Evolution contradicts the creation account of Genesis so doesn't that shows that the God of the bible couldn't have been the creator since his creation account does not match with reality? With how evolution has been proven the account in Genesis of the creation and fall of man is suspect and with it so is the whole act of redemption by Christ.
shareNo it doesn't, in fact it actually supports divine creation, which is still going on today.
shareHow does it supports divine creation? Evolution is a very long, dumb and wasteful process. Hardly the method an all powerful and knowing being would use to create.
shareTime works differently on our plane of existence, vs. God's. A few days in His time could be thousands, or millions of years in our reality. Also, if you read into the fossil record, interesting patterns emerge. A lot of nature's construction on this planet seems to point towards Intelligent Design, if you know what to look for.
shareIntelligent Design is contrary to evolution it is basically a god of the gaps argument that pits science vs religion. Everything in nature can be explained via evolution with no need to appeal to God as an explanation. That's another reason to think evolution shows Christianity false.
shareOn the contrary, who do you think guided evolution along the path it has followed? Random chance? I think not. And please keep in mind, there's a reason God didn't mention the details of evolution to the people who wrote His Word. You ever tried explaining evolution to primitive shepherds and desert warriors that lived thousands of years ago? It wouldn't work out too well.
shareWe can teach evolution to 8 year olds without problems. God could have easily put in the basic details of it in Genesis without making it a scientific paper. Evolution shows no evidence of it being guided by any intelligence let alone an all knowing God.
shareJust because you can't see something happening, doesn't mean it isn't there. Do you disbelieve in gravity or dark matter, just because you can't see it? Do you disbelieve in the human soul, just because you can't see it?
And we can explain God and the Bible to 8-year-olds just as easily. Even 5-year-olds understand it better than some adults.
"Just because you can't see something happening, doesn't mean it isn't there."
Thats not how the burden of proof works. You can make all sorts of fantastical claims and use the same argument.
You need to have actual facts and evidence...proof.
And the same applies to your assertion earlier that God works on a different timeframe to us. You have to tell us how that works, and more importantly you need to show proof of it.
Otherwise all of this boils down to the same thing...like many people who make such claims you have either read this stuff in a book, been taught it from an early age or seen it on the Internet and decided to believe it.
"You need to have actual facts and evidence...proof."
The facts and proof of evolution are contradictory starting at the creation of the physical elements (atomic structure of helium and hydrogen; the protons and electron charges should not have been able to get into the atomic orbit of the nucleus due to the strength of cosmic rays slamming into the nucleus which would be greater than the rapid dissipating strength of electromagnetism.) then if you follow along to the formation of the complex protein coding of amino acids (and then DNA/RNA) somehow escaping the extremely high likelihood of dissolution (chances of the coding dissolving into nothing increases the longer time goes on with out outside interference giving it direction). The protein coding of amino acids is more complex than even the largest programs run by modern high end computers.
In short the facts and evidence of evolution paint a pretty clear picture of what happened but by the same evidence it demonstrates that it SHOULD NOT have been possible.
Now that does not prove intelligent design; and personally I do not believe in a "god" of any kind; but I find the effort to simply write off the possibility intelligence design as a complete nonstarter is based in share ignorance (ignorance equal to that of fundamental Christians). Atheist have a bad habit of thinking they are smart by default just because they don't believe in a god; and yet have done frightful little reading of actual scientific text books and rely only on pop-science books of people like Hawking, Dawkins, Kraus, Sagan and Tyson; instead of text books by scientist like Hoyle, Burdidge, Lewontin, Ohno, and literally dozens if not hundreds of others that write out the actual science and studies. If you read both you find that the pop-science books might be more 'fun' to read but paint a very different picture than the hard science. The pop science books are all about the authors' interpretation of the facts and personal beliefs.
The facts and proof of evolution are contradictory starting at the creation of the physical elements... rapid dissipating strength of electromagnetism.)
you follow along to the formation of the complex protein coding of amino acids (and then DNA/RNA) somehow escaping the extremely high likelihood of dissolution...
the facts and evidence of evolution paint a pretty clear picture of what happened but by the same evidence it demonstrates that it SHOULD NOT have been possible.
to simply write off the possibility intelligence design as a complete nonstarter is based in share ignorance
Atheist have a bad habit of thinking they are smart by default
very different picture than the hard science.'hard science' does not support intelligent design/creationism either. I have yet to see a reputable (i.e. properly peer-reviewed) paper suggesting God did anything. In fact it is the pseudo science writers, the religious apologists, who claim God must be a Cause. share
But just because you can't prove something to be not true doesn't mean there's a logical reason to think it is true. Burden of proof is on creationists/theists to prove their God.
There is evidence to confirm gravity, bad example.
As for a human soul I have yet to see any evidence of a soul, could you please explain? Could you also please provide evidence of a God? (FYI nature is just evidence of nature, it's an assumption to say a God did it)
No the laws of nature guided evolution, the environment changes and when the environment changes different traits are now favorable and the ones with unfavorable traits die off and that narrows the gene pool. How would anyone guide evolution? How does that work?
shareYou see that's your problem "If you know what to look for", you started with the conclusion that intelligent design was true and now you're just cherrypicking the data and spinning it whatever direction you have to to justify intelligent design. You could use that logic to reach any conclusion you wanted. The fossil record supports billions of years of life slowly evolving, I see nothing that supports intelligent design. If life were designed intelligently then why is it like 99% of all things that have ever lived are extinct? Were they intelligently designed? If so why are they extinct?
shareWhy not say religion rather than just single out Christianity? 🐔
The thing is no one needs to prove Christianity to be false, it is the burden of proof of Christians to prove their God and since they haven't it is logical to not accept theistic claims. Evolution however is a scientific theory and has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, we have observed evolution and the evidence is overwhelming. I've heard this argument from creationists alot that the amount of "information" in a strand of DNA is too complex to have formed naturally. Well first of all how do you quantify "genetic information" if you can't quantify genetic information and convert it to information stored on a hard drive (which is what they compare it to) then that analogy is fallacious. Secondly they are making probabilities after the fact, looking at a DNA strand and saying that there's only a "1 in so in so billion chances of this forming" is fallacious because they have not clarified why that outcome is significant and they are making a prediction after the fact, that's like me choosing a lottery number after the winners have been called, then saying there's only a "1 in so and so billion chances of this being the number" and then attempting to claim the jackpot. Even so, even if they were completely correct that DNA strands couldn't have formed the way scientists are proposing all that does is disprove that model, it doesn't add one ounce of credibility to intelligent design (whatever that is) Creationist also don't seem to understand the difference between evolution and abiogenesis, evolution says that life changes, that is proven beyond all reasonable doubt, it says nothing about how life began, abiogenesis however has been proven to be a possibility (unlike creationism) however scientists at this point are not asserting abiogenesis is true to the same level evolution and gravity are. Creation on the other hand doesn't even deserve to be considered, it is a completely random guess at best and there is nothing to justify it other than people just wanting it to be the answer (not a scientific way of thinking). The truth is if creation gets to be seriously considered then any random assertion I can pull out of my butt deserves to be considered such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Some theists have this strange idea that if you can disprove evolution you have proven creationism and that's not true. If you disprove evolution all you've done is disproven evolution, you still have not made one nanometer of progress in proving creation. The truth is evolution isn't going away any time soon, the evidence behind it is overwhelming and the only people who don't accept it are people who don't want it to be true which is the complete opposite of how science works. In science the evidence leads to the conclusion, creationists start with the conclusion and then work backwards.
"Evolution however is a scientific theory and has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt"
Umm... a scientific THEORY is one that hasn't been proven. If it has been proven, it becomes a law, much like the laws of gravity and thermodynamics. A theory is just that; a theory. They taught us this in fifth grade. A theory "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" is no longer a theory.
Uh no not at all, a law is not the next step above a theory. Both laws and theories have been proven beyond reasonable doubts, theories explain why things happen, laws are rules of nature usually represented by a mathematical formula. You might want to go back to 3rd grade science. Theories are as close to fact as it gets
shareUmm... a scientific THEORY is one that hasn't been proven. If it has been proven, it becomes a law, much like the laws of gravity and thermodynamics. A theory is just that; a theory. They taught us this in fifth grade. A theory "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" is no longer a theory.
Speaking of the account of Genesis we are somehow supposed to believe that plants existed before the sun and stars which is ludicrous. I've also asked creationists constantly how a God makes a universe out of nothing and all I've gotten are excuses and special pleading such as "how can you possibly begin to understand the abilities of an all powerful, omnipotent being" or "do you really think that would be a problem for an all powerful God"? Yet they've not proven their God so therefore that kind of logic isn't valid.
shareNo. It hasn't. Not even close. Way the fuck off, actually.
shareIf Evolution is true (and it is) then Christianity is a lie. No two ways about it.
shareWell evolution is true. I love it when theists will say things like "well of course microevolution is true, but macroevolution is impossible". Ummmmm they are the SAME DAMN THING. The only difference is TIME.
shareExactly.
shareEvolution has as much evidence and testing behind it as Gravity does, yet theists have no problem accepting gravity but has big problems with evolution because it just happens to contradict the conclusion they decided they wanted to be true on a long time ago.
shareYep, evolution undercuts the very foundation of Christianity. If Adam/Eve are not real (and they aren't per Evolution) then there is no fall and if there is no fall then there si no need for Jesus to redeem up.
shareEvolution, among other pieces of uncovered knowledge has, yes. This universe is "governed" by natural law.
shareThe bottom line, no matter what anyone says is no one, let me say that again, NO ONE can say, prove, etc., etc., etc., with absolute certainty, that there is or isn't a God. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar.
I have faith that there is. Others have faith that there isn't.
[deleted]
.
Thanks for your contribution...
.
let me say that again, NO ONE can say, prove, etc., etc., etc., with absolute certainty, that there is or isn't a God. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar.
I have faith that there is
"Evolution contradicts the creation account of Genesis . . . "
I'd say Genesis contradicts the creation account of Genesis.
Between the story of creation in 6 days is in chapter 1, and the story of Adam and Eve in chapter 2, there are huge differences:
In Genesis 1 plants are created before humans, but in Genesis 2 Adam and Eve are created before any vegetation.
In Genesis 1 the animals are created before humans; in Genesis 2 they are created to provide Adam with some companions.
In Genesis 1 male and female are created simultaneously, in Genesis 2 Eve is created only after the animals as someone more suitable to Adam's tastes.
Evolution is science, a fact that the theory of evolution attempts to explain. Christianity is a religion, based on faith. So no, evolution doesn't disprove (or prove) Christianity. It attempts to explain an observed phenomena. That's what science does.