Religion AND Evolution say WHAT?!?!

of course they can. what's going on here is a war of gods.

maybe the gods will become allies, maybe they will destroy the other one and the loser god will be forgotten as time passes on.

whatever is most practical to the people at a certain time is what will result.

The way I see it, it said that God created stuff, but it never said anything about not changing his creations over time. Even the Big Bang could be a tool used by God. Of course, I'm not really a creationist, but I am religious as well as being very scienctific. They can coexist, don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

They can coexist really. The creation of the world stories are parables that teach moral lessons, and evolution shows how humans originated. And just in case you're wondering, I learned this from a very religious teacher in a Catholic school.tekken220

Whats insane to think about is that assuming there was a Big Bang and assuming there will be a Big Crunch. A Big Crunch essentially creates the exact same situation as the Big Bang, a small area with infinite mass and infinite gravity. Which means that after the Big Crunch it is possible for the Big Bang to occur again...question is, how many times has this universe repeated? This universe could be trillions of years old and we would have no clue. Its ridiculous

I don't believe in god.....therefore, they can't co-exist :D

It's possible. Some people are literalists, but I think there is no problem to think that evolution could have been divinely inspired. Whatever makes you happy.

Sorry, I found that there is no way for me to believe in evolution while I believe in God.bbkkristian

[QUOTE="bbkkristian"]Sorry, I found that there is no way for me to believe in evolution while I believe in God.foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="bbkkristian"]Sorry, I found that there is no way for me to believe in evolution while I believe in God.tocool340

What Atheist would think religion and evolution can't co-exist. I would think they would understand the possibility that some God created life to develop this way....tocool340

I know I'm stating the obvious......but you do know the whole point of being atheist is not believing in ANY sort of divine being.

I think it is ridiculous when an atheist OR a religious person tells me religion and evoluton can't co-exist. After all it is MY faith, and I believe science is a tool to help us understan everything around and inside us. What is your stance ?

kevin11896

I'm with you on this one. There is nothing wrong with believing in God and believing in evolution. I believe it's not going to matter whether we believe in evolution or not. I believe it comes down to the type of life we led and our own choices and how much love we showed and gave to our fellow men and women on this Earth. Jesus taught much about doing good works.

Evolution is an observed and proven fact :|

You pretty much HAVE TO to work religion around it.

Anyone who debates this has to be completely clueless about what evolution is or rejects all scientific observations, like Gravity, other galaxies, and planetary alignments...

Evolution is an observed and proven fact :|

You pretty much HAVE TO to work religion around it.

Anyone who debates this has to be completely clueless about what evolution and rejects all scientific obervations, like Gravity, other galaxies, and planetary alignments...

Blue-Sky

It seems that you have to work religion around science, but the fact of the matter is, religion gave rise to science.

The reason philosophy and the natural sciences still exist today is because the early Church (now known as the Roman Catholic Church), revived Ancient Greek philosophy, debated it, improved on it, and institutionalized it by teaching lay people (and those entering Holy Orders) knowledge of the world through monasteries, a type of proto-university.

People such as Nicolas Copernicus and Gregor Mendel were devout Catholics and holy men. Copernicus provided the model for modern heliocentrism, while Mendel was one of the first scientists to discover the idea of genetic inheritance.

So no, religion doesn't work around science. They're not antagonists, rather, they're complimentary. Most philosophers agree that the natural sciences are the smallest branch of knowledge, followed by philosophy (metaphysics and the like), which will then provide working background for the ultimate knowledge, theology.

They can clearly coexist. Even the whole creationist story could be true since I don't think evolutionists have come to a consensus about what we evolved from, if anything.SolidSnake35

Evolution completely rejects the book of Genesis in the Bible which states that earth is only 6,000 years old and all human beings derived from one man.

I don't know much about the other religions, but Christianity is the only one that seems to directly conflict with it. It really comes down to whether you believe everything in the Bible is a historical fact word for word or just moral teachings

They can clearly coexist. Even the whole creationist story could be true since I don't think evolutionists have come to a consensus about what we evolved from, if anything.SolidSnake35

Creationism is clearly not literal. There's sufficient evidence that strongly suggests evolution is what began sentient life.

Evolution does not preclude a Creator God, however. That is an ontological question, not a scientific one.

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]They can clearly coexist. Even the whole creationist story could be true since I don't think evolutionists have come to a consensus about what we evolved from, if anything.Blue-Sky

Evolution completely rejects the book of Genesis in the Bible which states that earth is only 6,000 years old and all human beings derived from one man.

I don't know much about the other religions, but Christianity is the only one that seems to directly conflict with it. It really comes down to whether you believe everything in the Bible is a historical fact word for word or just moral teachings

[QUOTE="fl4tlined"][QUOTE="chaoscougar1"] Thankyou monster. And why am I not allowed to update the Bible to suit the time period I am in? Wouldn't it be quite foolish to act and think the exact same way people did 2000 years ago? The Bible is not there to define ones life, merely to guide itchaoscougar1

i mean god says to put homosexuals to death and to stone your child if they act out of line...i mean i dont get it at all.. if you dont follow it all then whats the point of following it i mean i personally think thats just as dumb as this..

How would it be blasphemous? THE BOOK IS 2000 YEARS OLD! We use to have slaves, rape use to go unpunished because women had little to no rights, homosexuals were no doubt killed for their sexual orientation. That is apart of the human race, we change and adapt with times. Why should Christianity (which is a creation of the human race) be any different?

Send me to hell for not killing homosexuals? Yeah, thats a good line of thought :roll: Why is it that people who don't believe seem to be part of the few who think that the Bible should be taken literally and still have complete relevance today...Atheists and fanatics, funny how that works

Also, why do some Atheists seem to be annoyed that Christians leave out the barbaric parts? Shouldn't they be happy that Christian Churches generally try and stick to the parts that make them a better member of society? (Charity, love for thy neighbour, forgiveness etc.) It's feels like sometimes they are annoyed we don't have witchhunts and crusades anymore

Evolution is an observed and proven factBlue-Sky

Evolution seems to be a sturdy theory based on a body of facts that have been gathered over time.

but it still has some points of question worthy of looking into if you're brave enough to go there.

As far as a perceiveable problem between science and religion in general, well, there is none, and this is a trivial question to pursue. Like all theoritical arguments it becomes a war of words, acendotal evidence, and personal feelings. Religion does not stand in opposistion to science. Being flexiable is critical, or you put yourself in places you won't know how to get out from.

It's conceiveable that I could construct a god of science to symoblize the importance of observation and measurement, and should I be able to show this gods value to the people, this god would be readily accepted by those who were in need of such a god. IT' would be convienant, and reasonable. I could tell great, and fantastic stories about this god that would inspire, or terrorize. But everybody would understand the importance of this god, and what this god ment, even if they knew that this god was in fact not real.

IT's an expression of something larger than the self. Something that is admittiably unknown to us, but very much apart of us, perceiveable in some faint shimmer that we want desperately to recognize. That's all that is going on here. Call it what you want. But I honestly don't see the distinction outside of the expression.

I personally don't care what you believe, but I feel like chiming in here. Christians do nit-pick the Bible to suit their needs (you say so yourself). I don't blame them for this; it is perfectly reasonable as the Bible is clearly just a collection of moral stories and shouldn't be taken literally. But the thing that gets me is that while they disregard the sections of the Bible that they disagree with (killing homosexuals, God created man, etc.), they then go on to dedicate their entire lives to other aspects of the Bible that have no more basis in fact. I am going to assume that you believe Jesus is your savior. Now tell me why. My guess is that you were taught that, based on the Bible. Why does a story that tells of a man dying and then resurrecting have any more credence than a story of an all-powerful being creating the world and then man in 7 days? The simple answer is that it doesn't, but it is held with higher regard because there is no evidence to counter it, and there will likely never be.stanleycup98

If Christians cherry pick the Bible to suit their beliefs, they're not practicing the faith right.

Your question on why Christians believe one thing literally but not another is understandable if you haven't read the Bible, and thus what it conveys. The Bible isn't a book. It's a collection of books. All of them, taken from different parts of history, tell the same story.

To make it succinct: Genesis is a book from the 6th century B.C.E (eight thousand years ago). The central idea of the stories it contains suggests that God appointed man as his administrator on Earth, but man disobeyed. The stories suggest that without God, we aren't complete.

The four canonical Gospels of the Bible aren't stories. They are letters addressed to different Churches around the first and second centuries (under two thousand years ago). The letters are witness testimonies, very much like a witness testimony you would here in a court of law. They apparently testify to a man who claimed to be the fulfillment of the same divine story told eight thousand years ago in the Book of Genesis (without God, we aren't complete). The witnesses came to believe what he was saying because he provided correct teaching, performed miracles, and rose from the dead.

I hope that makes sense as to why Christians should correctly believe some parts of the Bible are literal, while others are figurative.

[QUOTE="stanleycup98"]I personally don't care what you believe, but I feel like chiming in here. Christians do nit-pick the Bible to suit their needs (you say so yourself). I don't blame them for this; it is perfectly reasonable as the Bible is clearly just a collection of moral stories and shouldn't be taken literally. But the thing that gets me is that while they disregard the sections of the Bible that they disagree with (killing homosexuals, God created man, etc.), they then go on to dedicate their entire lives to other aspects of the Bible that have no more basis in fact. I am going to assume that you believe Jesus is your savior. Now tell me why. My guess is that you were taught that, based on the Bible. Why does a story that tells of a man dying and then resurrecting have any more credence than a story of an all-powerful being creating the world and then man in 7 days? The simple answer is that it doesn't, but it is held with higher regard because there is no evidence to counter it, and there will likely never be.FrozenLiquid

If Christians cherry pick the Bible to suit their beliefs, they're not practicing the faith right.

Your question on why Christians believe one thing literally but not another is understandable if you haven't read the Bible, and thus what it conveys. The Bible isn't a book. It's a collection of books. All of them, taken from different parts of history, tell the same story.

To make it succinct: Genesis is a book from the 6th century B.C.E (eight thousand years ago). The central idea of the stories it contains suggests that God appointed man as his administrator on Earth, but man disobeyed. The stories suggest that without God, we aren't complete.

The four canonical Gospels of the Bible aren't stories. They are letters addressed to different Churches around the first and second centuries (under two thousand years ago). The letters are witness testimonies, very much like a witness testimony you would here in a court of law. They apparently testify to a man who claimed to be the fulfillment of the same divine story told eight thousand years ago in the Book of Genesis (without God, we aren't complete). The witnesses came to believe what he was saying because he provided correct teaching, performed miracles, and rose from the dead.

I hope that makes sense as to why Christians should correctly believe some parts of the Bible are literal, while others are figurative.

The pope accepts evolution and an old earth. The pope is doing it wrong?

[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]

[QUOTE="stanleycup98"]I personally don't care what you believe, but I feel like chiming in here. Christians do nit-pick the Bible to suit their needs (you say so yourself). I don't blame them for this; it is perfectly reasonable as the Bible is clearly just a collection of moral stories and shouldn't be taken literally. But the thing that gets me is that while they disregard the sections of the Bible that they disagree with (killing homosexuals, God created man, etc.), they then go on to dedicate their entire lives to other aspects of the Bible that have no more basis in fact. I am going to assume that you believe Jesus is your savior. Now tell me why. My guess is that you were taught that, based on the Bible. Why does a story that tells of a man dying and then resurrecting have any more credence than a story of an all-powerful being creating the world and then man in 7 days? The simple answer is that it doesn't, but it is held with higher regard because there is no evidence to counter it, and there will likely never be.tenaka2

If Christians cherry pick the Bible to suit their beliefs, they're not practicing the faith right.

Your question on why Christians believe one thing literally but not another is understandable if you haven't read the Bible, and thus what it conveys. The Bible isn't a book. It's a collection of books. All of them, taken from different parts of history, tell the same story.

To make it succinct: Genesis is a book from the 6th century B.C.E (eight thousand years ago). The central idea of the stories it contains suggests that God appointed man as his administrator on Earth, but man disobeyed. The stories suggest that without God, we aren't complete.

The four canonical Gospels of the Bible aren't stories. They are letters addressed to different Churches around the first and second centuries (under two thousand years ago). The letters are witness testimonies, very much like a witness testimony you would here in a court of law. They apparently testify to a man who claimed to be the fulfillment of the same divine story told eight thousand years ago in the Book of Genesis (without God, we aren't complete). The witnesses came to believe what he was saying because he provided correct teaching, performed miracles, and rose from the dead.

I hope that makes sense as to why Christians should correctly believe some parts of the Bible are literal, while others are figurative.

The pope accepts evolution and an old earth. The pope is doing it wrong?

It would be good, tenaka, if you read my entire comment, not just the first line. The last line states "I hope that makes sense as to why Christians should correctly believe some parts of the Bible are literal, while others are figurative", implying that there's a good amount of content sandwiched in between the two :P.

Genesis isn't a scientific book. It's an ontological one.

You have to follow the bible verse to verse if you don't you can't call yourself a Christian if you want to update your religion you better hope for a new "Jesus".

Sounds ridiculous to me when someone says religion can co-exist with evolution. It sounds desperate and sounds like grasping at straws when a religious person tells me that "oh but God could have created the big bang and facilitated evolution". Sounds like a person just trying to keep their belief relevant, any way they can.

You have to follow the bible verse to verse if you don't you can't call yourself a Christian if you want to update your religion you better hope for a new "Jesus".

Communist_Soul

A Christian believes in and follows Jesus Christ. It doesn't seem like you understand what it means to be a Christian. It's a lifestyle. Why should a Christian hope for a new Jesus? The teachings of Jesus Christ are good. Why should there need to be a new one?

Sounds ridiculous to me when someone says religion can co-exist with evolution. It sounds desperate and sounds like grasping at straws when a religious person tells me that "oh but God could have created the big bang and facilitated evolution". Sounds like a person just trying to keep their belief relevant, any way they can.

MrGrimFandango

That's alright, it sounds ridiculous to me when someone tells me they can't co-exist.

[QUOTE="Blue-Sky"] Evolution is an observed and proven factUniverseIX

Evolution seems to be a sturdy theory based on a body of facts that have been gathered over time.

but it still has some points of question worthy of looking into if you're brave enough to go there.

As far as a perceiveable problem between science and religion in general, well, there is none, and this is a trivial question to pursue. Like all theoritical arguments it becomes a war of words, acendotal evidence, and personal feelings. Religion does not stand in opposistion to science. Being flexiable is critical, or you put yourself in places you won't know how to get out from.

It's conceiveable that I could construct a god of science to symoblize the importance of observation and measurement, and should I be able to show this gods value to the people, this god would be readily accepted by those who were in need of such a god. IT' would be convienant, and reasonable. I could tell great, and fantastic stories about this god that would inspire, or terrorize. But everybody would understand the importance of this god, and what this god ment, even if they knew that this god was in fact not real.

IT's an expression of something larger than the self. Something that is admittiably unknown to us, but very much apart of us, perceiveable in some faint shimmer that we want desperately to recognize. That's all that is going on here. Call it what you want. But I honestly don't see the distinction outside of the expression.

Evolution is a fact, Its been proven many times through many experiments, its as much of a fact as anything else. There are still many unknowns in terms of certain aspects of evolution but as whether species evolve then yes that is a fact.

Also to say that religion doesn't stand in the way of science is also unfortunately not true, Science and religion have always been in opposition and the only reason religion has been more flexible to the ways of science is for self preservation. If they forced people to choose between science or religion they know that might be a battle they may not win so they are trying to accommodate. Even today in many nations there are religious groups that try to remove teaching evolution from schools and teach creationism instead and this is just one example or how religion opposes science and there are many. A recent Gallup pole places the number of Americans who believe the earth was created less then 10000 years ago at around 40%, If such ridiculous anti scientific beliefs being so widespread isn't proof enough of religion impeding science then i don't know what is.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/four-americans-believe-strict-creationism.aspx

[QUOTE="ice144"] That's one of my main problems with religion, well specifically christianity. Picking and choosing the verses to keep and to change to fit your logic.limpbizkit818

[QUOTE="Communist_Soul"]

You have to follow the bible verse to verse if you don't you can't call yourself a Christian if you want to update your religion you better hope for a new "Jesus".

kev_stevens67

A Christian believes in and follows Jesus Christ. It doesn't seem like you understand what it means to be a Christian. It's a lifestyle. Why should a Christian hope for a new Jesus? The teachings of Jesus Christ are good. Why should there need to be a new one?

You know since in the bible it says to kill disobedient children, persecution gays, intolerance to others, keep women silence while in church, killing of wizards/witches, death to those who aren't christian, holding back science yeah that is totally good. Since you know equality and education is wrong.

You're right I don't understand Christian lifestyle but I do understand what it means to be Human; I hope Christians learn it to.

[QUOTE="kev_stevens67"]

[QUOTE="Communist_Soul"]

You have to follow the bible verse to verse if you don't you can't call yourself a Christian if you want to update your religion you better hope for a new "Jesus".

Communist_Soul

A Christian believes in and follows Jesus Christ. It doesn't seem like you understand what it means to be a Christian. It's a lifestyle. Why should a Christian hope for a new Jesus? The teachings of Jesus Christ are good. Why should there need to be a new one?

You know since in the bible it says to kill disobedient children, persecution gays, intolerance to others, keep women silence while in church, killing of wizards/witches, death to those who aren't christian, holding back science yeah that is totally good. Since you know equality and education is wrong.

You're right I don't understand Christian lifestyle but I do understand what it means to be Human; I hope Christians learn it to.

[QUOTE="kev_stevens67"]

[QUOTE="Communist_Soul"]

You have to follow the bible verse to verse if you don't you can't call yourself a Christian if you want to update your religion you better hope for a new "Jesus".

Communist_Soul

A Christian believes in and follows Jesus Christ. It doesn't seem like you understand what it means to be a Christian. It's a lifestyle. Why should a Christian hope for a new Jesus? The teachings of Jesus Christ are good. Why should there need to be a new one?

You know since in the bible it says to kill disobedient children, persecution gays, intolerance to others, keep women silence while in church, killing of wizards/witches, death to those who aren't christian, holding back science yeah that is totally good. Since you know equality and education is wrong.

You're right I don't understand Christian lifestyle but I do understand what it means to be Human; I hope Christians learn it to.

It seems you just proved my point on your lack of understanding. Learn about the teachings of Jesus before replying.

[QUOTE="Communist_Soul"]

[QUOTE="kev_stevens67"]

A Christian believes in and follows Jesus Christ. It doesn't seem like you understand what it means to be a Christian. It's a lifestyle. Why should a Christian hope for a new Jesus? The teachings of Jesus Christ are good. Why should there need to be a new one?

theSteeeeels

You know since in the bible it says to kill disobedient children, persecution gays, intolerance to others, keep women silence while in church, killing of wizards/witches, death to those who aren't christian, holding back science yeah that is totally good. Since you know equality and education is wrong.

You're right I don't understand Christian lifestyle but I do understand what it means to be Human; I hope Christians learn it to.

Christians get the name from Jesus Christ. This is why they are called Christians - because they believe in and follow Jesus Christ. They are not called "Old Testamentians".

Recently I have stopped caring about the little things which people use to disprove the existance of God, ie evolution. After recently watching a few things about the size of the universe and reading A Brief History of Time I have begun to realise how insanely small we actually are. I don't believe in the Creationist theory, but I do believe in God. The web of galaxies of which we are a part of is absolutely mind boggling and they don't even compare to the size of the millions quasars at what is believed to be the edge of the current universe. I am hoping/believe that there is some higher power out therechaoscougar1

evolution was not invented to disprove the existance of god.

if more people knew that maybe this simple little explanation of how organisms change and adapt over time would not be under constant attack.

[QUOTE="ice144"][QUOTE="chaoscougar1"] You can be Christian and believe in Evolution. Not all Christians (Not that many actually) believe in the Creationist theorychaoscougar1

still doesn't make any sense.

funny thing is, how many christians actually live by these rules?? yeah, probably none. meaning every christian isnt a true christian, theyre just people who take the rules which they see fit and apply it to their lifestyle and call themselves christiantheSteeeeels

Catholics are required to live by the rules. That's why you hear commotion about abortion, marriage, sex and priesthood in the Catholic Church.

[QUOTE="theSteeeeels"][QUOTE="Communist_Soul"]

You know since in the bible it says to kill disobedient children, persecution gays, intolerance to others, keep women silence while in church, killing of wizards/witches, death to those who aren't christian, holding back science yeah that is totally good. Since you know equality and education is wrong.

You're right I don't understand Christian lifestyle but I do understand what it means to be Human; I hope Christians learn it to.

kev_stevens67

Christians get the name from Jesus Christ. This is why they are called Christians - because they believe in and follow Jesus Christ. They are not called "Old Testamentians".

[QUOTE="theSteeeeels"]funny thing is, how many christians actually live by these rules?? yeah, probably none. meaning every christian isnt a true christian, theyre just people who take the rules which they see fit and apply it to their lifestyle and call themselves christianFrozenLiquid

Catholics are required to live by the rules. That's why you hear commotion about abortion, marriage, sex and priesthood in the Catholic Church.

[QUOTE="kev_stevens67"]

[QUOTE="theSteeeeels"] funny thing is, how many christians actually live by these rules?? yeah, probably none. meaning every christian isnt a true christian, theyre just people who take the rules which they see fit and apply it to their lifestyle and call themselves christiantheSteeeeels

Christians get the name from Jesus Christ. This is why they are called Christians - because they believe in and follow Jesus Christ. They are not called "Old Testamentians".

The same people who preached about magic and made up fairytales were the ones that found that the Earth revolves around the Sun and discovered the science behind gene inheritance.

Instead of keeping it to themselves, they decide to educate people that didn't believe like you, about the wonders of the world. It's a shame that those that learnt from these people have now turned their backs against them.

[QUOTE="kev_stevens67"]

[QUOTE="theSteeeeels"] funny thing is, how many christians actually live by these rules?? yeah, probably none. meaning every christian isnt a true christian, theyre just people who take the rules which they see fit and apply it to their lifestyle and call themselves christiantheSteeeeels

Christians get the name from Jesus Christ. This is why they are called Christians - because they believe in and follow Jesus Christ. They are not called "Old Testamentians".

I have studied the Bible and other religious texts for 20 years, while still loving Science and education and other learning. The conclusion I get from the scriptures is to treat others with Love, respect, and live a life helping others among many other great teachings. If you think that is stupid, than so be it. I feel it's a great way to live.

[QUOTE="theSteeeeels"][QUOTE="Communist_Soul"]

You know since in the bible it says to kill disobedient children, persecution gays, intolerance to others, keep women silence while in church, killing of wizards/witches, death to those who aren't christian, holding back science yeah that is totally good. Since you know equality and education is wrong.

You're right I don't understand Christian lifestyle but I do understand what it means to be Human; I hope Christians learn it to.

kev_stevens67

Christians get the name from Jesus Christ. This is why they are called Christians - because they believe in and follow Jesus Christ. They are not called "Old Testamentians".

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

Guess jesus was the first of the"Old Testamentians".