Sans Scripture, Evolution?

[AV1611VET]

Without the Bible, would scientists back then still teach evolution?

 

[RichardT]

Back when? Assuming evolution was understood, then yes. Before Darwin however I think that the scientists would believe in a deistic Creation.

 

[Pwnzerfaust]

Depends when "back then" is. Before it was postulated, no, of course. But after Darwin, or someone else who figured it out, of course yes.

 

[Tomk80]

This question makes no sense at all.

 

[Cabal]

AV, do you mean "back then" as in "the past" or "back then teach evolution" as "support, then teach evolution"?

 

[Psudopod]

If the bible was never written, then scientist would still have come to the conclusion evolution, probably around the same point in history. Does this answer your question?

 

[AV1611VET]

If the bible was never written, then scientist would still have come to the conclusion evolution, probably around the same point in history. Does this answer your question?

Yes --- thank you.

 

[Psudopod]

Cool I'm glad. Can I ask if there was a point behind the question, or were you just curious?

 

[AV1611VET]

Cool I'm glad. Can I ask if there was a point behind the question, or were you just curious?

I was just wondering if evolutionists are just as <<SE>>unwise<<SE>> w/o the Bible as they are with It, that's all.

 

[Psudopod]

I see. But surely, if the evidence points to evolution and there's nothing to say otherwise, can you really claim that's follishness?

That's the point of science. It doesn't matter what a person's beliefs are, they'll be persuaded by the evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's the point of science. It doesn't matter what a person's beliefs are, they'll be persuaded by the evidence.

Not I --- not when it comes to evolution.

 

[Pesto]

Anyone interested in the truth would follow the evidence where it leads them.

 

[RichardT]

Not I --- not when it comes to evolution.

Then you aren't interested in things that are true. That's fine as long as you don't try to persuade politicians.

 

[Split Rock]

If the bible was never written, then scientist would still have come to the conclusion evolution, probably around the same point in history. Does this answer your question?

Yes --- thank you.

I thought evolution was invented by SATAN and given to Nimrod at the Tower of Babel, specifically to counter the story of Creation as detailed in literal, historical fashion in Genesis???

 

[Molal]

I was just wondering if evolutionists are just as foolish w/o the Bible as they are with It, that's all.

The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the bible. It merely conflicts with your biblical interpretation.

 

[AV1611VET]

The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the bible.

No argument there.

It merely conflicts with your biblical interpretation.

Specifically these.

 

[RichardT]

The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the bible.

I wanted to add that there were probably just as many bible critics before Darwin as after. Many of the American and French revolutionists didn't hide their "scoffing" of the bible.

 

[Molal]

No argument there.Specifically these.

Here are my Four Biblical Refutations Against Evolution:


1. NOT ENOUGH TIME.

• The Bible portrays this universe as having been in existence for approximately 6100 years. This is much too short a time for evolution to work.

2. GOD'S CREATION LEFT NO ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT.

• Six times in Genesis 1, God pronounces his Creation "good". Then He steps back and pronounces the whole thing "very good".
• Evolution, on the other hand, demands room for improvement.

3. THERE WAS NO DEATH IN GENESIS ONE.

• The Bible portrays death as an enemy of God.
• [bible]1 Corinthians 15:26[/bible]
• Evolution, on the other hand, works by leaving a trail of death behind.

4. JESUS TAUGHT CREATION.

• [bible]Mark 10:6[/bible][bible]Mark 13:19[/bible]
• Jesus takes Genesis One literally --- in fact --- He wrote it.

1. I thought this was based upon an interpretation made by an irish bishop?

2. Again, you interpret Genesis to be literal. For a literal interpretation to be true, one would expect to find evidence. We don't.

3. There was death in Genesis - Adam and Eve ate and therefore killed living cells.

4. Mark 10:6 speaks of God creating male and female, not a literal creation. Mark 13:19 speaks of the beginning of creation - not the length of creation. Unless, of course, you are interpreting these passages to uphold the interpretation by Ussher?

 

[Kyrisch]

Anyone who does not accept evolution does not fully understand it.

Take a look at the E Retrovirus thread and tell me what you think. Be sure to watch the video before you try to 'debunk' anything.

 

[AV1611VET]

1. I thought this was based upon an interpretation made by an irish bishop?

I computed it myself, so it's now officially an Independent Fundamentalist interpretation ---

2. Again, you interpret Genesis to be literal. For a literal interpretation to be true, one would expect to find evidence. We don't.

Genesis One wouldn't leave any evidence, as my Apple Challenge shows. So what specifically would you be looking for? Indeed, what could you look for?

3. There was death in Genesis - Adam and Eve ate and therefore killed living cells.

Not in Genesis One though.

4. Mark 10:6 speaks of God creating male and female, not a literal creation. Mark 13:19 speaks of the beginning of creation - not the length of creation.

Genesis Two says God rested from His Creation. This means He ceased. If evolution is true, then He continued His creation right up to just recently, when Homo sapien came on the scene.

Unless, of course, you are interpreting these passages to uphold the interpretation by Ussher?

Indeed I am.