Jump to content


Photo

How Does Evolution Prove There Is No God Of The Bible?


  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

#61 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 16 April 2011 - 08:53 AM

Okay, my hackles were raised at this statement as well, but I knew not to argue it, as Dan is sticking to the OP.

I will respond to your points.  The design argument says that immense complexity cannot happen through non-design.  The theory of evolution demonstrates the immense complexity of life coming through the very simple forces of natural selection and mutations.  The theory of evolution shows that complexity and information can build up to great heights without a designer doing it.

Perhaps a rewording?

The design argument says that immense complexity cannot happen through non-design.  The theory of evolution claims to demonstrate the immense complexity of life coming through the very simple forces of natural selection and mutations.  The theory of evolution implies that complexity and information can build up to great heights without a designer doing it.


This thread seems more about debating the truth of evolution rather than its implications on God and the bible if true.:(

I don't remember being any law of information, and by the way, evolutionists don't say that information is created randomly.  It is created with random muations yes, but organized with natural selection.

View Post

I think you are doing a terrific job of being civil here Dan, and I am pleasantly surprised that you got the random mutations correct. I am usually amazed at how many evolutionists need to read up on evolution and how it works. I am always recommending that they read The 10 Myths of Evolution. At least I can see that you seem not to need that.

Here is another NT reference of the book of Genesis as being literal: Luke 17:26-27

#62 dan4reason

dan4reason

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 97 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 16 April 2011 - 05:19 PM

I would never think that there would be very much debate about the destructiveness of evolution to the bible among creationists. Indeed, the hebrew creation story is one out of many stories and was taken litterally just like every other culture took their creation stories seriously.

#63 dan4reason

dan4reason

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 97 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 16 April 2011 - 11:56 PM

Okay, my hackles were raised at this statement as well, but I knew not to argue it, as Dan is sticking to the OP.
Perhaps a rewording?
I think you are doing a terrific job of being civil here Dan, and I am pleasantly surprised that you got the random mutations correct. I am usually amazed at how many evolutionists need to read up on evolution and how it works. I am always recommending that they read The 10 Myths of Evolution. At least I can see that you seem not to need that.

Here is another NT reference of the book of Genesis as being literal: Luke 17:26-27

View Post


Thanks. This verse is a wonderful example of Jesus himself referring to a global flood not a regional event. I don't believe in a global flood but I think that anyone who takes the bible seriously and litterally, and has studied it thoroughly will realize that the first chapters of genesis are very very serious and litteral.

#64 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,111 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 17 April 2011 - 01:38 AM

I would never think that there would be very much debate about the destructiveness of evolution to the bible among creationists. 

View Post

I think it's save to say that Creationists aren't a homogeneous group that agrees on everything.
If one takes Darwinian Evolution vs. Belief in God that implies different things for different doctrines. While A deist may not have a problem with it as his statement may just entail that god created the universe and perhaps life, someone taking the Genesis account as basically literal would have a problem.
However I think that evolution or a similar account is far more important to atheists as it absolves them from certain very serious questions that let look their proposition rather ridiculous. If life and biological diversity can come into being with out a creative designer, then that's one more issue they've got to deal with.

Indeed, the hebrew creation story is one out of many stories and was taken litterally just like every other culture took their creation stories seriously.

View Post

Those many creation stories can be found all over the world. They may differ in some points, but have remarkably many commonalities. Common to many (not necessarily all) are:
- Divine creation itself
- The creation of the first human beings.
- The serpent
- The tree(s)
- Giants
- The flood
- some element of triunity

Additionally you may find some common prophetic elements attached to that.

A reasonable conclusion from that would be that there is some common source for this based on prior common experience and traditions. Claims are accepted historical based on far less then that.

#65 Crous

Crous

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 90 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • South Africa

Posted 13 June 2011 - 02:39 AM

It seems that evolution on its own cannot prove that there is no God. It also, on its own, cannot prove that there is no design. Evolution can be part of the design. At best it challenges the literal historical understanding of the first part of Genesis. Then what happen? Error in logic occurs. “If Genesis is not literal the rest of the Bible fails.”

So the formula looks like this:
Evolution = Genesis not literal = rest of the Bible fails = Bible not the word of God = no God

So an atheist that considers evolution as a scientific fact cannot consider the Bible the word of God. So the best proof for God (the Bible, His word) will never be considered. This is understandable because according to this atheist the only way to understand Genesis 1 is literal.

If the atheist does not want to believe in God no amount of arguments will ever convince him of a God. And he will consider time and effort spend to really understand God a waste of time and effort.

Then there is the atheist that do not believe in God because the bible is in opposite of evolution science. (The literal understanding of Genesis 1) Consider this that not all Christians read Genesis as the literal historical account. I will not be surprised that only a small percentage of Christians consider Genesis 1 as literal. (This is only based on my personal experience)
It is a wrong to consider the whole Bible false if Genesis 1 is not literal. This only proofs your lack of knowledge of the Bible.

Genesis looks like a factual account when reading with a modern eye. If you compare Genesis 1 writhing style with similar documents of that time, you will realize that it is written as a poem. Poem can be literal in meaning but not necessarily a historical account.
Obviously there is a lot more to say about this. I’m attempting to point out a alternative approach. One that have less to no conflict with science.

#66 Crous

Crous

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 90 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • South Africa

Posted 13 June 2011 - 02:50 AM

Those many creation stories can be found all over the world. They may differ in some points, but have remarkably many commonalities. Common to many (not necessarily all) are:
- Divine creation itself
- The creation of the first human beings.
- The serpent
- The tree(s)
- Giants
- The flood
- some element of triunity

Additionally you may find some common prophetic elements attached to that.

A reasonable conclusion from that would be that there is some common source for this based on prior common experience and traditions. Claims are accepted historical based on far less then that.


This could be the oldest story ever told. God could have instructed the author of genesis to use this well known tail to educate the people of that time.

#67 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 22 August 2011 - 05:47 PM

[quote] name='dan4reason' timestamp='1302649964' post='70818']
It doesn't. The theory of evolution trounces on the design argument which has historically been the strongest argument for God's existence. It also demonstrates that the God of the gaps argument is idiotic because once the complexity of life was a gap for science and was filled by many people with mythology, and as science progressed, even this was shown to have a natural explanation.

The theory of evolution destroyed a litteral interpretation of the bible by showing that even the creation story must be metaphorical to have any truth. What else in the bible is metaphorical? The theory of evolution does not disprove God, but it makes it so much easier to be an atheist.
[/quote]



Dan, can we examine your claim that evolution makes it so much easier to be an atheist?

A. Let's start with the "creation story." Why is there something instead of nothing?

B. As an atheist, do you believe that only matter exists?

TeeJay




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users