Does Evolution Really Contradict the Bible?

Author: Jarrett_Ludolph

Posts

Total: 132
Topic's author
#1
Jarrett_Ludolph
Jarrett_Ludolph's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 52
0
0
7
Jarrett_Ludolph's avatar
Jarrett_Ludolph
0
0
7
Many Christians try to say that evolution contradicts the Bible, and they use this to dismiss evolution. 

Many Atheists try to say that evolution contradicts the bible, and they use this to dismiss the Bible.

But is the Biological Theory of Evolution (proposed by Charles Darwin) really at odds with the Bible?

It seems to be an overwhelming NO. the the Biological Theory of Evolution (proposed by Charles Darwin) IS NOT at odds with the Bible, (your welcome Christians)

six reasons why the bible is compatible with evolution:

Also, William Lain Craig (a Christian Philosopher) saying that Genesis 1-3 should be taken figuratively:

William Lain Craig is one of the most influence philosophers alive

Also, Francisco Ayala, one of the most most inflectional  Christian  thinkers, is an evolutionarily biologist:



#2
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
The age of the universe can contradict the TOE. 
If the universe is only 10,000 years old max.

#3
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
The bible doesn't say or imply that the age of the Earth is 10,000 years old max.


#4
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
What are your thoughts on intelligent design vs unintelligent design?
#5
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@ethang5
I didn't say Earth. 
Universe. 
Are you saying and or god slash the bible saying the earth and the universe are the same age ? 
Like the sharks and us modern humans allllllllll the same ?




#6
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
Creation, then a period of evolution....Pretty logical.

As evolution is still apparent  and ongoing, and we assume a cause.

The cause/creation can be regarded as a GOD principle. 

Though  naive creation myths that arose a few thousand years ago are largely illogical.

The fact that some people still believe these archaic creation myths and some do not,  is simply indicative of how humanoid data storage and transfer units have evolved.
#7
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Barney
I know you didn't ask me, but intelligent design is a nice sounding body of misconceptions and fundamental problems. I'm pretty sure I've encountered every argument for intelligent design by now and they've all had serious flaws.
#8
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@Sum1hugme
Are any of those flaws not addressed adequately by unintelligent design?
#9
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Barney
I'm not sure I fully understand your question so forgive me. But intelligent design is the same as creationism insofar as they posit a superfluous designer (creator), to otherwise working models of reality. ID, in order to be considered at all, must show that there is a designer and that the designer is intelligent, both of which are impossible. 
#10
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
...the earth and the universe are the same age ?
No. The bible says nothing about the age of the Earth or the universe.

#11
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@ethang5
I get it Thang. 
These measurements of time , numbers and other pretty important things  ain't what they appear to be becauseeeeeeeeee. 
It was different back then. End of story. 

The reason why It doesn't specifically say 10,000 and its not 73.4 % clear is  Because E Thongs.   Now get this. 
God got guys to write shlt down for him in a , well , a NOR here NOR there kind of  way. 
Tis brilliant,  and very well played. 

Thus you are correct. 

Your so so lucky tang , 
All you Christians are lucky. 
If God didn't  do that book for you guys my arguments would be well , a lot better. 
Point to you. 

Good game. 
Good game. 


 Answer to the post.
Of corse evolution contridicts the bible. 
The bible say god created the universe.  It's a silly question.  

 
  

#12
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@Sum1hugme
But intelligent design is the same as creationism insofar as they posit a superfluous designer (creator)

Intelligent design is synonymous with creationism.

I think what you mean to say is intelligent design is the same as biblical creationism insofar as......


to otherwise working models of reality
Do you disagree with George Box's claim that all models are wrong, but some are useful?




#13
Utanity
Utanity's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 375
0
2
2
Utanity's avatar
Utanity
0
2
2
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Of corse evolution contridicts the bible. 
The bible say god created the universe.  It's a silly question.  

You are being very rite because when something it contradicts the bible it is false because the bible is true so that means the evolution is false because it is not true either.
#14
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@Utanity
Darwinian evolution is false because it is impossible. It has nothing to do with the Bible.
#15
Utanity
Utanity's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 375
0
2
2
Utanity's avatar
Utanity
0
2
2
-->
@janesix
Darwinian evolution is false because it is impossible. It has nothing to do with the Bible.
Darwin was being traiter because he was the christian but then he took the temptation and beganed to making up things about the animals but he wasnt there when god made the animals so he didnt no anyway.
#16
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
I get it Thang. 
I doubt it deb.

These measurements of time , numbers and other pretty important things  ain't what they appear to be becauseeeeeeeeee.
The bible has no measurements of time on the age of the universe or of the Earth.

If God didn't  do that book for you guys my arguments would be well , a lot better. 
Actually your point fails even without that book.

Of corse evolution contridicts the bible. The bible say god created the universe. 
Evolution says nothing about creation, of the Earth, or of the universe, therefore, the bible saying that God created the universe could not possibly contradict evolution.
#17
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@janesix
Darwinian evolution is false because it is impossible.
Correct. Thank you Jane.

It has nothing to do with the Bible.
Again correct. Yet the atheists will insist that atheism is ONLY a lack of belief in God or gods. How come every atheist here also believes evolution? Not even all scientists believe evolution.
#18
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
It does not
#19
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@RoderickSpode
Do you disagree with George Box's claim that all models are wrong, but some are useful?
  It's a way of remembering that models are incomplete. That doesn't make their individual data points wrong. 

I think what you mean to say is intelligent design is the same as biblical creationism insofar as......
Nope, as far as I'm aware, any form of creationism posits the "designer" aspect of Intelligent Design.
#20
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@ethang5
@janesix
Darwinian evolution is false because it is impossible.
Explain plz.

#21
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@PressF4Respect
Because changes don't happen accidentally. They always serve a purpose.
#22
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@Sum1hugme
Do you disagree with George Box's claim that all models are wrong, but some are useful?
  It's a way of remembering that models are incomplete. That doesn't make their individual data points wrong. 
Of course not.

I understand what he means.

Models being incomplete are why we have auto recalls. Was it because the models were wrong? Well, depends on how one looks at it, but because models are incomplete, there's potential for flaw. And how serious the outcome of a flaw i may differ. The flaws in an automobile can be quite serious.

I think what you mean to say is intelligent design is the same as biblical creationism insofar as......
Nope, as far as I'm aware, any form of creationism posits the "designer" aspect of Intelligent Design.
What I meant was, there's no difference between the terms creationism and intelligent design. They are one and the same, unless creationism is given a particular distinction like biblical creationism.

 It appeared you were making a distinction between the two. Was I wrong?


#23
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@Sum1hugme
I'm not sure I fully understand your question so forgive me. But intelligent design is the same as creationism insofar as they posit a superfluous designer (creator), to otherwise working models of reality. ID, in order to be considered at all, must show that there is a designer and that the designer is intelligent, both of which are impossible. 
While not a flawless hypothesis, half of those criticisms immediately go out the window when pondering unintelligent design.

Take cancer as an example: ID advocates insist random seeming occurrences of it are part of the intricate predetermined plan (the determinism bringing up questions of free will). Where with UD the creator lacks a plan, was probably drunk when designing humans (therefore various flaws like cancer, birth defects, etc.), and not that smart to begin with.

A key benefit to this over other hypotheses and theories, is of course that it is entertaining.
#24
Sum1hugme
Sum1hugme's avatar
Debates: 37
Posts: 1,014
4
4
9
Sum1hugme's avatar
Sum1hugme
4
4
9
-->
@Barney
Haha, I see.
#25
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
Because changes don't happen accidentally. They always serve a purpose.
Not true. What purpose would the wind blowing a leaf from point A to point B serve?

Topic's author
#26
Jarrett_Ludolph
Jarrett_Ludolph's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 52
0
0
7
Jarrett_Ludolph's avatar
Jarrett_Ludolph
0
0
7
-->
@Barney
hello. sorry for responding late to you post.

I really am not familiar with Unintelligent design. It sounds like it accepts evolution. If UD accepts evolution, then I don't see any problem with it, however if UD denies evolution, then this is problematic for UD.

as for Intelligent design, since it denies evolution, it is very unlikely to be true.


#27
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
UD is the notion that the creator must be extremely lousy to design such flawed beings. This is meant to directly contradict the notion of creationism, as God is supposed to be omniscient.
#28
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
"flawed beings"
Flawed beings is so subjective it has no meaning and can thus be applied to any being no matter what it's form and function consists. Atheists even call God a "flawed being". The argument is illogical gibberish.
#29
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ethang5
@Jarrett_Ludolph
Evolution might be intelligently designed......And some people firmly believe so.....But no one actually knows.

And "Unintelligent Design" from a human grammatical point of view is "illogical gibberish".




#30
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@zedvictor4
Rare agreement!