NationStates Jolt Archive

I maintain that there is no essential conflict between the basic tenets of Chrisitanity and the teachings of evolution.

Care to prove me wrong? :)

I think the problem is that the Bible says that humans were there from the start, unlike evolution, which states that we came along fairly late. Of course, the Bible hasn't been updated for centuries, whereas science actually updates itself when new info is found...

Nope, I believe that Christianity and Evolution have absolutely no contradiction.

Reasons:
* The Big Bang/Evolution order is the same as the order in Genesis
* The Hebrew word for 'days' is the same as the Hebrew word for 'ages'

I think the problem is that the Bible says that humans were there from the start, unlike evolution, which states that we came along fairly late. Of course, the Bible hasn't been updated for centuries, whereas science actually updates itself when new info is found...
The problem is the unfounded belief that the Bible is to be taken literally ... every word of it ... instead of being willing to accept that some of the Bible, particularly parts of the Old Testament, is more to be understood as metaphor.

I think the problem is that the Bible says that humans were there from the start, unlike evolution, which states that we came along fairly late. Of course, the Bible hasn't been updated for centuries, whereas science actually updates itself when new info is found...

Actually, *one* of the creation accounts states that humans were "there from the start." The other places them last in creation.

The problem is that most people don't actually *read* Genesis or care to study up on the fact that it is actually a combination of two very different creation stories written by two very different authors, *neither* of which seemed to be intending to write a historical document - but were instead getting across a point about the relationship between humankind and God.

"All Catholics must hold the Biblical story of Creation as a historical document and not as a myth or fable to be interpreted... for other symbolic meanings..."

The Genesis document easily violates the "evolution" propaganda.

Well, though I don't believe and hope it doesn't, there are some fallacies in Genesis that contradict evolution. He begins with plants, seed- and fruit-bearing ones at that, which are more evolved than the more primaeval plants. Then after he created plants, he created the stars, and the stars were created before our solar system. Then he made the moon and the sun simultaneously, when the sun was made long, long before Earth's moon. Then he made aquatic and airborn creatures, then terrestrial ones the next day. And then God told man that he ruled everything else. Ebola begs to differ...

Much of Genesis is in the wrong order. Life did indeed begin the water, but it probably went to land before it got the the air. And he completely leaves out the Fungi, Protista, and Bacteria kingdoms. Hell, the last one constitutes an entire domain! But I don't think this means that Christians can't believe in evolution. They just can't take the Bible literally.

I maintain that there is no essential conflict between the basic tenets of Chrisitanity and the teachings of evolution.

Care to prove me wrong? :)
I don't. I believe that there is absolutely no conflict between the two. For one, how long is a day in Genisis? Were they really days, or was the author unable to comprehend billions of years?

The Genesis document easily violates the "evolution" propaganda.
Go away, nazinoob. You're not wanted here.

Go away, nazinoob. You're not wanted here.
Go away, heathen. Tis you who is not wanted.

Go away, heathen. Tis you who is not wanted.
Stop acting like babies, you two.

Because some people make the unjustified assumption that evolution = atheism.

Stop acting like babies, you two.
I'm sorry, but I've just lost much of my patience with Defensor Fidei. He just makes one-sentence ridiculous conspiracy theory claims that mean nothing. He has never contributed anything. I was entertained at first, but it just grates on my nerves now. If he'd stop spamming, then I wouldn't mind at all.

I'm sorry, but I've just lost much of my patience with Defensor Fidei. He just makes one-sentence ridiculous conspiracy theory claims that mean nothing. He has never contributed anything. I was entertained at first, but it just grated on my nerves most of the time. If he'd stop spamming, then I wouldn't mind at all.
Are you having fun with your name-calling "nazinoob" and smearing yet?
...Like the pathetic fool that you are, who fears hearing the Truth exposed.

Actually, *one* of the creation accounts states that humans were "there from the start." The other places them last in creation.

The problem is that most people don't actually *read* Genesis or care to study up on the fact that it is actually a combination of two very different creation stories written by two very different authors, *neither* of which seemed to be intending to write a historical document - but were instead getting across a point about the relationship between humankind and God.
In other words, God, by allowing us to preserve the Genesis account, gave us a metaphorical, non-historic story from which we can glean wisdom but which is not to be taken literally?

If God is, in fact, God, and created us with a brain which he intended us to use, why would he not expect us to use said brain to "prove all things and hold fast that which is good," including all of what has been recorded and perserved as what we call "the Bible?"

Keep in mind that men ( whether inspired or not ) wrote the Bible, and the Bible itself states repeatedly that men are prone to error. The Bible also emphasizes "rightly dividing the Word of God." What does this mean if not using the brain God gave us to determine what it is, exactly, that God wishes us to know? Has there *always* been a Bible? Of course not. So to what is the Bible referring when it speaks of "the Word of God?" Think carefully before you answer this.

You are actually describing a form of creation called the day-age theory....it is that each day was actually millions/billions of years.....

Believeing in evolution doesn't make you athiest.....it makes you believe in a lassez-faire God....

I don't. I believe that there is absolutely no conflict between the two. For one, how long is a day in Genisis? Were they really days, or was the author unable to comprehend billions of years?
I addressed this:
Well, though I don't believe and hope it doesn't, there are some fallacies in Genesis that contradict evolution. He begins with plants, seed- and fruit-bearing ones at that, which are more evolved than the more primaeval plants. Then after he created plants, he created the stars, and the stars were created before our solar system. Then he made the moon and the sun simultaneously, when the sun was made long, long before Earth's moon. Then he made aquatic and airborn creatures, then terrestrial ones the next day. And then God told man that he ruled everything else. Ebola begs to differ...

Much of Genesis is in the wrong order. Life did indeed begin the water, but it probably went to land before it got the the air. And he completely leaves out the Fungi, Protista, and Bacteria kingdoms. Hell, the last one constitutes an entire domain! But I don't think this means that Christians can't believe in evolution. They just can't take the Bible literally.

Well, though I don't believe and hope it doesn't, there are some fallacies in Genesis that contradict evolution. He begins with plants, seed- and fruit-bearing ones at that, which are more evolved than the more primaeval plants. Then after he created plants, he created the stars, and the stars were created before our solar system. Then he made the moon and the sun simultaneously, when the sun was made long, long before Earth's moon. Then he made aquatic and airborn creatures, then terrestrial ones the next day. And then God told man that he ruled everything else. Ebola begs to differ...

Much of Genesis is in the wrong order. Life did indeed begin the water, but it probably went to land before it got the the air. And he completely leaves out the Fungi, Protista, and Bacteria kingdoms. Hell, the last one constitutes an entire domain! But I don't think this means that Christians can't believe in evolution. They just can't take the Bible literally.
Now I think God deliberately left out those kingdoms because they're hard to quantify to ancient peoples. Yes, there are a few things left out, a few out of place. There's also the fact that humans have their biases and might have wrote it wrong. But I do think that the Bible is very symbolic, probably because there wasn't the language to be literal in the ancient days.

You are actually describing a form of creation called the day-age theory....it is that each day was actually millions/billions of years.....

Believeing in evolution doesn't make you athiest.....it makes you believe in a lassez-faire God....
No, I believe in an almost laissez-faire God that did very subtle pushes along.

Are you having fun with your name-calling "nazinoob" and smearing yet?
...Like the pathetic fool that you are, who fears hearing the Truth exposed.
Why don't you two just cool it for a bit.

I think the two theories are easily reconcilable...despite someone above trying to dispute this by using lots of long scientific words, when looking at the outcome of scientific research, the more complex and in-depth scientists go, the closer the two theories become...or alternatively, the more likely a Creationist-type theory becomes.

It's amusingly similar to accounts / books by people attempting to disprove various tenets of Christianity by immersing themselves in science and historical study...they usually end up becoming Christian / believing in God. hehe.

Now I think God deliberately left out those kingdoms because they're hard to quantify to ancient peoples. Yes, there are a few things left out, a few out of place.
That does not answer why it's in the wrong order. And I don't know what you mean by "quantify". You mean it's not easy for humans to understand just how many of them there are? Well, it's also not easy for humans to fully understand just how many insects there are, but we still acknowledge their existence. And fungi are fully visible to the naked humans eye, so that's not a good excuse either.

In other words, God, by allowing us to preserve the Genesis account, gave us a metaphorical, non-historic story from which we can glean wisdom but which is not to be taken literally?

Yeah, pretty much, although it is up to you which viewpoint (as the two are very different) you would like to believe in.

If God is, in fact, God, and created us with a brain which he intended us to use, why would he not expect us to use said brain to "prove all things and hold fast that which is good," including all of what has been recorded and perserved as what we call "the Bible?"

Not exactly sure what you are asking here. I believe that we are meant to study the workings of the world and use them as best we can. "Proving" the literal history of the Bible is a silly undertaking, unless we want to believe that Christ was born under two different kings, that Creation happened twice, etc.

Keep in mind that men ( whether inspired or not ) wrote the Bible, and the Bible itself states repeatedly that men are prone to error.

Exactly.

The Bible also emphasizes "rightly dividing the Word of God." What does this mean if not using the brain God gave us to determine what it is, exactly, that God wishes us to know? Has there *always* been a Bible? Of course not. So to what is the Bible referring when it speaks of "the Word of God?" Think carefully before you answer this.

The Bible contains quite a bit of truth, even if it doesn't contain literal TRUTH much of the time.

I think the two theories are easily reconcilable...despite someone above trying to dispute this by using lots of long scientific words, when looking at the outcome of scientific research, the more complex and in-depth scientists go, the closer the two theories become...or alternatively, the more likely a Creationist-type theory becomes.

I think you are misusing words here. *Nothing* in science has moved closer to the Creationist (aka, everything in Genesis is absolutely and literally true, despite the fact that it is a meshing of two very different creation accounts that already contradict each other) ideas.

Now, if you would like to argue that science cannot and has not moved anywhere near disproving *creation*, this is true.=

Are you having fun with your name-calling "nazinoob" and smearing yet?
...Like the pathetic fool that you are, who fears hearing the Truth exposed.
:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: come here and fluffle with me! I want to be your friend :fluffle:

Many people here claim there are two conflicting Genesis accounts. Where are they? If you are referring to Genesis chapters 1 & 2, it's blatantly obvious that they are meant to be complementary. Genesis 1 describes the whole creation, and Genesis 2 describes day six in more detail.

Even if the days were "eons of time," the order of events is still completely inconsistent with evolution's presuppositions.

I'm a Christian, and I take the Bible plainly. Some parts of the Bible are figurative (such as the Psalms and the parables). Genesis is written in historical narrative, and therefore was meant to be taken literally.

Evolution only poses a threat to Fundamentalist Christians (they believe everything, and I mean everything in the bible should be taken literally).
Not all Christians believe this way.

I maintain that there is no essential conflict between the basic tenets of Chrisitanity and the teachings of evolution.

Care to prove me wrong? :)

"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God... All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life; and the life was the light of men... And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotton of the Father full of grace and truth." John 1:1,3,4,&14.

"Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work, but the seventh-day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God. In it thou shalt not do any work, thou nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservent, nor thy maidservent, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that in them is and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it." Ex. 20:8-11

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets; I am not come to destroy but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass away,one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law, till all things shall be fulfilled. " Matt 5:17-18

Granted this is not scientific proof, but it is Biblical proof. I do buy micro-evolution, adapation within the already present genes within a species, but not the generation of new species, new genes etc. BTW, I don't see the theory as a threat as much as I see it as being an inaccurate description of the evidence.

Many people here claim there are two conflicting Genesis accounts. Where are they? If you are referring to Genesis chapters 1 & 2, it's blatantly obvious that they are meant to be complementary. Genesis 1 describes the whole creation, and Genesis 2 describes day six in more detail.

Not if you actually care to study up on it. Biblical scholars agree that there were *two* accounts, which were meshed together much later. They seem complementary to those who don't actually study closely because those who meshed them attempted to do so. There are still, however, contradictions.

One (the first) was written by the priestly author (the same which provided us with all the fun OT laws in the Torah). This account has all of humankind being created, male and female, at the same time and at the pinnacle (ie. the end) of Creation. The purpose of this account was to demonstrate that absolute power of God and to show that humankind was the ultimate - the best part - of creation.

The second was written by the Yahwist. This author wrote down more of the "folk tale" type accounts which had been passed down by word of mouth for generations. The purpose of this account was to demonstrate several things. The first is that creation was made for *man* ((and I say man, and not humans for a reason)). In this account, Adam is made *before* all of the animals. God is personified as fallible in this story, as it says that God attempts to offer Adam a "helper" from among the animals, but none can be found. God then puts Adam to sleep and creates woman to be his helper. The other purpose of this account was to demonstrate a reason for man's separation from God.

I'm a Christian, and I take the Bible plainly. Some parts of the Bible are figurative (such as the Psalms and the parables). Genesis is written in historical narrative, and therefore was meant to be taken literally.

Maybe you should actually read up on the writings of theological scholars and learn Hebrew before you make silly, unfounded statements.

"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God... All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life; and the life was the light of men... And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotton of the Father full of grace and truth." John 1:1,3,4,&14.

This does not conflict with Evolution in any way.

"Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work, but the seventh-day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God. In it thou shalt not do any work, thou nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservent, nor thy maidservent, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that in them is and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it." Ex. 20:8-11

This could easily be seen as metaphorical, as could the original account. This is *especially* true when you realize you have to ignore the Yahwist's account to use this in the first place.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets; I am not come to destroy but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass away,one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law, till all things shall be fulfilled. " Matt 5:17-18

This in no way contradicts Evolution.

Granted this is not scientific proof, but it is Biblical proof.

I have no problems with Christianity per se, but by this line of logic, doesn't that mean that Carrol's Through the Looking Glass is proof of Wonderland?

Maybe you should actually read up on the writings of theological scholars and learn Hebrew before you make silly, unfounded statements. So I'm just supposed to take your word for it then?

So I'm just supposed to take your word for it then?

Or you could take the suggestion above.

There aren't exactly many links online to free theological books or papers - only fundie stuff that has little scriptural backing, as it is written by more people who have only read translations of translations of translations. A trip to the library would do you wonders.

Humans invented god because it gave them power over other humans. It's actually an evolutionary concept in itself. Along the same lines of why stags have antlers.

Humans invented god because it gave them power over other humans. It's actually an evolutionary concept in itself. Along the same lines of why stags have antlers.

Funny. I am an atheist and so this does not affect me. Does this mean then that I am more evolved than believers?

Not trying to offend anyone, just curious.

Or you could take the suggestion above.

There aren't exactly many links online to free theological books or papers - only fundie stuff that has little scriptural backing, as it is written by more people who have only read translations of translations of translations. A trip to the library would do you wonders.
I was simply trying to make a point: if there is so much proof, why not provide some of it to back up your claims?
It doesn't have to be a link.

This is pointless to argue over anyway, it still doesn't explain how they're contradictory.

This does not conflict with Evolution in any way.



This could easily be seen as metaphorical, as could the original account. This is *especially* true when you realize you have to ignore the Yahwist's account to use this in the first place.



This in no way contradicts Evolution.

I disagree with the your first statement, if everything was made by Him and nothing that was made with out Him, all that is in existance was His creation.

If you chose to interpret the Exodus passage as metaphorical, that is your business, but in terms of the passages you stated to be metaphorical, there are scholars on both sides of the issue. Some site evidence for a literal interpretation others say metaphorical. It is certainly not a one-sided, irrefutable conclusion finished, kind of issue.

The last text was supporting the issue of whether or not the law was done away with as some "Christians", seem to believe, thereby adding support to the Ex. text. Which is irrelavent if you believe it to be metaphorical and you know where I stand on that.

I have no problems with Christianity per se, but by this line of logic, doesn't that mean that Carrol's Through the Looking Glass is proof of Wonderland?

I guess it would be for you if you believe the book to be divinely inspired and to be literal. I'd have to disagree about that, but Christianity is based on the premis that the Bible is at least in some respect divinely inspired.

"All Catholics must hold the Biblical story of Creation as a historical document and not as a myth or fable to be interpreted... for other symbolic meanings..."

The Genesis document easily violates the "evolution" propaganda.
Where the hell does that quote come from? It's utter crap. The Mormons were the first to explicitly express that sentiment.

Granted this is not scientific proof, but it is Biblical proof. I do buy micro-evolution, adapation within the already present genes within a species, but not the generation of new species, new genes etc. BTW, I don't see the theory as a threat as much as I see it as being an inaccurate description of the evidence.

Gee, and here I go, watching bacteria evolve new genes in the lab every day...

And, by the by, micro-evolution is macro-evolution. That's how macro-evolution happens - gradually.

Funny. I am an atheist and so this does not affect me. Does this mean then that I am more evolved than believers?

Not trying to offend anyone, just curious.
It is natural behaviour for us to try to explain our existence. Now we can do this (almost) as much with science as we can with religion. So yes, you essentially are following a similar path. Except your path has more convincing evidence along the way.

Btw, the reason I say "almost" is, of course, that with religion you can explain anything, but with science you can only explain what you have evidence for.

I disagree with the your first statement, if everything was made by Him and nothing that was made with out Him, all that is in existance was His creation.

There is nothing in Evolutionary theory that has to do with where everything came from. God could quite easily have created everything and set evolution in motion - which would be perfectly compatible with that text.

If you chose to interpret the Exodus passage as metaphorical, that is your business, but in terms of the passages you stated to be metaphorical, there are scholars on both sides of the issue.

There are many *preachers* who treat the 7 days creation as literal. The vast majority of theological scholars (both Jewish and Christian) consider it to be metaphorical.

Some site evidence for a literal interpretation others say metaphorical. It is certainly not a one-sided, irrefutable conclusion finished, kind of issue.

Those who site it as literal ignore the history of the document, as well as the other creation account.

The last text was supporting the issue of whether or not the law was done away with as some "Christians", seem to believe, thereby adding support to the Ex. text. Which is irrelavent if you believe it to be metaphorical and you know where I stand on that.

The law has nothing to do with Evolutionary theory, however, and I thought that's what you were trying to disprove.

I was simply trying to make a point: if there is so much proof, why not provide some of it to back up your claims?
It doesn't have to be a link.

What proof do you want, then? I could scan in my old theology notes, but I don't have a scanner and am unsure where the notebook would be. I could talk about a few books, but they are all books you could only find for purchase or at the library. There are plenty of journal articles, but again, you would have to go to a library to find them.

It isn't my fault that so many people claim to subscribe to a faith but fail to do any research on it.

This is pointless to argue over anyway, it still doesn't explain how they're contradictory.

You apparently failed to read my post about them. Try reading it.

It is natural behaviour for us to try to explain our existence. Now we can do this (almost) as much with science as we can with religion. So yes, you essentially are following a similar path. Except your path has more convincing evidence along the way.

Btw, the reason I say "almost" is, of course, that with religion you can explain anything, but with science you can only explain what you have evidence for.

So true but you cannot prove anything by explaining it with religion (no hard evidence).

So true but you cannot prove anything by explaining it with religion (no hard evidence).
That's my point. You can explain anything with faith. *dons flame-retardant suit* It's a cop-out really.

That's my point. You can explain anything with faith. *dons flame-retardant suit* It's a cop-out really.

There *are* areas in which science has no bearing (and this is coming from a scientist). It is in these areas where faith must step in. However, true faith does not mean blindly believing a bunch of BS that has nothing to do with the point when the proof against it is staring you in the face.

You apparently failed to read my post about them. Try reading it.
The only claim of contradiction I could find is that Genesis 2 says Adam was created before the animals. Where is this statement found?

There *are* areas in which science has no bearing (and this is coming from a scientist). It is in these areas where faith must step in. However, true faith does not mean blindly believing a bunch of BS that has nothing to do with the point when the proof against it is staring you in the face.

Could you please give an example of such areas.(and btw I too am a scientist.)

There *are* areas in which science has no bearing (and this is coming from a scientist). It is in these areas where faith must step in. However, true faith does not mean blindly believing a bunch of BS that has nothing to do with the point when the proof against it is staring you in the face.
That's basically my position. I was just exaggerating slightly to provoke a response. The main thing science can never begin to explain is *why* we're here. Personally, I think there's a fair chance of something out there when we die, but I'm not holding my breath.

And I'm fully of the belief that Genesis is a metaphor, whether the concept behind the metaphor is right or not.

I was simply trying to make a point: if there is so much proof, why not provide some of it to back up your claims?
It doesn't have to be a link.

This is pointless to argue over anyway, it still doesn't explain how they're contradictory.

Here's a few reasonably scholarly on-line sources:

From http://www.hope.edu/bandstra/RTOT/CH1/CH1_1A2.HTM (my emphasis):

...In Genesis the older Yahwist creation story follows the younger Priestly one, but the order makes sense if the ruling logic was to move from a comprehensive world picture to an intimate tale of the earliest humans living in a God-created world. The Yahwist account focuses on the first human couple.

When comparing the two accounts one might notice that there are seeming inconsistencies, as when the creation of animals precedes the creation of humans in the first account, but follows the creation of the male in the second. Still, such tensions do not get in the way, and the Yahwist story effectively communicates the humanity of the earliest people: their desires, needs, aspirations, and transgressions.

and from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis2.htm), the following comment on Genesis, chapter 2 (my emphasis again):

This section is chiefly concerned with the creation of man. It is much older than the narrative of Genesis 1:1-2:4a. Here God is depicted as creating man before the rest of his creatures, which are made for man's sake.

and here's a quote from Biblical Criticism (http://www.monroe.edu/~mcq/rel/genesis.html) by Jean Steinmann:

But if we go back to the original, the differences in style between the first two chapters of Genesis are clearly perceptible. The first chapter is written in vague, technical, heavy language. It is the work of a lawyer and a priest. The majesty of the subject is even enhanced by the poverty of the style.

The second chapter is the work of an author with a vivid, precise, lively and humorous style, a poet to his finger-tips. The characters really come to life, and no effort is spared to make a lasting impression on the reader’s mind.

Anyone who goes on to read the rest of Genesis cannot fail to distinguish these two opposing styles: that of the poet with an eye for the picturesque, the striking detail and the majesty of characters on the heroic scale, and that of the jurist (lawyer) obsessed with figures and dates who stuffs his text with theological implications and symbolic meanings.

Modern criticism has found a name for each of these writers. The author of chapters 2 and 3 of Genesis is known as the Yahwist (J) and the author of chapter 1 as the Priest or Author of the Priestly Code (P).

Could you please give an example of such areas.(and btw I too am a scientist.)
Like I said, meaning, mostly. That's a pretty big part of our strive to understand who we are, and science can't answer it.

That's basically my position. I was just exaggerating slightly to provoke a response. The main thing science can never begin to explain is *why* we're here. Personally, I think there's a fair chance of something out there when we die, but I'm not holding my breath.

And I'm fully of the belief that Genesis is a metaphor, whether the concept behind the metaphor is right or not.


Well. What if the question "why?" does not have an answer. To me it at least makes a perfect sense that we can be here by change. So "why?" is basically irrelevant question before some very very hard evidence can point us to asking it (we will never get any evidence I think). It is of course disturbing for some people to think that their existence has no ultimate purpose but it is one very likely option.

The only claim of contradiction I could find is that Genesis 2 says Adam was created before the animals. Where is this statement found?

From the Oxford New Revised Standard Version (by far the best English translation I have found thus far):

Genesis 2:4-9
In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up - for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground, but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground -- then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whome he had formed. Out of the ground the Lord God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Notice that Adam is made *before* the plants begin to grow.

Genesis 2:18-20

Then the Lord God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner." So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creatures, that was its name. The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper as his partner.

Notice that the animals are formed out of the ground *after* Adam is formed. Also notice that God is portrayed as fallible, as God apparently thought that a suitable helper would be found within the animals.

Genesis 2:21-22

So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slpet; then he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.

[b]Notice this contradicts the first account, in which God created all of humankind, male and female, in God's image *after* all plants and animals.

Could you please give an example of such areas.(and btw I too am a scientist.)

Science cannot, for instance, speak to whether or not an omnipotent God exists (as such would be, by definition, outside the realm of science). Science also cannot cover purely moral issues .

That's interesting, since my Bible says "had formed" instead of "formed." Are you quoting from KJV?

Well. What if the question "why?" does not have an answer. To me it at least makes a perfect sense that we can be here by change. So "why?" is basically irrelevant question before some very very hard evidence can point us to asking it (we will never get any evidence I think). It is of course disturbing for some people to think that their existence has no ultimate purpose but it is one very likely option.
Yes, but that's my point. It's natural for us to look for an answer, and science can only answer how and not why. It may be, as you say, that there is no why, but it doesn't tell us that either. It's difficult for us to accept that that is a possibility (and before you say, this is a natural reaction too).

Yes, but that's my point. It's natural for us to look for an answer, and science can only answer how and not why. It may be, as you say, that there is no why, but it doesn't tell us that either. It's difficult for us to accept that that is a possibility (and before you say, this is a natural reaction too).

True. For some, it may be natural but I have tried logical thinking so long that for me it is one and only sensible option for logically, emotions aside humans are nothing more than complex atomic constructions. Totally possible if not too propable to exist without any Creator.


Science cannot, for instance, speak to whether or not an omnipotent God exists (as such would be, by definition, outside the realm of science). Science also cannot cover purely moral issues .

Omnipotency can be proven nonexistant. With logic. At least literal omnipotency. You know the old "Can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?".

Hmm. When thinking there sure is at least one thing what (current) science cannot explain. What happened when Universe was younger than Planck´s time is a mystery at least currently (I may be talking with old knowledge if someone has already made a theory on this.Hardly though)

That's interesting, since my Bible says "had formed" instead of "formed." Are you quoting from KJV?

No, the KJV is the worst version of scripture on the planet.

And does your Bible also say "even though the plants weren't there they had already been formed"?

First of all, something I meant to say earlier is that the idea that Adam is made before Eve is silly. Parthenogenesis completely disproves that idea.

I have no problems with Christianity per se, but by this line of logic, doesn't that mean that Carrol's Through the Looking Glass is proof of Wonderland?
Well, Through the Looking Glass shows the world through the looking glass. Alice's Adventures in Wonderland show Wonderland, to be precise.

I do buy micro-evolution, adapation within the already present genes within a species, but not the generation of new species, new genes etc.
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You obviously don't understand evolution in the least.

Christianity? That's just one big pyramid scheme run by the pope. And it's all lies anyways.

know the old "Can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it?".


That argument seems to me to be bunk. I'm very much an atheist, but I'm fairly convinced that that logic is wrong.

Can God create an octagon with only six sides? Can God create a square circle? No, because such a thing contradicts its definition. If its square, its not a circle, and if it's a circle its not a square. If it's an octagon then it has eight sides, if it has six sides then its a hexagon. But does the fact that "God cannot create a square circle" prove that he's not omnipotent? I wouldn't think so.

"a rock so heavy God cannot lift it" is about the same thing as "a square circle" or "an octagon with six sides."

That argument seems to me to be bunk. I'm very much an atheist, but I'm fairly convinced that that logic is wrong.

Can God create an octagon with only six sides? Can God create a square circle? No, because such a thing contradicts its definition. If its square, its not a circle, and if it's a circle its not a square. If it's an octagon then it has eight sides, if it has six sides then its a hexagon. But does the fact that "God cannot create a square circle" prove that he's not omnipotent? I wouldn't think so.

"a rock so heavy God cannot lift it" is about the same thing as "a square circle" or "an octagon with six sides."

I just used this to kill the literal omnipotency. I know it is flawed and old.
There is though one thing I would point out. If He creates a stone He cannot lift its still a stone not for example lava or tree. So its nature does not change away from stone like in octagon/hexagon situation where the question in itself is even more impossible than in stone thing.

"A clenched fist holds nothing, an open palm encompasses all things."

God cannot create a rock he can't lift, because He could lift any rock regardless of weight or mass or size. God is all things.

I maintain that there is no essential conflict between the basic tenets of Chrisitanity and the teachings of evolution.

Care to prove me wrong? :)


I am more interested in the arrogance of Christianity to portray its creation mythology as above all other religions and in the same league of study as to be compared to evolution theory.

I am more interested in the arrogance of Christianity to portray its creation mythology as above all other religions and in the same league of study as to be compared to evolution theory.
Hey, Dude ... you're always free to create another thread! :)

We came from dust guys! Dust! Insignificant particles so small you cant see them! Unintellegent and invisible and became man!

Oh, wait, that sounds like evolving from mini plant life.

I think Etrusica had this topic wrapped up four posts in but everyone just ingored them.

Admitantly the order may be wrong, but it was laid out to ignorant people thousands of years ago. Give the prophet a break here!

I think Etrusica had this topic wrapped up four posts in but everyone just ingored them.
[ back of hand to forehead ] Yes! It's my fate to be either unheard or misunderstood. Perhaps I should have entered a convent ... um ... no, wait! :D

Nope, I believe that Christianity and Evolution have absolutely no contradiction.

Reasons:
* The Big Bang/Evolution order is the same as the order in Genesis
* The Hebrew word for 'days' is the same as the Hebrew word for 'ages'

I totally agree with that. I would also like to add that the Roman Catholic church teaches that there are differences between religious truth(the principles of our faith) and scientific truth. My beef is with those born-again fundamentalists who blindly refuse to recognize any viewpoints but their own narrow and corrupt beliefs. God! :headbang: