

[En_Route]

There is a prevailing idea that the christian god made man in his image (image referring to consciousness and free will) and that in order to accomplish this God set in motion the necessary elements for evolution to work in order to ultimately create a being with true free will. If god himself tightens all the nuts and bolts he may engineer into the being a bias toward god. Evolution provides a path where god creates conscious free will by proxy thus giving mankind a choice to accept or reject him. I find this an amusing stretch of the god concept and a desperate attempt to assimilate god into modern science but nonetheless it does illustrate how God or god concepts can coexist with evolutionary theory.

I can't see the even most tenuous kind of nexus between evolution and free will. And anyway the Christian God being omnipotent could surly have found a far more economic and elegant way to imbue us with free will (not that I buy into that notion either).Bit you are right- religious belief will always be able to accommodate advances in scientific knowledge one way or another.