We are told in Genesis that we are made in Gods Image,,,But....

Well though I respect your opinion I do have to disagree with the notion that evolution theory has disproved God or the Genesis Story. I do believe in evolution but Evolution is also not what it appears and the reason most would say it does not agree with the bible or the original creation story from which the bibles Genesis is taken from is because number one the way people read it and what they have been told it says. There is a way to read it from its original language that does not disagree with scientific fact. Maybe I might start a topic on that later. But back to evolution, Evolution does play a large part but it does not explain that sideways evolution of modern man. If one was to read the original text you would really come to a different conclusion, all be it not of a grey bearded God, but something very different, that is of course my opinion.

I wouldn't venture to say that evolution itself is the theory that has defeated the creation story. It has more to do with carbon dating, and various bits we know about the universe that contradict it: http://www.mylot.com/w/discussions/1918104.aspx?p=1#2_19001377 Now, that out of the way... (but the scientific field of abiogenesis is slowly putting that idea to a halt too) Please expand upon this. If a Higher Power, having no physical body of its own, eventually figured out how to plant the spark of life into a corporeal cell, how does this refute the existence of this Higher Power? It doesn't. No reductionist theory has yet advanced a sound explanation for the fact that even the very first bacteria of the Precambrian period were more intricately designed than IBM's Sequoia supercomputer: http://www.mylot.com/w/discussions/1874898.aspx?p=4#2_18823184 Please explain how abiogenesis has successfully quantified language. And please provide an explanation from the theory of abiogenesis as to how one can create all 20 types of integral amino acids from a chemical compound, then achieve the segregation of 288 left-handed amino acids from the 50/50 mixture, without intelligent intervention. You seem to be laboring under the delusion that atheism is the new standard, the logical conclusion that any sound mind not isolated from current events would come to. This is hardly the case. Amongst polled scientists, only 38-40% believe in a "personal God," and this percentage declines as you move up the ladder to the most elite of them. But only 16% of scientists claim outright atheism, and I don't even know if any of them are biologists (I rather doubt it). Did you know that Richard Dawkins himself is not a bona fide atheist? "My title, The God Delusion, does not refer to the God of Einstein and the other enlightened scientists of the previous section....I am talking about supernatural gods, of which the most familiar to the majority of my readers will be Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament." Is your faith crumbling beneath you yet? Debunking the Bible and debunking God are two very different ball games. Science, to me, is not about debunking God, it's about learning how God did it.

santuccie you are engaging in a tactic that is intellectually dishonest here to try to prove a point that is wrong. Richard Dawkins is about as committed an Atheist as you are likely to find. You are using a quote from his book out of context to put words in his mouth to make it seem that he is saying something that was not his intent. The full quote is as follows: "My title, The God Delusion, does not refer to the God of Einstein and the other enlightened scientists of the previous section. That is why I needed to get Einsteinian religion out of the way to begin with: it has a proven capacity to confuse." He was actually trying to prove that Einstein was an Atheist in this section of his book, Not saying anything about his own beliefs. I don"t personally agree with Dawkins on this but that was what he was trying to state.

very good answer.