Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Crous

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

Recommended Posts

Dan acknowledged at the beginning of the thread that evolution doesn't disprove God, but makes it easier to be an atheist. I think the issue now is that he says that evolution trounces on the literal interpretation of Genesis, that is what he and I are currently debating about. I do see that as on topic because of a literal interpretation of Genesis is incorrect, then I consider Christianity to be destroyed. That is why I believe that he and I's discussion is relevant. I do at least want the claim that evolution trounces on the first chapter of Genesis addressed though.

 

If I'm outnumbered here, I'll give him the last word and let the thread carry on. I do not believe that we did anything wrong though as every thread in this forum inevitably take a course such as this once the original question has been addressed. Let me know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dan acknowledged at the beginning of the thread that evolution doesn't disprove God, but makes it easier to be an atheist. I think the issue now is that he says that evolution trounces on the literal interpretation of Genesis, that is what he and I are currently debating about.

So far this is also relevant and even agreed on.

I do see that as on topic because of a literal interpretation of Genesis is incorrect, then I consider Christianity to be destroyed. That is why I believe that he and I's discussion is relevant. I do at least want the claim that evolution trounces on the first chapter of Genesis addressed though.

 

The problem is that one can loose onself into details there! And I think there are other discussions that focus on those details.

 

If I'm outnumbered here, I'll give him the last word and let the thread carry on. I do not believe that we did anything wrong though as every thread in this forum inevitably take a course such as this once the original question has been addressed. Let me know.

70937[/snapback]

You could also do an excourse on the details and come back with the results later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see why you went on this route. And I do understand your frustration.

My original question was.

“How does evolution prove there is no God of the bible?â€ÂÂ

I also made it clear that in this OP I’m not interested in why an atheist does not believe in God.

What I challenging is atheist like Richard Dawkins who use evolution as a tool against the existents of God.

In Post #35 I point out the two effects that evolution have on the existent of God. You will find that Dan has not responded on this. Atheist like Dan will argue the literal historical account of Genesis vs. Evolution. But I did give an alternative (a non literal genesis). They also argue design vs evolution. Then I give another alternative.

I think most atheist don’t believe in God because of evolution. They do not what to believe in God and use evolution as an excuse.

By arguing DNA you are defending the design argument. Focus has shifted. From “evolution prove there is no God†to “is there a designâ€ÂÂ.

 

Here is my challenge.  Lets from here on consider evolution as an empirical proven fact. Atheists like Dan do not need to defend evolution anymore. All they have to do is to defend the notion that evolution prove there is no God.

70930[/snapback]

Ok. Fine. I will break off the discussion about whether evolution is true or not and focus on its effect on the bible.

 

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.

 

There is nothing to indicate in the bible that genesis is non-litteral and that is how Christians interpreted it for several millenia. In fact geneologies later in the bible go all the way from Adam. Apparently the bible thinks that Adam and Eve existed. Much of the doctrine in the bible is based on the events in the Garden of Even.

 

So, if the genesis account is falsified, then this is a demonstration of the poor track record of a litterally interpreted bible. For all you know, the flood is non-litteral, the 10 plagues of Egypt is non-litteral, the story of Job is non-litteral, heck, maybe the life of Jesus is non-litteral. Saying genesis is non-litteral is a Christian's way of saying that its claims are wrong but they still want to be Christians.

 

Evolution IS the strongest reason many atheists don't believe in God and that includes me because it destroys the strongest argument in favor of God's existence, however, it does not disprove God. It simply gives us far less reason to believe in one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dan acknowledged at the beginning of the thread that evolution doesn't disprove God, but makes it easier to be an atheist. I think the issue now is that he says that evolution trounces on the literal interpretation of Genesis, that is what he and I are currently debating about. I do see that as on topic because of a literal interpretation of Genesis is incorrect, then I consider Christianity to be destroyed. That is why I believe that he and I's discussion is relevant. I do at least want the claim that evolution trounces on the first chapter of Genesis addressed though.

 

If I'm outnumbered here, I'll give him the last word and let the thread carry on. I do not believe that we did anything wrong though as every thread in this forum inevitably take a course such as this once the original question has been addressed. Let me know.

70937[/snapback]

There are several verses later in the bible that take genesis literally.

 

1 Timothy 2:13 -- For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

 

1 Corinthians 15:47 -- The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven.

 

Acts 17:24 -- "God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands.

 

mark 10

 

4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.â€ÂÂ

5 “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,†Jesus replied. 6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’[a] 7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh.’[c] So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.â€ÂÂ

 

Isaiah 45:12 -- I have made the earth, And created man on it. I; My hands; stretched out the heavens, And all their host I have commanded.

 

It is hard to take genesis non-litterally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The theory of evolution shows that complexity and information can build up to great heights without a designer doing it. 

70945[/snapback]

May I ask how evolution shows that complexity and especially information can come about without a designer?

 

There is something called the Laws of information (theory?) and it goes against any sort of information coming about randomly without any "sender".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May I ask how evolution shows that complexity and especially information can come about without a designer?

 

There is something called the Laws of information (theory?) and it goes against any sort of information coming about randomly without any "sender".

70947[/snapback]

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

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, since the OP(Not blaming him, it's his thread.) doesn't like the direction of the discussion we have to focus more of the validity of God and the literal interpretation of Genesis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are several verses later in the bible that take genesis literally. 

 

1 Timothy 2:13 -- For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

 

1 Corinthians 15:47 -- The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven.

 

Acts 17:24 -- "God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands.

 

mark 10

 

4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.”

5 “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied. 6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’[a] 7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh.’[c] So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

 

Isaiah 45:12 -- I have made the earth, And created man on it. I; My hands; stretched out the heavens, And all their host I have commanded.

 

It is hard to take genesis non-litterally.

70946[/snapback]

You are right, it is hard(It actually should be impossible.) to take Genesis in a non literal sense, but evolution does nothing to dismiss a literal interpretation of Genesis. I accept the literal interpretation of Genesis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, evolution CAN be true with abiogenesis being complete bogus, therefore proving the Theory of Evolution does not require abiogenesis being proven. 

 

I really only have a general knowledge of the main hypotheses of abiogenesis and know that there is a little evidence to support then but they are nowhere near being solid explanations.  This is why they are only hypotheses.

Saying that evolution does not need abiogenesis is like saying creation does not need a Creator.

 

Example: Creation just happens, no Creator needed.

 

I am very skeptical of them and will not say that I believe them, but I will not say that I disbelieve them either.  I suspect that life began naturally and not through design but this idea is not scientific, only philosophical, and I will hold myself back from making any assumptions about the origin of life. 

The reason science is moving away from abiogenesis is because they cannot move any further with it. The new idea which puts origins of life out of reach to where no one can challenge it is the idea of Panspermia. Which is basically that our seed for life was planted here by an outside source.

 

According to the theory of evolution, every species is related and has a last common ancestor with any other given species.  It follows that there is a very strong correlation between the genetic and morphological differences between any two species and the time in the past at which these species diverged.  It is a reasonable conclusion that the humans are most related to apes and diverged from them long ago. 

What all life has in common is RNA and DNA. You guys figure out for certain where that came from and you will have an answer. Abiogenesis failed at doing that. Also, common ancestor exists because all life has a common template (RNA DNA). Not because of evolution.

 

The problem is that humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while apes have 24 pairs.  The most likely thesis is that the last common ancestor had 24 pairs like the apes and the ancestors of humans eventually diverged with only 23 pairs.  The best way this could happen would be a chomosome fusion.  If this was true, then one pair of human chromosomes should almost perfectly resemble two pairs of fused ape chromosomes.  Chromosomes have structures called telomeres on their ends and if two ape pairs fused, the resulting pair should have telomeres in the center as well as on the ends.

And what is the process of Chromosome fusion, and why would it need to happen? The immune system will react to even the smallest change. Just ask anyone who has had a organ transplant. So how much does fusion of a Chromosome change the DNA structure? Plus, there are over 3 million differences in base pairs in just .1% change. Do you think you would survive a 3 million change all at once? So what this shows is that there would have to be 1/2 a million missing links in order for change to work without activating the immune system. Are we anywhere near finding that many missing links? Nope.

 

This is exactly what we find in human chromosome #2 and this almost perfectly resembles the appearance of chimpanzee chromosomes 2a and 2b stacked right on top of each other.  We even know the exact point of fusion.  This is a powerful example of the sheer predictive power of the theory of evolution. 

How do living fossils contradict evolution?

And the reason we are related is because of the common template (RNA DNA) not evolution.

 

Living fossils disprove that it is a record of time for living and extinct animals. One example of many is the Coelacanth fish. It is found about halfway down the column, but in no layer above that proving that it existed until present times. In fact every living fossil found has this problem. No living fossil has been found above it's original layer. So for a fossil record to be accurate for being evidence for evolution, these living fossils have to be found in other layers showing they survived and did not change.

 

Another example of a living fossil disproving the fossil record supporting evolution is the sea pen. The sea pen fossil can be found in the very bottom lay of the column, yet in no layer above that proving it survived until present time.

 

Also, if the fossil record supports evolution, there should not be any complexity in the lowest layer. Yet the trilobite has fully formed organs.

 

Posted ImagePosted Image

 

And so does the nautilus which is also found in the lowest layer and is a living fossil.

 

Posted Image

 

Being found in the lowest layer means there is no evolution tree going to these sea creatures. So the question of how they evolved complex, can never be answered. But if you use deductive logic, creation is the only answer. How?

 

The flood would not be sorting according to complexity. And since complexity in the lowest layer is unexplainable, it fits. Also the Bible says the fountains of the deep broke up. Which means the burying started with bottom dwellers and worked it's way up. And that's exactly how the column works. Which also means the land animals were last, and that's what we see.

 

The flood also would not sort by how a living thing survived (it's time-line). Living fossils prove this by not being found in any other layer (time-line broken) than what it was buried in. Showing by column record standards that it should not be alive today.

 

If macroevolution has mountains of evidence, then it is very very likely that creationism is wrong.  But anyway, I am very interested to hear about what evidence there is for creation.

Evidence? How about an observable process? Evidence minus an observable process is only an educated guess. So what is your empirical evidence for macroevolution? And is there mountains of this empirical evidence?

 

Actually no.  When DNA was discovered we at last had a rigorous scientific explanation for how evolution happens on the genetic level with knowledge of different kinds of mutations, and natural selection picking the good ones.

You already know my position on abiogenesis.  I believe in the big bang because the evidence supports it but that is not what this debate is about.

Genetic information can also come from mutations.  If we are assuming that creating more genetic code means an increase in information.

Well, I would bring out some bible contraditions but I would be going way off topic.

70866[/snapback]

Conformism. Like I said and will repeat, what makes "all" life related is the common template (RNA DNA). Want to impress me with evolution? Evolve a whole new and better template for life.

 

And about the Bible contradictions. Start another thread and bring your copy and paste ideas and post them. I love a good challenge. That is if you have new ones, if not I will just shoot them out of the air. I can almost bet they are old ones that have been around for 50 years or more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I am not saying that.  All I am saying is that you need life to begin with in order to have evolution.

Hence the need for abiogenesis or panspermia. Neither are anywhere near becoming a viable scientific theory.

 

If evolution is true, then humans evolved from earlier forms and has a common ancestor with every species we see today.  Evolution also tells us that there is a correlation between the genetic and morphological simmilarities between any two given species and the distance in time at which the ancestor of these two species diverged from a last common ancestor. 

 

Because we all have something in common, RNA and DNA. Does not prove evolution. And observable empirical process for macroevolution would prove it.

 

Since humans are the most related to apes, it makes sense that it is most likely that apes are the most closely related to humans above of all other animals.  If this is true, we should find transitional fossils which will probably have ape-like features and human-like features.  Indeed we find this in a species called homo erectus which is older than humans and lived right before we start seeing humans.

Changes conflict with our immune system, can you tell us how these changes happened without activating our immune system to work against us? How sensitive is our immune system? Do you know what causes arthritis? It's where the immune system thinks the cartilage in your joints is foreign material, so it attacks. Nothing has changed to make it do so, but it does because it's so sensitive to change.

 

So in .1% change which equals 3 million differences in our base pairs compared to apes or chimps. How did that change take place without activating the immune system? In fact if evolution is true and proven as most evolutionists will claim, you should be able to tell us just how much of a change the immune system will take during evolution before it will activate? But you cannot because the immune system totally debunks evolution because it does not allow change on the scale that evolutionists claim that it has happened.

 

If not then an explanation about the immune system and evolution would be addressed instead of ignored. So let's make a list of what should have been addressed but never has and never will.

 

1) A tolerance test to see how much change the immune system will take before it attacks.

2) A record kept of how each life form's immune system works regarding change.

3) A record made so that it can be estimated just how many missing links there should be between each species of life forms so that we will know when we are close to finding all that we need to know concerning each species.

 

The truth be told, most animals have a much stronger immune system than we humans do. What this means if that their immune system is more sensitive, and will react more violently to change. Attacking and killing any foreign material it finds.

 

Any cell that forms to create a new organ, or system, would be considered foreign material.

 

Trees can be burried where they are in volcanic blasts and also be slowly buried in swamps.  The fact that the earth is billions of years old is cross verified by several dating techniques.

Mutations and natural selection.

70851[/snapback]

And God can create live matter (Adam and Eve) with age, which means He can also create dead matter the same way. If age dating were 100% true, all matter would date the same because according to Big Bang it all came from the same source, right?

 

Creating with age fits, and I'd like you to show me how it does not if you disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

70950[/snapback]

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

70971[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

70979[/snapback]

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.

70979[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.â€ÂÂ

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms