Evolution's Wrong Biblically!

[Arikay]

Yep, I do. If the bible is true, it is here to give us spiritual information, not teach us science. The bible was given to people 2000-4000 years ago to teach them about spiritual things, and thus it needed to be given in a way that they could understand.
Genesis itself reads of heavy metaphor. We have talking snakes, trees with magic fruit, and flaming spinning swords. Even the names of the first two people are very symbolic.

To take Genesis as metaphor doesn't hurt christianity any, original sin for example can be saved in two ways. Either it is the original sin after god "made man in his image" Which unless you think god is 5 to 6 feet tall, with two arms and legs, etc. most likely means a spirit or soul. Or it is metaphor for the sin that we all will commit, meaning that adam and eve are symbols for all of humanity.


For christians to ignore the possibility that genesis might not be literal, shoots christianity in the foot. Quite frankly some christians (creationist groups) seem to have missed the point of the bible, as they are willing to lie to support their interpretation of the bible. Stripping the bible down to a science book that says "worship jesus" and nothing more. Sacrificing the lessons it teaches.
I don't think this was the point Jesus was trying to get accross and I think he would feel ashamed at what some people are doing in the name of God, especially since he spent a lot of time preaching against this type of hypocrisy.

Ok, that turned out rather long, so I expect it to get lost in the normal thread flow.

I am curious. do you feel that evolution and the bible can go hand in hand?

that is the topic of the thread, you know.

 

[Bushido216]

I'd say look to God's word to understand God's creation, because the study of God's creation is mainly led up by people that are not God's peaple.

God's Word isn't a textbook. It isn't meant to be a discourse on science. That's why we have... science.

 

[Bushido216]

filter science through the bible. the bible says that the earth is the center of the universe. well, it very well may be since God's will centers here. as for the bible saying the sun has a curcuit, it does. golly.

I could have sworn that it was the centre of our Solar System. Perhaps I was wrong.

 

[Bushido216]

trust in the bible to be true and know that if something is wrong with sciece(ie they don't match up) then science needs to be altered, not the word.

and besides, we do not know that the earth is not the physical center of the universe. saying the earth is not the center is like saying a point on a line is not in the center, which cannot be proven.

No, your interpretation of God's Word, not God's Word. Infact, it's your interpretation of what other people thought God's Words were. We're not arguing against the Word, only how you view the Word.

 

[Bushido216]

you don't need theories for knowledge.

Oh my...

 

[Bushido216]

fact; man cannot walk on water in a liquid state.

conclusion; Jesus was not man.

faulty conclusion as the bible says Jesus was man.

God does not bind Himself to His rules that He made for this world sometimes.

Yes. We're not saying God couldn't have created the world as you say He did. We're simply saying that He didn't.

 

[Nathan Poe]

fact; man cannot walk on water in a liquid state.

conclusion; Jesus was not man.

faulty conclusion as the bible says Jesus was man.

Actually, the conclusion is true. Jesus was God, wasn't he?

God does not bind Himself to His rules that He made for this world sometimes.

Fair enough. But in the mundane workings of the universe, including it's beginning, God seems content enough to let the rules function as He designed them.

 

[Asimov]

you don't need theories for knowledge.

Oh my...

This reminds of something Homer Simpson said "psh, facts. They can't prove anything that's even remotely true!"

 

[USincognito]

You have never tried that. science thought that you could perform surgery without washing your hands under running water. many patients died because of this after successful surgeries. I'd say science should listen to the bible more.

Can I get a verse citation on this?

 

[Sopharos]

I don't believe the bible has to be filtered through science. I think (at the very least for Christians (who follow the bible ie the thread topic)) that science should be filtered through the bible.

And deny reality. Good on you, but I'm not coming with you.

You have never tried that. science thought that you could perform surgery without washing your hands under running water. many patients died because of this after successful surgeries. I'd say science should listen to the bible more.

1. Nonsense. Science said the exact opposite.
2. Running water alone will not do. Why do you think modern sergeons also use antibiotic soap, sterilised gloves and medical alcohol solution? Because running water alone will not work.

filter science through the bible. the bible says that the earth is the center of the universe. well, it very well may be since God's will centers here. as for the bible saying the sun has a curcuit, it does. golly.

Around the center of the galaxy, not the Earth.

I'd say look to God's word to understand God's creation, because the study of God's creation is mainly led up by people that are not God's peaple.

Define "God's people."

trust in the bible to be true and know that if something is wrong with sciece(ie they don't match up) then science needs to be altered, not the word

Sure, twist the facts to fit the hypothesis. Right.

nah. science literally means 'knowledge'. you don't need theories for knowledge.

And you don't know what "theories" mean in a scientific sense.

I would try some other things, but i would only get riddicule, because everyone else would try to back up their side with science and ignore me. that's why I use things that are right in the bible and outside of it and can only use past happenings about how the bible was right first (ie the thing about washing hands. did you forget that?)

Which amounts to "Since one claim is correct, they ALL must be correct" fallacy. Right.

you ignored the bit about the line. can you say that a point on a line is not the center?

Irrelevant. The sun is a not a line.

the word science literally means knowledge. as for the bias, that is a matter of where your faith lies.

Science is not faith. You can't believe in science. Anyone who does have a very special name called by the scientists themselves: "idiots." Science can only be accepted through research and logical thinking.

but the whole point of the thread is not whether or not evolution is true, but whether it works alongside the bible.

Not "your Bible" anyway.

probability?

a famous statistician once said that he could prove the existance of God with statistics, enough 'probability' "to bury Darwin and his theory"

And you obviously know NOTHING about "Darwin and his theory."

in that case, since there are no more Christians to debate the actual topic at hand, i'm off. nice hearing some views from y'all.

Debated to death, ignored to eternity.

 

[Bushido216]

Damned. I didn't realize that New Zealand didn't take any prisoners.

 

[Sopharos]

We haven't got enough cells to keep prisoners.

 

[Ryal Kane]

Though our opposition party wants to expand the prison industry.

 

[Data]

Wow. Three New Zealanders in one thread? This must be some kind of record.

 

[Jet Black]

and all talking about prisons. shame it's not three aussies really

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

they can't. they try to tie evolution into it to appease scientists. make it flow by saying that Genesis is not literal.

Untrue. I do it because I'm concerned for truth, and YEC is quite clearly not the truth.

 

[lucaspa]

To Believe In The Theory Of Evolution You Have To Believe That We Started Out As Single Cell Organisms And Later Formed Into Something Else And Something Else Etc. Etc.

We don't "believe" this. We accept the evidence God left us in His Creation. Remember, God has two books. When the Bible contradicts God's second book -- Creation -- then we know our interpretation of the Bible is wrong.

Biblically It Says In Genesis That We Were Created In The Image Of God, And To Create Eve He Took A Rib From Adams Chest, So The Two Obviously Contradict Each Other. But What Are Your Views.

You have combined the two creation stories in Genesis. Being created "in the image of God" is in Genesis 1. In that story, men and women (both plural in the Hebrew) are created together. No mention of ribs. What's more, animals and birds are created before any people.

In Genesis 2, Adam (single male) is created, then the animals and birds, then a single woman from Adam's rib. Now, since the 2 stories contradict each other, it is a BIG hint that they are not to be read literally.

So, evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of the Bible, but not the Bible.

 

[lucaspa]

Yep, I do. If the bible is true, it is here to give us spiritual information, not teach us science. The bible was given to people 2000-4000 years ago to teach them about spiritual things, and thus it needed to be given in a way that they could understand.
Genesis itself reads of heavy metaphor. We have talking snakes, trees with magic fruit, and flaming spinning swords. Even the names of the first two people are very symbolic.

To take Genesis as metaphor doesn't hurt christianity any, original sin for example can be saved in two ways. Either it is the original sin after god "made man in his image" Which unless you think god is 5 to 6 feet tall, with two arms and legs, etc. most likely means a spirit or soul. Or it is metaphor for the sin that we all will commit, meaning that adam and eve are symbols for all of humanity.

Butixnxot, pay close attention here. You have an atheist saying a non-literal reading of Genesis does not hurt Christianity!

Once again, we have atheists taking better care of Christianity than Christians!

 

[lucaspa]

I hope not. I know i haven't. that's why i'm arguing here.

but the whole point of the thread is not whether or not evolution is true, but whether it works alongside the bible.

Yes, evolution works alongside the Bible. Evolution is the method by which God created. Second quote in my signature.

Evolution doesn't work with your interpretation of the Bible. But if I have to choose between God and what He says in His second book and you and your interpretation of the Bible, guess Who I'm going to take? The question is, why don't you make the same choice? Why stick to your interpretation of the Bible in the face of what God tells you both in the Bible and in His Creation?

 

[JohnR7]

In Genesis 2, Adam (single male) is created, then the animals and birds, then a single woman from Adam's rib. Now, since the 2 stories contradict each other, it is a BIG hint that they are not to be read literally.

That is one of the theorys or hypothesis. Another is that Gen 1 and Gen 2 are not talking about the same thing. For example, Gen 1 could be talking about the creation of the world, while Gen 2 could be talking about a different creation when God created the Hebrew people.

Science is still out to lunch in making a determination if the human species started out as one male and one female, or if there was more then one pair of humans that make up modern humans today.

Just because you have one theory that you prefer, does not mean that there are not other theorys out there that are just as valid and just as worthy of being reviewed as your pet theory is.

People who think that their theory is the only theory worthy of acceptance are close minded and dogmatic.