How does evolution disprove the existence of God?

It does not. Evolution explains how higher forms of life came to exist, not how life originated. The two are not mutually exclusive.chessmaster1989

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]It does not. Evolution explains how higher forms of life came to exist, not how life originated. The two are not mutually exclusive.dnuggs40

You know, "God" does not have to refer to the Christian God:|

Evolution does contradict creationism, but not the existence of a god/ID.

[QUOTE="dnuggs40"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]It does not. Evolution explains how higher forms of life came to exist, not how life originated. The two are not mutually exclusive.chessmaster1989

You know, "God" does not have to refer to the Christian God:|

Evolution does contradict creationism, but not the existence of a god/ID.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="dnuggs40"] How long was he in there for? That's the key ;) Three days and three nights? He wasn't just swallowed and regurgitated immediately...that's where the story looses any credibility.dnuggs40

One...the story wasn't meant as literal.

Two....if you believe in an all powerful Being then all things are possible anyway. So the argument is pointless.

It sure is meant as literal as it was written that way, show in the bible where it says otherwise. And when Christianity and Judaism told those stories they were the word of god and those events were believed to have transpired. It's only now that people are far less superstitious and science has enlightened humans to show what is (and isn't) possible that religious teachings have changed the stories interpretations to be "metaphors" to match the times and people's understandings.

The stories in the old testament were definitely written literally.

And the argument is kinda pointless, when one side can just defy all logic and replace it with unfounded claims of "well that's not supposed to be literal", or "god made it possible" you can't possibly have a logical debate. If one side at any point can just pick and chose what is supposed to be literal, and waht is not then there is no point. However, stranger_4's argument tried to be grounded in reality and was trying to assert a scientific possibility for those events...obviously this isn't the case.

The stories in the old testament were definely written literally as per you. Not per biblical scholars. May I ask if you get your physics facts from a literature professor?

No...strip the subject down to it's base. It is not logical to do as you did and assume bits and pieces as fact and then try to fit them into human understanding as of today without taking into account that when one deals with a "super being" of any kind that they would be bound by our laws of physics etc. Thus, if one is taking the story as literal...which you are...then one cannot with any certainty say that a chance exists for a super being to be able to create the scenario. You can't cherry pick which part of the story suits an agenda. You have divorce yourself from beliefs and look at what it says.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="dnuggs40"] In genesis it says god created all plants and beast, not god created all microbes and bacteria and evolution took it's course.dnuggs40

You know, "God" does not have to refer to the Christian God:|

Evolution does contradict creationism, but not the existence of a god/ID.

No problem ;).

Also, you're right in that evolution and Genesis don't go well together :P.

[QUOTE="dnuggs40"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

One...the story wasn't meant as literal.

Two....if you believe in an all powerful Being then all things are possible anyway. So the argument is pointless.

LJS9502_basic

It sure is meant as literal as it was written that way, show in the bible where it says otherwise. And when Christianity and Judaism told those stories they were the word of god and those events were believed to have transpired. It's only now that people are far less superstitious and science has enlightened humans to show what is (and isn't) possible that religious teachings have changed the stories interpretations to be "metaphors" to match the times and people's understandings.

The stories in the old testament were definitely written literally.

And the argument is kinda pointless, when one side can just defy all logic and replace it with unfounded claims of "well that's not supposed to be literal", or "god made it possible" you can't possibly have a logical debate. If one side at any point can just pick and chose what is supposed to be literal, and waht is not then there is no point. However, stranger_4's argument tried to be grounded in reality and was trying to assert a scientific possibility for those events...obviously this isn't the case.

The stories in the old testament were definely written literally as per you. Not per biblical scholars. May I ask if you get your physics facts from a literature professor?

No...strip the subject down to it's base. It is not logical to do as you did and assume bits and pieces as fact and then try to fit them into human understanding as of today without taking into account that when one deals with a "super being" of any kind that they would be bound by our laws of physics etc. Thus, if one is taking the story as literal...which you are...then one cannot with any certainty say that a chance exists for a super being to be able to create the scenario. You can't cherry pick which part of the story suits an agenda. You have divorce yourself from beliefs and look at what it says.

I did look at what it says, and it says a man was swallowed by a "big fish" and lived in there for three days. It doesn't say it's an allegory, it doesn't say it simply meant to tell a story, it's written as an event that happened. You are cherry picking by claiming the story is meant to be interpreted like it is written, not me.

At any rate, that's not even the crux of what was being discussed before you jumped in. The person I was speaking to was claiming that the story is a reality that is scientifically possible, and that was the basis of my rebuttal to him (which is a human could *not* survive in the belly of a fish for three days).

If you would like to take the discussion in a different direction, which is the stories aren't actually true, that's fine.

[QUOTE="dnuggs40"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

You know, "God" does not have to refer to the Christian God:|

Evolution does contradict creationism, but not the existence of a god/ID.

chessmaster1989

No problem ;).

Also, you're right in that evolution and Genesis don't go well together :P.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="dnuggs40"]

It sure is meant as literal as it was written that way, show in the bible where it says otherwise. And when Christianity and Judaism told those stories they were the word of god and those events were believed to have transpired. It's only now that people are far less superstitious and science has enlightened humans to show what is (and isn't) possible that religious teachings have changed the stories interpretations to be "metaphors" to match the times and people's understandings.

The stories in the old testament were definitely written literally.

And the argument is kinda pointless, when one side can just defy all logic and replace it with unfounded claims of "well that's not supposed to be literal", or "god made it possible" you can't possibly have a logical debate. If one side at any point can just pick and chose what is supposed to be literal, and waht is not then there is no point. However, stranger_4's argument tried to be grounded in reality and was trying to assert a scientific possibility for those events...obviously this isn't the case.

dnuggs40

The stories in the old testament were definely written literally as per you. Not per biblical scholars. May I ask if you get your physics facts from a literature professor?

No...strip the subject down to it's base. It is not logical to do as you did and assume bits and pieces as fact and then try to fit them into human understanding as of today without taking into account that when one deals with a "super being" of any kind that they would be bound by our laws of physics etc. Thus, if one is taking the story as literal...which you are...then one cannot with any certainty say that a chance exists for a super being to be able to create the scenario. You can't cherry pick which part of the story suits an agenda. You have divorce yourself from beliefs and look at what it says.

I did look at what it says, and it says a man was swallowed by a "big fish" and lived in there for three days. It doesn't say it's an allegory, it doesn't say it simply meant to tell a story, it's written as an event that happened. You are cherry picking by claiming the story is meant to be interpreted like it is written, not me.

At any rate, that's not even the crux of what was being discussed before you jumped in. The person I was speaking to was claiming that the story is a reality that is scientifically possible, and that was the basis of my rebuttal to him (which is a human could *not* survive in the belly of a fish for three days).

If you would like to take the discussion in a different direction, which is the stories aren't actually true, that's fine.

And logically speaking we have to suspend our scientific knowledge if we are veering off into the supernatural aspects...which is the point I was making in regard to your point. You can't cherry pick only parts of the story and bend it the way you wish. It's all or nothing. Thus, if a supernatural supreme entity wanted a person to live inside a whale we cannot prove that entity could not do it as he is not bounded by our physical laws...which is why I said the argument is pointless. You are placing limitations on what would not have those limitations. I'm merely logically following the line of thought you started. ;)

Now I'm off....

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"][QUOTE="dnuggs40"] Sorry about that, and you are right. -Sun_Tzu-

No problem ;).

Also, you're right in that evolution and Genesis don't go well together :P.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

No problem ;).

Also, you're right in that evolution and Genesis don't go well together :P.

dnuggs40

The bible is often a good reference, though. The golden rule says it all: Treat others as yourself (with love and kindness), and love God above all else. If you love God and others, you're bound to make a difference for the better. Fanatics, on the other hand, pick and choose what they want, and follow that...

I dont get this. If God exists then He created the laws of science and nature, so it's only logical to believe that He would have them applied from the beginning of the chain.

Am I missing something about evolution or what?

Stranger_4

its not meant to disprove god..... shoot he could of started the whole thing like u said..... divine evolution

[QUOTE="dnuggs40"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]The Bible stories were not necessarily understood the same way you understand them in 2009 back in the day. This is only your assumption about the intent of the Scripture. And because you have inferred your own meaning from the story has nothing to do with whether or not the story was the word of God. Again...you are only assuming intent. Anyone that has done any study of scripture learns that one doesn't read the Bible on the surface only.

The stories in the old testament were definely written literally as per you. Not per biblical scholars. May I ask if you get your physics facts from a literature professor?

No...strip the subject down to it's base. It is not logical to do as you did and assume bits and pieces as fact and then try to fit them into human understanding as of today without taking into account that when one deals with a "super being" of any kind that they would be bound by our laws of physics etc. Thus, if one is taking the story as literal...which you are...then one cannot with any certainty say that a chance exists for a super being to be able to create the scenario. You can't cherry pick which part of the story suits an agenda. You have divorce yourself from beliefs and look at what it says.

LJS9502_basic

I did look at what it says, and it says a man was swallowed by a "big fish" and lived in there for three days. It doesn't say it's an allegory, it doesn't say it simply meant to tell a story, it's written as an event that happened. You are cherry picking by claiming the story is meant to be interpreted like it is written, not me.

At any rate, that's not even the crux of what was being discussed before you jumped in. The person I was speaking to was claiming that the story is a reality that is scientifically possible, and that was the basis of my rebuttal to him (which is a human could *not* survive in the belly of a fish for three days).

If you would like to take the discussion in a different direction, which is the stories aren't actually true, that's fine.

And logically speaking we have to suspend our scientific knowledge if we are veering off into the supernatural aspects...which is the point I was making in regard to your point. You can't cherry pick only parts of the story and bend it the way you wish. It's all or nothing. Thus, if a supernatural supreme entity wanted a person to live inside a whale we cannot prove that entity could not do it as he is not bounded by our physical laws...which is why I said the argument is pointless. You are placing limitations on what would not have those limitations. I'm merely logically following the line of thought you started. ;)

Now I'm off....

[QUOTE="dnuggs40"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Only if you interpret Genesis literally does evolution conflict with the Bible. For example, The Catholic Church has no problem with evolution, while the Evangelical movement in America does, due to a more literal interpretation of the Bible.thesmiter

The bible is often a good reference, though. The golden rule says it all: Treat others as yourself (with love and kindness), and love God above all else. If you love God and others, you're bound to make a difference for the better. Fanatics, on the other hand, pick and choose what they want, and follow that...

Well they kind of are...maybe "pulling it from your behinds" is not an accurate depiction of the process they use to make those decisions, but either way, they are not based on any kind of provable or scientific logic. I do agree the Bible (and most other religious documents) have good ideas in them that have benefited man kind throughout the ages.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

No problem ;).

Also, you're right in that evolution and Genesis don't go well together :P.

dnuggs40

You haven't? What rock have you been living under? Look up "Biblical literalism"... And again, YOU are cherry picking, conveniently deciding whats literal and what's not, not me. I am simply reading it like it is written. dnuggs40

Biblical literalism is a minority position amongst Christians and is only prevalent in America. Not all of it is written to be read literally, so no, you are not reading it "like it was written," and nobody "decides" what is literal and what is not; anyone educated enough in the matter can spot the literal and the metaphor. There is no cherry-picking and there is no conveniently deciding what is literal and what is not.

I simply cannot stand it when people who don't believe in the Bible start telling people who do how they're supposed to read it.

Well they kind of are...maybe "pulling it from your behinds" is not an accurate depiction of the process they use to make those decisions, but either way, they are not based on any kind of provable or scientific logic.

dnuggs40

No, they are based on historical knowledge of language. If scientific logic was the only source of knowledge then history and language would pretty much be meaningless.

[QUOTE="thesmiter"][QUOTE="dnuggs40"] Well then that's a pretty slippery slope, don't you think? Is it the word of god or not? Who decides what's literal and what's just a story? Maybe the whole book is just a bunch of stories and metaphors to try and teach humans morality, but has no insight into how the actual world came to be.dnuggs40

The bible is often a good reference, though. The golden rule says it all: Treat others as yourself (with love and kindness), and love God above all else. If you love God and others, you're bound to make a difference for the better. Fanatics, on the other hand, pick and choose what they want, and follow that...

Well they kind of are...maybe "pulling it from your behinds" is not an accurate depiction of the process they use to make those decisions, but either way, they are not based on any kind of provable or scientific logic. I do agree the Bible (and most other religious documents) have good ideas in them that have benefited man kind throughout the ages.

[QUOTE="dnuggs40"] You haven't? What rock have you been living under? Look up "Biblical literalism"... And again, YOU are cherry picking, conveniently deciding whats literal and what's not, not me. I am simply reading it like it is written. Theokhoth

Biblical literalism is a minority position amongst Christians and is only prevalent in America. Not all of it is written to be read literally, so no, you are not reading it "like it was written," and nobody "decides" what is literal and what is not; anyone educated enough in the matter can spot the literal and the metaphor. There is no cherry-picking and there is no conveniently deciding what is literal and what is not.

nobody "decides" what is literal and what is not; anyone educated enough in the matter can spot the literal and the metaphor. There is no cherry-picking and there is no conveniently deciding what is literal and what is not.

Theokhoth

So which of the following stories are literal, and which are just metaphors:

Genesis

Jonah & the Whale

God turn people to salt

Adam and Eve

Armageddon

Parting the Red Sea

Moses turning sticks into snakes

The plagues of Egypt

Jesus Resurrection

Jesus walking on water

Jesus turns water into wine

Noah and the flood

Talking burning bush

God speaks to moses directly and gives him the 10 commandments

Virgin birth

[QUOTE="dnuggs40"] You haven't? What rock have you been living under? Look up "Biblical literalism"... And again, YOU are cherry picking, conveniently deciding whats literal and what's not, not me. I am simply reading it like it is written. Theokhoth

Biblical literalism is a minority position amongst Christians and is only prevalent in America. Not all of it is written to be read literally, so no, you are not reading it "like it was written," and nobody "decides" what is literal and what is not; anyone educated enough in the matter can spot the literal and the metaphor. There is no cherry-picking and there is no conveniently deciding what is literal and what is not.

I simply cannot stand it when people who don't believe in the Bible start telling people who do how they're supposed to read it.

Okay, here's what you're supposed to take away from the Bible...

oh wait...

:P

Show me a link that proves that Humans indeed evolved from another species. Not theories, only undeniable proof. None of the two theories (Evolution and Creationism) have yet been proven 100% right or wrong, so if there was indeed such a thing that proved one of the theories undeniably right, there would be no Evolution or Creationism.mastersword007

I dont get this. If God exists then He created the laws of science and nature, so it's only logical to believe that He would have them applied from the beginning of the chain.

Am I missing something about evolution or what?

Stranger_4

Besides, theists can always accept what science says and then simply say: "well that doesn't disprove god. He just wanted things that way and thus they came to be" >_> Meaning accepting any scientific theory and then attributing it's existence to god.

[QUOTE="SpaceMoose"] Show me a link that proves that Humans indeed evolved from another species. Not theories, only undeniable proof. None of the two theories (Evolution and Creationism) have yet been proven 100% right or wrong, so if there was indeed such a thing that proved one of the theories undeniably right, there would be no Evolution or Creationism.SEANMCAD

News flash! technically gravity is a theory.

NOTHING and I mean literally and completely and totally nothing is 100% provable. Its a matter of probability

:|

"Yet they ask thee to hasten on the Punishment! but Allah will not fail in His promise. Verily a Day in the sight of thy Lord is like a thousand years of your reckoning".

[Al-Qur'an 22:47]

:roll:

Stranger_4

Exactly - "a Day in the sight of thy Lord is like a thousand years of your reckoning".

It's not saying that one day = one thousand years. It is saying that in God's eyes time is irrelevant. And I'll think you'll find that another verse says the opposite. That a thousand years in the Lord's eyes is like a day of ours. Again, time is nothing to God. ;)

[QUOTE="Stranger_4"]

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]

No it doesn't . . . . :roll: It says that to God one of 'our' days is no different to a thousand years. Not that one of God's days is equal to a thousand earthly years. It is simply showing that time is irrelevant to God.

Lansdowne5

"Yet they ask thee to hasten on the Punishment! but Allah will not fail in His promise. Verily a Day in the sight of thy Lord is like a thousand years of your reckoning".

[Al-Qur'an 22:47]

:roll:

No offense, but... on what grounds do you reject the literal interpretation of that and yet stress the necessity of a literal interpretation of the six days in Genesis?

Because put simply it contradicts the bible. The "theory" of evolution is just that a theory..one that has many flaws. A theory that was designed to allow mankind to live a life void of aknowledgement of God.

Without going to far into it like i have done before, sick of these arguments, the world, universe is way, way, way too complicated to of happened by mere chance. Scientist know this yet will not admit to.

Because put simply it contradicts the bible.Aft3rsh0ck89

The existence of God is not contingent on the perfection of the Bible.

True but you would expect the word of God to be pretty spot on, most things that i see on these threads from time are people just getting things wrong, people who have probably never read a single verse of the bible yet they come on here like they're are academics on the subject. Firstly Adam and Eve were not the first people on Earth, anyone who read the bible properly would know this...there was already many tribes on Earth at the time...hence the different tribes on earth today...hence why we have evidence to show there were cave man etc. Adam and Eve were made special to dwell in the garden of Eden. The word day in the bible was originated from the Hebrew word yom or yon, can't quite remember. That word refers to a length of time...could be a day..but we all know the periods lasted far longer than that. So as you can see based on ignorance the bible does not stand up to scientific evidence. Based an proper understanding, creation doesn't seem so unlikely. Aft3rsh0ck89

Although I don't think your explanation quite fits. But I'm not sure about the Bible so I can't have a say.

Based an proper understanding, creation doesn't seem so unlikely. Aft3rsh0ck89

Because put simply it contradicts the bible. The "theory" of evolution is just that a theory..one that has many flaws. A theory that was designed to allow mankind to live a life void of aknowledgement of God.

Without going to far into it like i have done before, sick of these arguments, the world, universe is way, way, way too complicated to of happened by mere chance. Scientist know this yet will not admit to.

Aft3rsh0ck89

Well im done with this argument, i personally believe in creation over evolution..I could write a massive post on why i believe in creation...but it would most likely just be shut down with a ...i don't think so or something no offense to above post.Aft3rsh0ck89

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="dnuggs40"] How long was he in there for? That's the key ;) Three days and three nights? He wasn't just swallowed and regurgitated immediately...that's where the story looses any credibility.dnuggs40

One...the story wasn't meant as literal.

Two....if you believe in an all powerful Being then all things are possible anyway. So the argument is pointless.

It sure is meant as literal as it was written that way, show in the bible where it says otherwise. And when Christianity and Judaism told those stories they were the word of god and those events were believed to have transpired. It's only now that people are far less superstitious and science has enlightened humans to show what is (and isn't) possible that religious teachings have changed the stories interpretations to be "metaphors" to match the times and people's understandings.

The stories in the old testament were definitely written literally.

And the argument is kinda pointless, when one side can just defy all logic and replace it with unfounded claims of "well that's not supposed to be literal", or "god made it possible" you can't possibly have a logical debate. If one side at any point can just pick and chose what is supposed to be literal, and waht is not then there is no point. However, stranger_4's argument tried to be grounded in reality and was trying to assert a scientific possibility for those events...obviously this isn't the case.

You know the whole garden of eden thing? According to that humans were made by god without evolution from apes. Might not make sense but I don't feel like writing a lot.Thagypsy

How come Christians automatically assume that 'god' created this universe? That whole 'god created the universe' argument is just as valid as let's say... this giant space flower created this universe. So how does this universe proves the existence of god? In my opinion, it only proves the existence of the universe, not the existence of a god.TheFlush

and if they knew how big the universe actually is, they'd realize how rediculous for even a god to create that in six days.

[QUOTE="Thagypsy"]You know the whole garden of eden thing? According to that humans were made by god without evolution from apes. Might not make sense but I don't feel like writing a lot.Stranger_4