Evolution vs the Bible

I'm guessing you haven't really looked at the bible, so I'm gonna just go ahead and point out some flaws with your statements. First off, Jesus didn't die in 15 BC (BC means Before Christ, so it is a tad bit diffcult for him to die before he's born). Second, the New Testament was written after Jesus. The Old Testament (Which contains Genesis and all those fun stories) was written before Jesus. That's why the Torah (Jewish bible, basically) contains only the Old Testament while Christian bibles contain both the Old and New. Third, Adam and Eve being the first people means that they were not necessarily Homo sapiens. Who's to say they weren't the first species of human? Oh, and as a little side note I believe there is evidence that Neaderthals were alive during some of Homo sapien history.

I'm just gonna sum up my whole comment on your post with a question. Have you ever once considered to not take the bible literally, and instead take it symbolically? The 500 years thing could just be symbolic of living for what was considered a long time back then. Oh, and the Moses parting the Red Sea part, he did so with the help of God. In the bible (Or at least Christian religion), God is all powerful. Parting the Red Sea is nothing compared to God's power.

 

The whole BC/AD thing is truly an argument since many scholars believe different things from it:

-BC means "Before Christ" and AD means "After Death".
-Many philosophers forgot the date of the birth of Christ, so they estimated the date via accounts. They originally settled with the common "2010 years ago" theory, but now research and scriptures found in various places have reported that Christ may have been born EARLIER than initially claimed. (In my post, I meant to put that the common theory is that Jesus died in 15 AD, not BC. Sorry about that.)
-Jesus' birth cannot be truly estimated, so they just started AD either after he died or after he was born.

Also, before you Wikipedia me, yes, I have found this statement on there:

Sorry, but that seems kind of biased considering that nobody really knows when he did die or born, but we get some proof and evidence that claims that he probably did die earlier than originally that.

 

But for all we know the bible could just be a freaking novle. Like in today we can write books that seem so real it's not even funny and come to find out its just stright from someones imagination. So personaly believe why should you believe in a novel and say it's true when for all we know it's not.

 

AD does not mean After Death, it means Ammo(amno?) Domini. It means, "In the year of our lord".

The bible is, supposedly, an infallible body of knowledge. Therefore, by logic, not only should it be symbolically correct but literally correct. Now, there are many instances where it contradicts itself, and if you would like, I will provide proper proof.

 

I was just about to say that. Although I think it is Amino or something. Too lazy to look it up.

The problem with taking the bible literally is that is screws up time. Some religions (Jehova's Witnesses come to mind) take it literal to the extent that they believe that the Earth is less than 6000 years or so. Everybody knows that isn't true though (Although I'm certain we could get into some debate in an attempt to prove it, but why bother?). The bible makes more sense if you space it out, making the 6000 years grow into a lot longer of time. I haven't actually read the bible in (Either quite a long time or ever), so I can't say I know that much about it. Just the basics (Adam and Eve, Moses, Noah, a little bit of Jesus).

 

And now, a quote:

 

Like I said, I haven't read any part of the bible in such a long time. So I'm being completely serious when I ask this. Does the bible give a day-to-day explanation from Adam and Eve to Jesus?

 

I believe the Bible's accounts aren't to be taken literally, but as a message-behind-the-message. In other words, the messages were symbols for ancient concepts that were believed in the days the various books of the Bible were written in.

As for evolution vs. the Bible (or creation, which makes more sense), the argument is really unnecessary. Any science student who has even the most minuscule spectrum of knowledge can tell you it would not make sense for matter to have evolved the way it has under a 10,000 year period. Even observing basic physics, this is obvious.

I would say the idea that evolution is wrong is also a nonsensical notion. The idea that all things over time, when uninhibited, go through change... is at least reasonable. There is nothing outlandish to me on the thought that matter and hence all of reality is an emergent process. If matter has evolved over time on Earth to create all kinds of matter with different properties (such as the Periodic Table), it would be silly to think it wasn't an emergent process as opposed to a static one. Why would matter have been created all in one sitting by a creator? The idea that a creator invented evolution in its manifested form in our universe is perfectly acceptable, even. But maybe that's just the way I view it, being too involved with philosophy. lol

 

Evolution may be a theory, but it has reasonably been "as good as" proven. In the same way gravity is just a theory, it may be revised, wrinkles worked out and such - but the general premise is sound. To refute it without at least some kind of empirical evidence sounds a tad ridiculous. Added to which, the Old Testament has suffered so many alterations, not to mention poor translations, I don't see how (even on such a simplistic level) it can be reasonably defended as a veritable secondary source.
A far more reasonable suggestion, if you are to maintain a religious viewpoint is that God created the biosphere with the capacity to evolve, that of course begging the question why? That though, is an entirely different issue.

 

That reminds me of something else--something we should all keep in mind with this type of debate.

The premise that evolution and creation should (or will naturally) contend is not just some accident. The two take extremely black and white approaches comparatively.

Creation is based on a static understanding of reality. One that already has the answers, a reality that does not change significantly through whatever course to be brought ahead. It relies on its information being almost entirely empirical as opposed to emergent.

Evolution however, is quite arguably the exact opposite by these definitions. It does not see reality and hence creatures as static creations; but rather, they change gradually over time. In other words, we and hence everything else are emergent and will go through significant change over a long period of time.

I think these are fairly accurate, overall definitions of the ideologies we're dealing with. And I cannot imagine a world where everything simply stays the same forever, therefore evolution might as well be correct on its very basis/premise. I think that simply because our knowledge can evolve over time (through discovery, realization and the like), proves that we cannot be static creatures. We are essentially ever-changing from my point of view. Which is just further reason as to why I cannot go by the idea of I.D.

 

Good, although Creationism couldn't truly be considered empirical, otherwise it would have a foundation as a valid scientific theorem. If the 'knowledge' of creationism could be considered either type it would have to be a priori rationalistic - People just instinctively feel they 'know' this, or can work it out through some (rather fallacious) logic.
All empirical evidence however, points to evolution. In fact I'd say the theory of evolution is empirically and rationally sound.
Still, this debate will be pretty boring if we're all on the same side, so I guess I'll switch.

The emergent changes of 'evolution' only appear generation after generation - who's to say god isn't simply creating new species with time and this isn't a game of genetic trial and error at all? Because it is biologically impossible for evolution to occur across one generation evolution could simply just be constant creationism. Discounting something simply because you cannot explain or understand it is a logical fallacy - The Argument from personal incredulity.
Cognitive reasoning and more importantly long term memory is a primary characteristic of our species - If we are to follow creationism this is from God (for instance we were genetically made such). Because we can 'know' (epistemology being a branch of metaphysics ) different things over time, it doesn't follow that we must biologically (note: physically) evolve. Fallacy of the non sequitur.

 

I actually would argue that creationism and modern science have very empirical approaches today. Only because science seeks answers to be relied on strictly on a consistent basis. The only difference is it recognizes change in the sense of things like how on other planets the equations of physics change because gravity and polarity are different. This is just an example, however.

Creationism is much the same but it does not recognize a change of information outside of a book. If we were to go to another planet, God and absolute creation would still exist, and there would be nothing anyone can say to change someone's mind on the subject if they held the belief.

However this takes us back to issues such as, "how do we know God played a role in this?" It becomes a hypothetical battle if we view God as a creator of evolution. Extraneous, even.

What do you mean "constant creationism"? It sounds like the "whole of evolution" lumped into one total category of never ending creation. Perhaps its just a different usage of the words and I'm missing it.

But yes, it makes sense.

I'm noting a parallel in the nature of our intellectual abilities and physical reality, such that because a species--or more broadly, organisms in general--can change biologically over time, it would only make sense for our capacities intellectually to maintain the same level of dynamics. After all, our primary characteristics as a species are dictated by our biological structures. I.e., the brain.

I can see why you would think it's an odd idea; I don't exactly know how to put it in words. It's just something that falls into alignment with my overall ideology/philosophy. I'm a huge fan of evolution and change.

In no way did I try and say that because we can "think" and "learn" that it should be grounds for us to evolve on that very foundation. I apologize for the confusion. =)

 

Creationism (Or what I'm assuming Creationism is. I've never really studied it) and Evolution do not need to compete for a simple reason. Evolution does not invalidate Creationism. Go find the Religion debate thread. Opening post, EbAl asks something that I've thought myself. Who's to say that God (Or some higher power) didn't create everything to work the way it does?

From what I've heard of Intelligent Design was that it doesn't argue against Evolution or any science, only that everything needed some help along the way. The example I heard was the eyeball. An eyeball (Hey, I'm watching a commercial about contact lenses as I type this part) is too complex to have naturally evolved to what it is.

Of course the theory of Evolution is empirically and rationally sound. Being a scientific theory, it has to be empirical. Honestly, thinking about it now, the biggest problem that people are having in this debate about Evolution and religion is that there is a big difference. Science is basically a way of explaining natural phenomena, basically the natural world. Religion (Specifically a higher power such as God) works off the supernatural world. Science cannot explain a higher power because science does not work in the supernatural world.

And then that boils down to a 'what is real and how do we know?' debate. Which just so happens to be the way I remember what metaphysics and epistemology are.

But as to why Creationism is not empirical is because of the whole natural/supernatural world I mentioned above.

Honestly, the problem isn't the existance of a god or higher power in itself. The problem is that people question why and want answers. I find life a whole lot easier if I don't bother thinking about it. I think I wanted to say something else, but I can't remember.

Again, for the argument in favor of religion and all that, in no way does Evolution conflict with religion. Creatures change. We see it in bacteria and viruses. But what is wrong with the idea that something else (God, aliens, random explosions and lightning bolts) created everything?

 

I never said creation invalidated evolution. I'm saying the two have a natural conflict of origins. I suppose that's a different argument though.

Is it? How so?

Fair enough.

The "why" question is self-defeating. Just like the infinite regress. But I agree, it is mostly "why" than it is "what."

 

Creation vs Evolution. Which is true and which is false? A question scientists have been arguing for decades, maybe even centuries.

Creation is the theory that we were created by some higher being, and then left to do our own thing.

Evolution says we evolved from lower life forms into the forms we have today.

I have to say I believe in both. We are said to have been created by a higher being and yet we have evidence of our evolution. But what if these are both one and the same? What if our creation wasn't done in seven days, but in seven centuries? That would make more sense I think as evolution can take a long time to happen. What if a higher being were to guide our evolution in the direction he or she choose? That is certainly plausible.

Anyways this is just my opening statement.

 

Sorry 'bout that. I was kinda tying in the recent argument and what others have posted before.

I don't remember the exact explanation. I had heard it around 5 years ago. Basically the eyeball is too complex an organ to have naturally evolved into what it is. Instead, some higher power created the eyeball, basically meaning that some higher power created complex organisims at one point, and then they've evolved since then.

 

Darwin did make a quote appealing to the issue, which is pretty understandable. lol

Specically, he said:

I think when dealing with something that specific, it is perhaps simply out of our understanding at this point. I think when considering the many types of environments on our planet, with the conditions necessary to evolve life, it can potentially fall into place in a way that is understandable. But then we still don't know if it was intentional or not (i.e. a god or other celestial being).

 

I'm all for Intelligent Design/Creationism. And when I say Creationism dont anyone of you lump me in with Christianity. Creationism ISNT BIBLICAL.
We were 'designed". Thats it.There's so much proof of just that much. Whether is was Brohma, Osirus, Ahura-Mazda, Zeuss, Mitras, Allah, or Hashem, something created everything. I believe it was a God that designed this universe. Some think it was the flying spaghetti monster. But to think that nothing created all of this is completely ignorant. Some higher being created us and lower life forms in comparison to us.

 

I say in a way, they're both real. It could be possible for someone to have created life on this planet and then set evolution in motion...