Question posed to me by a friend

[sliderman69]

Hello and welcome all this is my first time to this forum and its great to see it full of interested intelligent people! Im not sure if this is the right place to post here but my friend recently told me that it is impossible to believe in both evolution and believe in christianity.

His logic went (something) like this:
+ Believing in evolution means you don't belive in adam+eve
+ This leads to there being no original sin
+ This leads to the reason Jesus being on earth and dying null and void

Not sure how to approach him as I didnt really have an answer, and it has really confused me! I hope that someone can give me some useful guidance as to how I can reply (cus at the moment he makes sense to me).

Many thanks in advance for all your thought-provoking and intelligent answers!!!!!!!!!

 

[JohnHarthover]

Hello and welcome all this is my first time to this forum and its great to see it full of interested intelligent people! Im not sure if this is the right place to post here but my friend recently told me that it is impossible to believe in both evolution and believe in christianity.

His logic went (something) like this:
+ Believing in evolution means you don't belive in adam+eve
+ This leads to there being no original sin
+ This leads to the reason Jesus being on earth and dying null and void

Not sure how to approach him as I didnt really have an answer, and it has really confused me! I hope that someone can give me some useful guidance as to how I can reply (cus at the moment he makes sense to me).

Many thanks in advance for all your thought-provoking and intelligent answers!!!!!!!!!

I am not a Christian, but I think it is safe to say that if you believe in the theory of evolution, then you cannot believe in a completely literal interpretation of the Bible. However, if you accept that at least some parts of the Bible are metaphorical then you can view Adam and Eve as either being metaphorical or as a couple of humans that were the ancestors of the rest of humanity (or a large portion of it) that came along as some point in our species' history.

 

[Nitron]

-My favourite interpretation- Jesus died to free us from our animal natures.
- Or perhaps Adam and Eve had bodies similar to what we will have when we go to heaven (if we go to heaven) and were given ape bodies as a consequence of the fall. (I'll ty to dig up Punchy's thread)

 

[lucaspa]

Hello and welcome all this is my first time to this forum and its great to see it full of interested intelligent people! Im not sure if this is the right place to post here but my friend recently told me that it is impossible to believe in both evolution and believe in christianity.

His logic went (something) like this:
+ Believing in evolution means you don't belive in adam+eve
+ This leads to there being no original sin
+ This leads to the reason Jesus being on earth and dying null and void

Yes, this is the faulty logic that creationists use to scare people and set up the false dichotomy of Christianity or evolution.

What is forgotten is that Jesus died for our sins. Not Adam and Eve's sin, but the sins each of us commits.

Nor is it mentioned that sin will be passed down from generation to generation in Genesis 3. The punishments are quite specific, and that isn't one of them.

What we have here is Paul's theology. Paul was trying to find a way to make the Torah essential to the Gentiles. This was tough because 1) the Torah doesn't mention Jesus and 2) Paul had told them the Torah didn't apply anymore! So Paul makes a connectiong between Adam and Jesus. He tries 2 approaches: Jesus as the new Adam and this one.

Basically, most Christians look on Adam and Eve as the allegory it is. Adam means "dirt" in Hebrew and Eve means "hearth". So we have a story of Dirt and Hearth and how people became separated from God. Adam and Eve are not literal, but instead are representative of each and every one of us. They disobey God and are separated from Him. We disobey God and are separated from Him. They are us.

(BTW, I think Cain is representative of Babylonia and Abel represents Israel.)

You should ask your friend how, if the logic is impeccable, how is it that so many Christians and Christian denominations accept evolution. Your friend has to throw out of Christianity Catholics, Methodists, most Presbyterian denominations, Congregationalists, Anglicans, and most Lutheran synods. That doesn't make sense.

 

[Moaty]

Every word in the Bible from the first page of Genesis to the last page of Revelation is God's word, meaning it's all true. Therefore to deny anything that is written in the bible, is to deny the truth.
One can't look at the bible and agree with some parts and then disagree with other parts, and still claim that it's God's Word. The Bible is either all true or none of it's true.

 

[Madcoil]

But is it either ALL fact or NO facts at all?

 

[LeeC]

Many Christians believe in evolution...

Just check out Francis Collins

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Hello and welcome all this is my first time to this forum and its great to see it full of interested intelligent people! Im not sure if this is the right place to post here but my friend recently told me that it is impossible to believe in both evolution and believe in christianity.

His logic went (something) like this:
+ Believing in evolution means you don't belive in adam+eve
+ This leads to there being no original sin
+ This leads to the reason Jesus being on earth and dying null and void

As far as I can tell, two of these steps are flawed:

• Strictly speaking, evolution is not at odds with even the most fundamental of fundamentalists: it is an observed biological phenomenon. However, the standard model of how the Earth got it's current biodiversity does contradict 6-day, 6,000-old Earth, beliefs.
  But the phenomenon of evolution does not belie a belief in Adam & Eve.
• The second point is valid: original sin originated from Adam & Eve. If they don't exist, then original sin doesn't exist.
• Original sin is not the only sin, nor is the salvation thereof the sole purpose of Jesus.

Hope this helps. Basically: evolution is not at odds with Adam & Eve, and Jesus had other reasons to come to Earth besides dealing with the original sin.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Every word in the Bible from the first page of Genesis to the last page of Revelation is God's word, meaning it's all true.

Non sequitur. Fiction, though ultimately false, can still convey truth. It requires metaphor, though, something which the literalists cannot allow.

Therefore to deny anything that is written in the bible, is to deny the truth.

That sounds an awful lot like idolatry.

One can't look at the bible and agree with some parts and then disagree with other parts, and still claim that it's God's Word. The Bible is either all true or none of it's true.

Why? Where does the Bible state that it is inerrant?

 

[avdrummerboy]

Evolution is one of those wierd spots on our historical record. It can't be proven, it is dis-proven agiain and again and is still taught as fact in schools, and for some reason people belive it. How does beliving in evolution say that you don't believe in Adam and Eve? Assuming that Adam and Eve were the first humans, which most people accept, then saying that believing in evolution means that you don't believe in them is paradox that disproves evolution in and of itself. If evolution states that we evolved from them over time into who we are today then saying that beliving evolution disproves them brings the whole shaky theory down.

By the way did you know that evolution cannot even be proven to be a theory?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Evolution is one of those wierd spots on our historical record. It can't be proven, it is dis-proven agiain and again and is still taught as fact in schools, and for some reason people belive it.

It's been disproven? Quick, someone tell the biologists!
Methinks your bark is worse than your bite.

How does beliving in evolution say that you don't believe in Adam and Eve? Assuming that Adam and Eve were the first humans, which most people accept, then saying that believing in evolution means that you don't believe in them is paradox that disproves evolution in and of itself. If evolution states that we evolved from them over time into who we are today then saying that beliving evolution disproves them brings the whole shaky theory down.

Well, seeing as Evolution is one of the single most well-evidenced theories ever produced by science, I'm inclined to believe that it disproves Adam & Eve.
But, y'know, I'm still waiting on the disproof...

By the way did you know that evolution cannot even be proven to be a theory?

Do you know what a theory is? I doubt it, because otherwise you'd know that no theory is proven: Germ, Atomic, and Gravitational theory, are all unproven theory. But I bet you'd still get antibiotics and x-rays when you needed them.

 

[avdrummerboy]

A scientific theory is a "theory that explains scinentific observations; scientific theories must be falsifiable." (Evolution- Facts, fallacies, and Implications p.4) Since there is no evidence For Evolution then it cannot be proven true or false.

Can you tell me how evolution is "well-evidenced" ?

Okay I guess I jumped too far originally, MACRO evolution has not been proven which is the one we argue about. Microevolution and natural selection both occur and can be observed and proven, but it is a hasty generalization to apply them to the theory of MACRO evolution.

Natural selection is what is known as a truism meaning it states the obvious, like saying water is wet, or fire is hot to touch. Weak creatures die is a truism by all means. This proves nothing yet this is what seems to be used most to "prove" evolution. I think Hugo DeVries put it best when he said "Natural selection may explain survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain arrivalof the fittest."

Evolution is based on many logical fallacies, there is no proof for Macro evolution.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

A scientific theory is a "theory that explains scinentific observations; scientific theories must be falsifiable." (Evolution- Facts, fallacies, and Implications p.4) Since there is no evidence For Evolution then it cannot be proven true or false.

Scientific theories do not have to be falsifiable; it's a big bonus to the theory if it is falsifiable, but it doesn't have to be.
That said, the ToE is falsifiable.

Can you tell me how evolution is "well-evidenced" ?

• 1 Evidence from paleontology
  • 1.1 Fossil records
    • 1.1.1 Extent of the Fossil Record
  • 1.2 Evolution of the horse
  • 1.3 Limitations
• 2 Evidence from comparative anatomy
  • 2.1 Homologous structures and divergent (adaptive) evolution
    • 2.1.1 Pentadactyl limb
    • 2.1.2 Insect mouthparts
    • 2.1.3 Other Arthropod Appendages
  • 2.2 Analogous structures and convergent evolution
  • 2.3 Vestigial structures
• 3 Evidence from geographical distribution
  • 3.1 Continental distribution
  • 3.2 Explanation
  • 3.3 Evidence for migration and isolation
  • 3.4 Continental drift
  • 3.5 Oceanic island distribution
• 4 Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry
  • 4.1 Evolution of widely distributed proteins and molecules
  • 4.2 Out of Africa hypothesis of human evolution
  • 4.3 External link
• 5 Evidence from antibiotic and pesticide resistance
• 6 Evidence from studies of complex iteration
• 7 Evidence from speciation
  • 7.1 Hawthorn fly

From this Wiki.

Okay I guess I jumped too far originally, MACRO evolution has not been proven which is the one we argue about. Microevolution and natural selection both occur and can be observed and proven, but it is a hasty generalization to apply them to the theory of MACRO evolution.

The 'micro- / macro-' distinction is one devised by anti-evolutionists to say, 'Oi, you haven't shown us speciation! Therefore...'. And when we did show you speciation? You just shifted the definition one taxon higher.
So please, tell me how this distinction is relevant.

Natural selection is what is known as a truism meaning it states the obvious, like saying water is wet, or fire is hot to touch.

Natural selection? Hardly. It is an observed statistical trend.
Besides, even if it is a truism, how does this make it any less true?

Weak creatures die is a truism by all means. This proves nothing yet this is what seems to be used most to "prove" evolution. I think Hugo DeVries put it best when he said "Natural selection may explain survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain arrivalof the fittest."

Natural selection (summed up by Darwin as 'Survival of the Fittest') is not a tautology (or even a truism), since the fittest are not defined as those who survive; rather, the fittest are those who are best at producing grandchildren. Those who are best at this will have a greater change at proliferating their genes (hence Dawkin's 'selfish gene').

Evolution is based on many logical fallacies,

By all means, demonstrate these fallicies. I'm sure the tens of hundreds of biologists would like to know that the theory that unites the entire field is, in fact, fallacious.

there is no proof for Macro evolution.

Whoever mentioned proof? Proof is for alcohol and mathematics, not biology.
Have you ever recieved modern medical treatment? That's based on the unproven Germ Theory.
Have you ever watched television? Satellites are integral to their function, and were put their by scientists using the unproven Theory of Gravity.

 

[avdrummerboy]

"unproven Germ Theory." "unproven Theory of Gravity." Unprovable but very observable. Two words, transitional forms. Until these appear, evolution will continue to die out. And for those who are quick to tell how we will EVENTUALLY find them, right there is the fallacy of chronological snobbery, trying to prove something with evidence yet to be seen, saying that something can be proven once something is found. That something that we don't even know if it exists or not.

There has been no observation for MACRO evolution, I'll have to do my research but I'll bet that the distinction between MACRO and MICRO evolution was from the evolutionists once they realized that they don't have enough evidence to support their claims. Once this is realized evolutionists change the hypothesis or the theory of evolution itself, and just make "smoke and mirrors" so to speak, to hide what they don't know and can't prove.

"survival of the fittest" = "the fittest survive and the survivors are the fittest" that is circular logic, begging the question fallacy. We have yet to see natural selection produce a more intelligent form, once again saying that it will happen EVENTUALLY is chronological snobbery, a fallacy.

"Whoever mentioned proof? Proof is for alcohol and mathematics, not biology." What does this mean?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

"unproven Germ Theory." "unproven Theory of Gravity." Unprovable but very observable.

As is the unproven ToE. New species have been observed to form.

Two words, transitional forms. Until these appear, evolution will continue to die out. And for those who are quick to tell how we will EVENTUALLY find them, right there is the fallacy of chronological snobbery, trying to prove something with evidence yet to be seen, saying that something can be proven once something is found. That something that we don't even know if it exists or not.

Luckily for us, there are literally thousands of fossils of 'transitional fossils'. Archaeopteryx and Tiktaalik are my favourites, since they are the most obviously 'transitional' ones.
Indeed, we have the entire species record for the evolution of the horse from a small, fox-like mammal.

Since you obviously missed my seven catagories of evidence, you must have missed the first catagory:

• 1 Evidence from paleontology
  • 1.1 Fossil records
    • 1.1.1 Extent of the Fossil Record
  • 1.2 Evolution of the horse
  • 1.3 Limitations

I'll make it bigger so you don't miss it:

• 1 Evidence from paleontology
  • 1.1 Fossil records
    • 1.1.1 Extent of the Fossil Record
  • 1.2 Evolution of the horse
  • 1.3 Limitations

There has been no observation for MACRO evolution,

Define 'macroevolution'.

I'll have to do my research but I'll bet that the distinction between MACRO and MICRO evolution was from the evolutionists

Something tells me that this is the only research you will ever do concerning evolution.

"survival of the fittest" = "the fittest survive and the survivors are the fittest" that is circular logic, begging the question fallacy.

First, no scientist described 'survival of the fittest' in such a fallacious way. As I stated before:
Natural selection (summed up by Darwin as 'Survival of the Fittest') is not a tautology (or even a truism), since the fittest are not defined as those who survive; rather, the fittest are those who are best at producing grandchildren. Those who are best at this will have a greater change at proliferating their genes (hence Dawkin's 'selfish gene').
The notion of grandparents belies any circular logic.

Second, how on Earth is it begging the question? There is no question, nor no hidden presumption.

We have yet to see natural selection produce a more intelligent form, once again saying that it will happen EVENTUALLY is chronological snobbery, a fallacy.

A more intelligent form? No, I don't believe it has. But whoever mentioned intelligence?
Natual selection is what is causing the superbugs in our modern age: those bacteria who just so happen to have the immunity to our drugs are the only ones who survive and breed; thus, that bacteria species very quickly only contains bacterium with that immunity. This is natural selection.

"Whoever mentioned proof? Proof is for alcohol and mathematics, not biology." What does this mean?

Things are proven in mathematics, not in biology. You keep mentioning the lack of proof as if this some kind of detriment to the ToE.


avdrummerboy, I have to ask: if you do not believe in the ToE, how do you explain the modern biodiversity of Earth? Do you have any evidence to support your claim?

 

[MattTheAgnostic]

Don't bother Wiccan_child, it appears he has been to too many creationist propaganda websites lol

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Don't bother Wiccan_child, it appears he has been to too many creationist propaganda websites lol

Consider it my hobby £5 says the crux of his disbelief is semantical...

 

[avdrummerboy]

Bacteria becoming resistant is micro- evolution. It is Still a BACTERIA, it doesn't EVOLVE into another, more advanced form (a better term, intelligence is to relevant.)

In terms of biodiversity, a lot of creatures just appeared at once, since we can't go back into time (yet) then who knows what really happened.

Now for me personally, I am not for or against anything, I am a skeptic of hard to prove ideas, so if convincing enough, evolution may be part of the answer. There is too much intelligent design to say that this is all one accident. There is way too much evidence to say that there is no creator. For me it is more of there may be some combination of the many theories. How do we know that God didn't create the universe? And perhaps he had designed scientific laws into it (laws even governing genetics and how genetically things change over time?) Even though Macro evolution supposedly hasn't happened for many millions of years, micro evolution happens all the time, though we have yet to see it form a new species.

This is the best way I have heard the accidental mutation theory analyzed. To say that all intelligent (advanced) life formed by accident is comparable to saying that a tornado blows through a junkyard and by happenstance once it leaves a brand new ready-to-go Boeing 747 is sitting there.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Bacteria becoming resistant is micro- evolution. It is Still a BACTERIA, it doesn't EVOLVE into another, more advanced form (a better term, intelligence is to relevant.)

Advanced form? Intelligence? Please, define this terms.

In terms of biodiversity, a lot of creatures just appeared at once, since we can't go back into time (yet) then who knows what really happened.

What is your evidence for such an event?

There is too much intelligent design to say that this is all one accident.

There is no design in the universe. Amorphous systems can generate systems with apparent complexity: the method is evolution by natural selection.
Make no mistake, our brains have evolved to recognise patterns. That we see faces in clouds, or link mechanical tools to biological systems, is not unexpected.
Moreover, there is the paradox of intelligent design itself: if the universe's apparent requires a Creator, then said Creator must be of sufficient complexity to create the universe. By the same logic, if the Creator must be so complex, then the Creator itself must have a Creator. And so on.

There is way too much evidence to say that there is no creator.

What evidence is this?

For me it is more of there may be some combination of the many theories. How do we know that God didn't create the universe? And perhaps he had designed scientific laws into it (laws even governing genetics and how genetically things change over time?)

The origin of the universe is for cosmology, and the origin of the physical laws for philosophy and physics. Evolution is irrelevant.

Even though Macro evolution supposedly hasn't happened for many millions of years,

Who says this?

micro evolution happens all the time, though we have yet to see it form a new species.

If you had bothered to review my evidence, you would know that we have seen thousands of new species form, exactly as evolution predicts.

This is the best way I have heard the accidental mutation theory analyzed. To say that all intelligent (advanced) life formed by accident is comparable to saying that a tornado blows through a junkyard and by happenstance once it leaves a brand new ready-to-go Boeing 747 is sitting there.

That is not a comparable argument, since no evolutionary theory posits the random and sudden formation of modern biodiversity. try again.

 

[trivista]

Evolution is one of those wierd spots on our historical record. It can't be proven, it is dis-proven agiain and again and is still taught as fact in schools, and for some reason people belive it. How does beliving in evolution say that you don't believe in Adam and Eve? Assuming that Adam and Eve were the first humans, which most people accept, then saying that believing in evolution means that you don't believe in them is paradox that disproves evolution in and of itself. If evolution states that we evolved from them over time into who we are today then saying that beliving evolution disproves them brings the whole shaky theory down.

By the way did you know that evolution cannot even be proven to be a theory?

*Eric Cartman voice*

How has evolution been disproved?