Are evolution and the Bible mutually exclusive?

[Darebirth]

Quote by: stevemckay First a background on me. I was raised as a “Christian” (meaning my folks said they believed in God/Jesus but we NEVER went to church) then I embraced the faith wholeheartedly in my late teens (I became a bible thumper). However I have always believed in the scientific explanation of how the universe was formed and how evolution was the driving force behind mankind’s current form. About 11 years ago I was told by an elder that I could not believe in evolution and God and I was asked to either stop talking about evolution in our Bible studies about Genesis or leave the church. That started a faith crisis that took me down a path to becoming an atheist for about 10 years up to my current agnostic state. Now my question: Can you really believe in evolution AND the God that is represented in the bible? I think you can. For example: Gen 2:7 the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground… Gen 8:20 Then Noah made an altar to the Lord…. No one, I assume, believes Noah magically created an altar but, rather, had to gather stone, pile them up, etc... He had to build it in stages. The Bible does not specifically mention those steps but we should assume they were there. So why do many Judeo-Christians assume the creation of man happened in one step and not in stages from basic organic molecules all the way up to a modern human? From what I understand the word used in the original Hebrew for “Day” actually means “an indeterminate period of time” so saying he had to do it in one 24 hour day does not fly.

No, the bible and evolution are two completely contrasting ideas and here is why.

If humans evolved from monkeys, then that would mean that the first people were very primative, very simple, incapible of developing any sort of language. Basically, they were not Adam and Eve.

Now, you might say that this is all fine and dandy. Living in a largely Democratic city, most of the Christians that I come into contact with beleive that the story of Adam and Eve is symbolic anyway.

But the problem here is that if Adam and Eve didn't exist, than Eve wouldn't have eaten from the tree, which eventualy gives human beings original sin.

Now original sin is one of Christianity's greatest things that it can fall back on. It is basically the lifeline of a fundamentalist.

"Human beings cannot come to prove god's existance because our intellect has been darkened by original sin."

"You need to turn to Jesus Christ because without him you won' be able to overcome original sin."

And if that isn't bad enough, if original sin didn't exist, then the question, "Why exactly is Jesus dying on the cross?" comes up.

So we can see why fundamentalists will always fight tooth and nail to attempt to disprove or discredit Evolution.

So, in short, Christianity and Evolution cannot both be true. That is not to say, however, that the idea of a god setting evolution into motion isn't inherently possible; it just can't be the god of Christianity.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: rainbow As the result, the U.S. governing body is monitoring Scientology's activity, closely. It would not surprise me that Scientology is banned officially,

They haven't banned the Nazi party in the USA, they aren't going to ban scientology. First amendment protects them.

Quote by: zhavric We know that they had no clue about evolution. We're talking about a people who thought the entire animal kingdom lived within walking distance of Noah's ark. We're talking about people who were too busy murdering non-believers to study organisms enough to know that life evolves into other life. No. I don't know specifically what they were thinking, but if you think that evolution is an option then you're too far gone to be arguing here. Maybe you think they knew who would win the 18th world series, too?

Please keep in mind, I haven't been able to look at the entirety of this thread in great detail, but if this is an argument why evolution couldn't have been implied in the Bible, then read on. Otherwise, just yell at me.

The people may not have know, but God did, so he had them use their own method to come to the same conclusion. That creation was a process, and a growth. Not instantaneous.

The issue isn't who wrote the bible or how many people had a hand in it. The issue is modern people deciding "Well, science has proven that this part of the bible is impossible (genesis), but even though science proves this other bit impossible (the resurrection) I'm going to believe in it anyway." That's a double standard which is a fallacy.

Resurrection isn't impossible, one (happens all the time in hospitals). Two, God created the laws, he can cheat at his own game.

Then, clearly you're okay with a figurative Jesus who didn't literally exist, right?

According to a vast majority of historians, Jesus existed at least as a man.
So what's the beef?

[Jack]

Resurrection isn't impossible, one (happens all the time in hospitals).

After three days? Find me one example of anyone reviving after being dead for three days in a clinical environment.

God created the laws, he can cheat at his own game.

I don't believe that's been established as more than conjecture.

[Maryjane]

Resurrection isn't impossible, one (happens all the time in hospitals).

Sorry, no....not clinically dead it doesn't. Brain, heart , respiration stop, you do not come back.

[Anmon]

Quote by: Maryjane Sorry, no....not clinically dead it doesn't. Brain, heart , respiration stop, you do not come back.

But it was Jesus MJ not just anyone.
He went to the lord for a little while, and came back, radiant and fresh.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: isherwood After three days? Find me one example of anyone reviving after being dead for three days in a clinical environment.

see below.

Quote by: maryjane Sorry, no....not clinically dead it doesn't. Brain, heart , respiration stop, you do not come back.

I'm not sure they could tell the difference between a coma and clinically dead.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: rez If you didn't teach a kid or tell a kid that angels exist, they would never think they existed. They would have no reason to because they don't interact with their daily lives. What would happen is they would maybe imagine they existed, but they would never really think they actually existed. They could also ask "where did the universe come from", but since they were not taught at a very early age that god created the universe, they would investigate the only way they can to try and find the answer. You also don't have to teach a kid that the Theory of Evolution exists. They can find out themselves. They would naturally ask questions like "Where do babies come from?" and "how do I have arms and legs?" and "why do people die from AIDS?"

And you'd have to explain it to them. And to prevent them from asking questions such as "did aliens seed the earth?" you'd have to teach them to accept only answerable scientific questions as valid and reject anything not measurable or testable.

In the end your still teaching just like religion is taught. Science is NOT a natural answer that anyone can apply to every situation because teaching it and accepting it as valid across every question requires indocrination.

[Jack]

I'm not sure they could tell the difference between a coma and clinically dead.

Um, yeah, I'm reasonably sure we have the means to determine that. If you're suggesting that Jesus was in a coma, that would undermine most of Christianity's basic beliefs.

And to prevent them from asking questions such as "did aliens seed the earth?" you'd have to teach them to accept only answerable scientific questions as valid and reject anything not measurable or testable.

We don't treat science like a religion. If a child were to ask that of me, I'd ask back if they could find any evidence to support the idea. Let them explore and discover. They'll come to their own conclusion. If they look for answers within reality, they'll come up with real answers. BTW-that works for adults, too.

[Winter wind]

Um, yeah, I'm reasonably sure we have the means to determine that. If you're suggesting that Jesus was in a coma, that would undermine most of Christianity's basic beliefs.

naw, just toying with a hypothetical.

No, the simple answer is that Jesus died and came back to life. How? Because God can break whatever rules he created, which is all of them. So he just willed him back to life.

[Maryjane]

In the end your still teaching just like religion is taught. Science is NOT a natural answer that anyone can apply to every situation because teaching it and accepting it as valid across every question requires indocrination.

Well, what about the big D?

I cracked open an anatomy book and showed my 6 year old how and why his father died. He accepted it. (better than I had anticpated) Was I supposed to tell him god did it? What a can of worms that would have opened!

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Maryjane Well, what about the big D? I cracked open an anatomy book and showed my 6 year old how and why his father died. He accepted it. (better than I had anticpated) Was I supposed to tell him god did it? What a can of worms that would have opened!

And what's so wrong with telling him how his father died?

Everyone has to face death so I'm sorry for your loss. I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to honestly tell your children what happened.

But why do you want to say God did it? Do you assume that all christians believe that every death is God's will?

You don't have to answer this question because it might be personal: But if your child asked "where is daddy now, is he gone forever?" what would you say?

[Maryjane]

Perhaps you might get a better understanding of what it's like to be a non believer and why it upsets us when believers force their opinions on us...

He was told it was god's plan. I had a woman (nice lady) stand on my porch and tell me he was in a better place. (she assumed we are christians) I suppose for believers that makes them feel better somehow? So the next time christians throw around that thing they like to say that all non belivers go to hell...think about what you are saying. My son was told his dad was in hell.

Yes, daddy is gone forever. He lives in our hearts and minds. If he wants to go visit him physically, we go to the cemetery. That's where he is.

Thanks for the condolences. And no, I don't have a problem talking about it. It happens to all of us. Just some sooner than we anticipate.

[rez]

Quote by: HelioPrime And you'd have to explain it to them. And to prevent them from asking questions such as "did aliens seed the earth?"

Why would I prevent them from asking that question? Why is that a bad question to ask?

you'd have to teach them to accept only answerable scientific questions as valid and reject anything not measurable or testable.

Seriously? That is how you think science works? All questions can be answerable. If you think something is designed, show why you think it is designed. If you think aliens planted living organisms on earth, then show why you think that.

In the end your still teaching just like religion is taught. Science is NOT a natural answer that anyone can apply to every situation because teaching it and accepting it as valid across every question requires indocrination.

Tell me the reason why it can't be applied to every situation.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Zhavric We know that they had no clue about evolution. We're talking about a people who thought the entire animal kingdom lived within walking distance of Noah's ark. We're talking about people who were too busy murdering non-believers to study organisms enough to know that life evolves into other life.

The authors of the Bible were busy murdering people? I'm interested to see what historical evidence you base that upon. Or are you just drawing on accounts in the Bible to arrive at that belief? Because that would sure be ironic, wouldn't it?

No. I don't know specifically what they were thinking, but if you think that evolution is an option then you're too far gone to be arguing here. Maybe you think they knew who would win the 18th world series, too?

They probably weren't thinking of the origins of life in terms of evolution, like I said, they took their best guess and got it wrong. It doesn't cause a conflict between Christianity and evolution, because Christianity doesn't require a disbelief in evolution or ascription to the book of Genesis.

That's about as far as I made it into your asinine red herring. The issue isn't who wrote the bible or how many people had a hand in it. The issue is modern people deciding "Well, science has proven that this part of the bible is impossible (genesis), but even though science proves this other bit impossible (the resurrection) I'm going to believe in it anyway." That's a double standard which is a fallacy.

No,it isn't. They are two separate cases. Disproof of one event in a broad collection of works spanning thousands of years does not lend any credence to disproof of some other event.

Assuming for the moment that both things you think are "proven" are actually proven, it is nonsensical to lump them together. Science has dis-proven the theory of ages ago that the Earth was flat. Science has also dis-proven the much more recent theory that there was intelligent life on Mars. If someone believes there is life on Mars but acknowledges that the Earth is round(ish), what does one have to do with the other?

Then, clearly you're okay with a figurative Jesus who didn't literally exist, right?

What does this have to do with it? Again, it is acceptable to not ascribe to one belief in a field and not another. I can deny the Ptolemic astronomical model and accept black hole theory as literal knowledge.

Already have. I guess I can clarify it. Just for you. The following is invalid/false logic: Category X contains things which are impossible (including coming back from the dead and the earth forming in a day). X1 is possible.

Great. Category X is every discovery of biological science. Since Piltdown Man is untrue, every other discovery of biological science must then be untrue, right? Or is "X1", say, the structure of DNA, possible?

This is how silly your supposed "Category" logic is... What you're saying is that if we lump things together into "categories", if two of the items in a category are impossible, they all are?

Category X may contain things which are impossible. However, in order to prove that Category X contains ONLY things which are impossible, each and every thing in Category X must be proven individually. Get it?

I love how you theists always try (and fail) to redefine what's "possible".

I love how you atheists always try (and fail) to disprove every theistic belief ever by disproving one tiny element of one system of belief.

Now, would you care to argue honestly or are you going to continue your Fonceai impression?

LOL... Never mind that you're so dishonest you fail to acknowledge that your logic here is exactly the same as a creationist who applies the Piltdown Man fraud to say that all evolution is false. But keep skipping over that, really. Ignoring valid points you have no coherent response to is "pure win", right?

[Zhavric]

Quote by: tivodan1116 The authors of the Bible were busy murdering people?

Of the old testament? Certainly. In the OT, the killing never stops. You kill your wife for disobeying you. You kill your kids for talking back to you. You kill your neighbors for worshipping other gods. The list goes on and on. In reality, the Jews were a militaristic people (when they weren't busy getting conquered).

They probably weren't thinking of the origins of life in terms of evolution, like I said, they took their best guess and got it wrong. It doesn't cause a conflict between Christianity and evolution, because Christianity doesn't require a disbelief in evolution or ascription to the book of Genesis.

This is where I stopped reading. Tivodan, you can't arbitrarily pick and choose which parts of the bible you choose to believe. You can't decide that Jesus existed and is here to redeem man for his sinful ways which began in Eden only to 180 and dismiss the very book that mentions where sin comes from. It's intellectually dishonest.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Winter wind They haven't banned the Nazi party in the USA, they aren't going to ban scientology. First amendment protects them.

Difference :
- Nazi ---> "pure race" is the major objective
- Scientology ---> reign of power is the major objective

[tommy5x]

Nazi---> White supremacy, and leadership by those only, through the eradication of 'impure' races.

[ShadowFox]

wait wait wait, how did we get on to a discussion of Scientology vs. Nazism? Please stay on topic.

[stevemckay]

Quote by: Halofan48 wait wait wait, how did we get on to a discussion of Scientology vs. Nazism? Please stay on topic.

The conversation evolved.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[wyoguy]

I'll make every atheist on here a deal.

If you can tell me who the Quantum Mechanics Super-genius was that tipped off Moses, I'll totally quit posting on the Philosophy/Religion section of Volconvo.

When Moses put into writing the Genesis account, he purposefully placed the creation of light before the sun, moon and stars.

Light, as your friendly neighborhood quantum physicist will attest, is more fundamental to our universe than even time and space.

How can it be that a fugitive Hebrew some 4000 yrs. or so ago, was privy to information that has only been scientifically known to man for less than 100 yrs?

Please, no wild stabs. I'm serious with my offer.