God used Evolution to create man

[lasthero]

So in your world we can't know anything about history from a history book?

Even a history book - a legit one - is not the same thing as traveling back in time and witnessing things for yourself. Eyewitness accounts frequently leave things out, they misinterpret events, are subject to bias, et cetera. Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable, and historians do not automatically assume that an eyewitness account of an event is 100% correct.

Historical method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

At any rate, the Bible is not a time machine. There are plenty of details about the history of the world that it leaves out. Even if we take it as 100% true - and there's no reason to do that - it records the history of a relatively small part of the world. You won't learn anything from, for example, Chinese history from reading the Bible, or aborigines, or Native Americans.

 

[EternalDragon]

We don't call something a history book when it conflicts with the evidence.

So in your world, we can't know anything about history from the scientific evidence?

Speculation does not equal evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Speculation does not equal evidence.

We have real evidence, not speculation.

 

[bhsmte]

Even a history book - a legit one - is not the same thing as traveling back in time and witnessing things for yourself. Eyewitness accounts frequently leave things out, they misinterpret events, are subject to bias, et cetera. Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable, and historians do not automatically assume that an eyewitness account of an event is 100% correct.

Historical method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

At any rate, the Bible is not a time machine. There are plenty of details about the history of the world that it leaves out. Even if we take it as 100% true - and there's no reason to do that - it records the history of a relatively small part of the world. You won't learn anything from, for example, Chinese history from reading the Bible, or aborigines, or Native Americans.

The historical method and the bible, don't get along all too well.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So in your world we can't know anything about history from a history book?

1. the bible is a religious book, not a history book
2. no, you can't know anything about history from just a book

 

[madaz]

Actually no, as someone was there to see it that is still alive today.

Well then, according to your criteria, the existence of Jesus was merely an assumption.

 

[bjdea1]

Firstly I want to state. I believe in the LITERAL interpretation of the bible. I reject the theory of Evolution.

There are many reasons and arguments, but probably the simplest is: look at the fruit.

All the worst Leaders over history, the ones that have killed the most people and caused the most suffering have subscribed to the Evolutionary belief system. Hitler comes to mind, he was obsessed with protecting and enhancing the "superior" German race. His evolutionary world view enabled him to justify killing millions of "inferior" (less evolved) jews - in his mind they were just holding the Superior German race back. Upon closer inspection Hitler was also exterminating the disabled, and diseased people - he had convinced himself only the strongest of the species (of the Germans) should be permitted to reproduce.

In short, evolution has NO moral system, because we're all just an accident, there is no God and no one is accountable for good or evil. Its got to be one of the most dangerous and evil theories ever devised.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

Firstly I want to state. I believe in the LITERAL interpretation of the bible. I reject the theory of Evolution.

There are many reasons and arguments, but probably the simplest is: look at the fruit.

All the worst Leaders over history, the ones that have killed the most people and caused the most suffering have subscribed to the Evolutionary belief system. Hitler comes to mind, he was obsessed with protecting and enhancing the "superior" German race. His evolutionary world view enabled him to justify killing millions of "inferior" (less evolved) jews - in his mind they were just holding the Superior German race back. Upon closer inspection Hitler was also exterminating the disabled, and diseased people and basically was doing horrific things - but had convinced himself it was right for Germany.

In short, evolution leaves us with no moral system for society to follow, because we're all just an accident, there is no God and no one is accountable for good or evil. Its got to be one of the most dangerous and evil theories ever devised by man, although I doubt it was man allow who inspired it.

Hitler's Bedtime Reading - The Daily Beast
Scroll to the 5th on the list.

Demonizing evolution because Hitler accepted it is like demonizing those who believe in racial equality because of violence perpetrated by the Black Panthers decades ago. Or like judging all creationists by the poisonous fruit of a few. ISIS recently abolished the teaching of evolution because as militant Islamics they believe in the Abrahamic creation myths that are essentially identical to the ones Bible literalists like you believe in. So, does that mean that you're eating from the same rotten produce as them and we should expect you to start beheading and torturing people? No. Of course not. There are also Christian creationists who are pedophiles, rapists, murderers, frauds, and other felons sitting behind bars tonight like Kent Hovind. That doesn't implicate that you're a criminal. Anti-abolishists stood upon Bible verses endorsing slavery and the centuries-old practice of Christians owning slaves to advocate that it continue to be legally and morally permissible. There are verses permitting masters to beat their slaves so long as the slave doesn't die within two days of the beating. Anti-suffragettes stood upon Bible verses endorsing the subjugation of women to denounce their entitlement to the right to vote and other liberties of men. There are verses about virgin daughters being proffered up to be gang raped. That doesn't mean that someone who believes in creationism and Bible literalism is a morally impoverished racist, incest-promoting, misogynist anymore than it means that those of us who accept evolution as much as we accept gravity are akin to Hitler or are in any way morally deficient.

Why are you picking out one rotten piece of fruit in an entire blooming orchard? Do you know the extent of the astonishing progress that has been made in the field of medicine and technology in the past thirty years? More has been accomplished in this time period to benefit humanity than in all the millenniums preceding it. The overwhelmingly majority of those who have effectuated this progress accept evolution, and many actually use knowledge of evolution as part of their work. Do you know how many Nobel Prize winners accept evolution? Many have actually testified in court cases against the teaching of creationism in science classrooms. Have you gone through the list Time Magazine and others have made of the most influential people of the year and read about whether they accept evolution? Do you know how many of the most benevolent philanthropists accept evolution? Do you know about Dr. Francis Collin's work, and the important contributions of other Christians who accept evolution? Evolution has never been about moral philosophy, nor has gravity or any other accepted part of science.

Do you realize that you're utilizing emotion-based propaganda to try to convince people of your stance, and that's precisely what Hitler did, too?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Firstly I want to state. I believe in the LITERAL interpretation of the bible. I reject the theory of Evolution.

Then we can safely ignore whatever you have to say about the topic of biology.

There are many reasons and arguments, but probably the simplest is: look at the fruit.

Following that logic, christianity is evil due to the actions of the spanish inquisition.

All the worst Leaders over history, the ones that have killed the most people and caused the most suffering have subscribed to the Evolutionary belief system. Hitler comes to mind, he was obsessed with protecting and enhancing the "superior" German race.

Which has nothing to do with biological processes and everything with racism.

His evolutionary world view enabled him to justify killing millions of "inferior" (less evolved) jews

The spanish inquisition's christian worldview enabled them to burn people alive.

Upon closer inspection Hitler was also exterminating the disabled, and diseased people - he had convinced himself only the strongest of the species (of the Germans) should be permitted to reproduce.

Germans are not a seperate breed of humans. We are all members of the species homo sapiens.

In short, evolution has NO moral system,

Neither does the theory of relativity, gravity, plate tectonics, germs, atoms,...

These theories are about processes / phenomena in nature. They aren't about moral philosophy.

because we're all just an accident, there is no God and no one is accountable for good or evil.

None of this is addressed in biology, because it's not part of biology. Biology is the study of living things. It's not the study of how living things should and shouldn't act.

Its got to be one of the most dangerous and evil theories ever devised.

You must have one of the most twisted and ignorant understandings of biology and science in general.

 

[Euler]

Firstly I want to state. I believe in the LITERAL interpretation of the bible. I reject the theory of Evolution.

There are many reasons and arguments, but probably the simplest is: look at the fruit.

All the worst Leaders over history, the ones that have killed the most people and caused the most suffering have subscribed to the Evolutionary belief system. Hitler comes to mind, he was obsessed with protecting and enhancing the "superior" German race. His evolutionary world view enabled him to justify killing millions of "inferior" (less evolved) jews - in his mind they were just holding the Superior German race back. Upon closer inspection Hitler was also exterminating the disabled, and diseased people - he had convinced himself only the strongest of the species (of the Germans) should be permitted to reproduce.

In short, evolution has NO moral system, because we're all just an accident, there is no God and no one is accountable for good or evil. Its got to be one of the most dangerous and evil theories ever devised.

So, please give an explanation for the location of endogenous retrovirus insertions in the genomes of primates.

 

[RichardParker]

Firstly I want to state. I believe in the LITERAL interpretation of the bible. I reject the theory of Evolution.

There are many reasons and arguments, but probably the simplest is: look at the fruit.

All the worst Leaders over history, the ones that have killed the most people and caused the most suffering have subscribed to the Evolutionary belief system. Hitler comes to mind, he was obsessed with protecting and enhancing the "superior" German race. His evolutionary world view enabled him to justify killing millions of "inferior" (less evolved) jews - in his mind they were just holding the Superior German race back. Upon closer inspection Hitler was also exterminating the disabled, and diseased people - he had convinced himself only the strongest of the species (of the Germans) should be permitted to reproduce.

In short, evolution has NO moral system, because we're all just an accident, there is no God and no one is accountable for good or evil. Its got to be one of the most dangerous and evil theories ever devised.

Holy crap, there is so much wrong with this poste...

First of all: You accepting a literal bible... well, I know, people do that, even though this goes against everything we know from science. Not just evolution, btw, but pretty much all of geology, cosmology, many things of chemistry and physics...
Don't get me wrong, if you don't accept science, then that's fine. But to single out evolution, as if this was the only scientific model that doesn't agree with your personal favorite book... that makes no sense.

Secondly:
You judge the validity of an idea by its "fruits"? I assume you mean by its consequences, right?
Why? How does the fact that a specific model has led to bad consequences affect the validity of that model? This makes no sense. Even if it was true, that evolution was the very only reason Hitler had for his actions (which is a claim that simply cannot hold up, if you knew anything at all about history), this would have NO effect on the question if evolution was actually a valide model. None! If you make "the fruits" an indicator of what is true and what isn't... you have entered the realms of selectivly chosing the things about reality you WANT to be true, rather than the things that are most likely true, just to create a fictional world in which you can feel comfortable. This is not a path to truth.

But now, let's investigate your "Hitler"-claim a bit.
What Hitler did was essentially breeding. He chose what characteristics HE personally consideres valuable and wanted to create a race that fits this specific requirment. This is artificial selection, and I hate to break it to you: This has been done long before we knew about evolution by natural selection. What Hitler did really had nothing to do with the actual scientific model. If he thought that it did, he clearly didn't understand what evolution was all about.

But let's also apply your criteria for what's valide a bit further.
So, given that Hitler used his believe in evolution as an excuse to do what he did is an argument against, the validity of evolution, right?
So... you are also arguing against christianity as well, right?
After all, Hitler was a catholic. He was clearly a strong believer and has made his believe in a god, whos work he is doing, a number of times.
So, by the "fruits" of christianity in regards to Hitler, we can conclude, that christianity is false, right?

Now, in the end you also throw around the rediculous claim "If evolution is true, then we are only an accident, and there is no god."
Both of these statements are completly false!
I accept evolution, and I don't see ourselves as an accident. Actually, quite the oposite. We are a necessary consequence of this process, so "accident" couldn't be any further away from the truth.

And your claim that, if evolution was true there would be no god, is just as false.
Evolution doesn't tell you anything about a god, Nothing. Evolution is entirely indifferent to the existence of a god/of gods... which is why a lot of modern theists accept evolution AND a god at the same time.

You might want to rethink your position, because so far it doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

[madaz]

Firstly I want to state. I believe in the LITERAL interpretation of the bible.

Welcome to CF, you and AV will be bestest of buddies!

I reject the theory of Evolution.

No offence, but why don't you reject the theory of gravity while you're at it.

There are many reasons and arguments, but probably the simplest is: look at the fruit..

You really don't want to be using that line of argument, it could easily backfire on you.

All the worst Leaders over history, the ones that have killed the most people and caused the most suffering have subscribed to the Evolutionary belief system. .

The ToE is NOT a belief system.

Hitler comes to mind, he was obsessed with protecting and enhancing the "superior" German race. His evolutionary world view enabled him to justify killing millions of "inferior" (less evolved) jews - in his mind they were just holding the Superior German race back. Upon closer inspection Hitler was also exterminating the disabled, and diseased people - he had convinced himself only the strongest of the species (of the Germans) should be permitted to reproduce.

The majority of Christians accept evolution, you don't see them behaving like Hitler do you? Besides...Hitler promoted Christianity.

In short, evolution has NO moral system,

If you understood evolution, you would understand the reason why.

because we're all just an accident,

Accident? You really have no clue do you?

there is no God and no one is accountable for good or evil.

Evolution is not a belief system, I think you are equating evolution with a religion or something.

Its got to be one of the most dangerous and evil theories ever devised.

You really should learn the distinction between the colloquial use of the word "theory" and the scientific use of the word "theory". Evolution is not some idea someone just devised.

You really are rejecting one of the most elegant views of life. Your loss.

 

[JacksBratt]

God describes in Genesis, the creation the way He did it. That it happened a short time ago, that is less than 10,000 years. Let's suppose for a moment God really did use evolutionary process to create everything. God could have easily explained that process to Moses in a way he could understand. It might have read, "I created life in the oceans too small for you to see it, but over long periods of time (millions of years) it grew into all the creatures that you see today." But that is not what it says in Genesis. God doesn't need to deceive, but He remains the same even though time passes for us.

 

[JacksBratt]

Let's NOT add words to God's word.

Let the bible speak for itself.....the word of God and evolution cannot even be mentioned in the same sentence...it's polar opposites. It was a 6 day creation, there was no gap theory, man was created in god's image.

Evolution is religion, they have no evidence (all of it is fake pseudo science)

 

[AV1611VET]

No offence, but why don't you reject the theory of gravity while you're at it.

Do you reject Phlogiston theory?

No offense, but why don't you reject the theory of gravity while you're at it?

(Note: For the record, I know Phlogiston theory is a busted theory. It has been replaced by Combustion theory. Thus I assume your answer is going to be YES. But I'll wait and see if you get my point.)

 

[JacksBratt]

The ToE is NOT a belief system.

Evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable so it doesn't qualify as a scientific fact or theory. Evolution must be accepted with faith by its believers, many of whom deny the existence, or at least the power, of the Creator.

You cannot see evolution taking place. You cannot say that "we are here, so it happened".

The Biblical account of creation is not observable, repeatable or refutable either. Both are belief systems and rely on faith.

 

[Shemjaza]

Do you reject Phlogiston theory?

No offense, but why don't you reject the theory of gravity while you're at it?

(Note: For the record, I know Phlogiston theory is a busted theory. It has been replaced by Combustion theory. Thus I assume your answer is going to be YES. But I'll wait and see if you get my point.)

The distinction is theories that have been abandoned due to evidence and theories that are rejected due to personal faith.

I'm certain you can tell the difference.

For example Embedded Age Creationism could well be correct, but there is no scientific reason to think so. So personally I reject that idea.

 

[Shemjaza]

Evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable so it doesn't qualify as a scientific fact or theory. Evolution must be accepted with faith by its believers, many of whom deny the existence, or at least the power, of the Creator.

You cannot see evolution taking place. You cannot say that "we are here, so it happened".

The Biblical account of creation is not observable, repeatable or refutable either. Both are belief systems and rely on faith.

We observe evolution all the time. We can see mutations develop, and see how beneficial traits are favoured in populations.

The evidence for long scale macro evolution can be observed repeatedly. There are genetic markers in all living animals, and you don't have to take that on faith, any genetics lab could confirm it. The fossils are present in the rocks of the Earth, and you can search for fresh examples.

We don't need to have seen Vesuvius erupt to know what happened when we have other volcanoes and all the evidence left over to study.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable so it doesn't qualify as a scientific fact or theory. Evolution must be accepted with faith by its believers, many of whom deny the existence, or at least the power, of the Creator.

You cannot see evolution taking place. You cannot say that "we are here, so it happened".

The Biblical account of creation is not observable, repeatable or refutable either. Both are belief systems and rely on faith.

Forensics is no more observable or repeatable than evolution. Therefore, conclusions drawn from forensic investigations don't qualify as scientific fact either, and should not be used as evidence in a criminal investigation.

I'm a little busy, so could you write to the governors of all 50 states and request the release of all prisoners who were convicted based on the conclusions from forensic scientists (so-called)? I'm sure you could persuade them with that "not repeatable" catch phrase.

 

[EternalDragon]

Well then, according to your criteria, the existence of Jesus was merely an assumption.

Nice try but his birth was recorded, his parents existed, and his followers wrote down what they saw and what Jesus said.

Even if my parents were dead right now I'd still have a piece of paper called a birth certificate to show I was born.

You guys are really grasping here.