Why do some creationists think evolution = atheism?

[Shadow Wolf]

If evolution is true, so is atheism or some other religion not based on the Bible.

There is nothing about the Bible that inherently opposes evolution, not unless you take a literalist approach to humans being made from dirt.

it leaves room for the possibility that the Bible is true.

No more room than it has now. If evolution is ever proven wrong (which is extremely unlikely) it wouldn't lend any further credence to the Bible, and the only thing that can leave room for the Bible for the possibility of it being true is for hard concrete evidence to be found. It's been overall pretty lacking in this area.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If evolution is true, so is atheism or some other religion not based on the Bible.

The fact of evolution does not lend any credence to support either atheism or most forms of theism. If anything, it would help to support religions and philosophies that embrace the unity and intimate link of life.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You must be using a different definition of "perfect" than I am. What's perfect about a couple of kids that make a mistake the first chance they get? Their skin?

How about this: "I just built a perfect car in my garage. I test drove it. It broke down in the driveway backing out."

You're comparing a machine, incapable of making decisions, to humans that are? If anything, the account highlights the nature of these perfect beings to trust (Eve did, anyway); there had never been anything in the Garden remotely deceitful. But Adam wasn't deceived. He didn't want to lose his wife -- he appreciated her more than God -- so he willfully joined her. Satan went to the inexperienced one (Eve) first, and his plot worked.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

If your argument begins by assuming a god, you need not make it to a skeptic. It will be stillborn.

Likewise when citing scripture as authoritative.

Certainly you can understand that. If you're having difficulty trying, imagine a Muslim making an argument with you that depends on the existence of Allah and the authority of the Qur'an. What would that mean to you? Nothing at all, right?

Just showing you, her, and everyone else, that my beliefs are based on Scripture, not what I think.

And please don't say, 'how can I trust it? The Bible contradicts itself'. That will only be evidence to me that you don't understand what it's ancient writers meant, and don't want to.

Suffice it to say: those ancient writers worshipped Jehovah, not Jesus. This really ties in with Jesus' words, at Luke 10:21.

Take care, my cousin.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

We have two pieces of evidence to suggest otherwise

Actually, there are 3 lines of evidence suggesting they weren't literal:

1)The Bible's own account of the sixth day: too much was going on, and then finished, before it ended. Much more than could be accomplished in 24 hours!

2) While all the creative days -- 1 thru 6 -- were said to end, the 7th day never had an "evening" to end on.

(So it's still going on?).....

3) The Apostle Paul, in Hebrews 4, said that God's rest day was continuing on, even in his day, 4,000 years later! Leave it to the "complete" Bible to explain itself! -- 1 Corinthians 13:9-10

 

[Sonofason]

So, do you believe that the moon is "a light"? Yes or no is all I am looking for.

Are you trying to suggest that the sun is "a light"?
Or do you think perhaps the sun might just emit light?
light is defined as:
1. something that makes vision possible
2. electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength that travels in a vacuum with a speed of 299,792,458 meters (about 186,000 miles) per second; specifically : such radiation that is visible to the human eye

Definition of LIGHT

Does the existence of the moon ever make vision possible here on this earth?
Is the light reflected from the moon electromagnetic radiation?
Is reflected light still called light? If not, what is it that is being reflected?

Are you suggesting that there is no such thing as moonlight? Interestingly my spell check accepted the word moonlight. I guess its a word.
Could moonlight exist if there was no moon?

 

[Sonofason]

There is nothing about the Bible that inherently opposes evolution, not unless you take a literalist approach to humans being made from dirt.

No more room than it has now. If evolution is ever proven wrong (which is extremely unlikely) it wouldn't lend any further credence to the Bible, and the only thing that can leave room for the Bible for the possibility of it being true is for hard concrete evidence to be found. It's been overall pretty lacking in this area.

But its okay to call it primordial slime instead of dirt or dust, right? Actually, if you think about it, slime does seem a bit ungodly.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You're comparing a machine, incapable of making decisions, to humans that are?

Maybe. I was mainly exploring the meaning of the word "perfect"

If anything, the account highlights the nature of these perfect beings to trust (Eve did, anyway); there had never been anything in the Garden remotely deceitful. But Adam wasn't deceived. He didn't want to lose his wife -- he appreciated her more than God -- so he willfully joined her.

Why shouldn't he? I willfully join my wife as well.

Satan went to the inexperienced one (Eve) first, and his plot worked.

God should have been there to protect them from the serpent rather than sick it on them while unsupervised. The serpent must have thought that it was Christmas. He decimated the human race that day. Unbelievers know who to blame in that scenario.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

please don't say, 'how can I trust it? The Bible contradicts itself'. That will only be evidence to me that you don't understand what it's ancient writers meant, and don't want to.

Fine, but it's not really a conversation if you preemptively forbid certain comments. The Bible does contradict itself. Many times. If you can't see that, it tells me that YOU don't understand scripture. And if you refuse to even consider the idea, it tells me that you don't want to.

You have more at stake here than I do. It's not important to me that scripture not contradict itself. It's kind of like the historicity of Jesus discussion. For the believer, the answer is critical. For the unbeliever, it doesn't really matter whether a man named Jesus who wandered the Levant preaching with a pack of apostles actually existed or not if he wasn't a god..

Suffice it to say: those ancient writers worshipped Jehovah, not Jesus. This really ties in with Jesus' words, at Luke 10:21.

Take care, my cousin.

Thank you. You as well.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Actually, there are 3 lines of evidence suggesting they weren't literal:

1)The Bible's own account of the sixth day: too much was going on, and then finished, before it ended. Much more than could be accomplished in 24 hours!

Really? Even by an omnipotent god?

2) While all the creative days -- 1 thru 6 -- were said to end, the 7th day never had an "evening" to end on.
(So it's still going on?).....

What does the biblical commandment to observe the Sabbath mean? For how long?My understanding is from one sunset to the next every seventh day.

3) The Apostle Paul, in Hebrews 4, said that God's rest day was continuing on, even in his day, 4,000 years later! Leave it to the "complete" Bible to explain itself! -- 1 Corinthians 13:9-10

I don't want to keep looking up scriptures. If you want me to read one, please post it.

Even if you are correct, Paul doesn't speak for the author(s) of the Old Testament, allegedly the god of the Hebrews. His words are evidence of nothing except that somebody wrote them down and they made it into the final cut under Constantine.

 

[Derek500]

This is interesting. So how does evolution of molecules to man actually work? What is the starting point that would be the scientific foundation of life?

I see that you're trying to avoid reality. Here, we are discussing :


Why do some creationists think evolution = atheism?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Are you trying to suggest that the sun is "a light"?
Or do you think perhaps the sun might just emit light?
light is defined as:
1. something that makes vision possible
2. electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength that travels in a vacuum with a speed of 299,792,458 meters (about 186,000 miles) per second; specifically : such radiation that is visible to the human eye

Definition of LIGHT

Does the existence of the moon ever make vision possible here on this earth?
Is the light reflected from the moon electromagnetic radiation?
Is reflected light still called light? If not, what is it that is being reflected?

Are you suggesting that there is no such thing as moonlight? Interestingly my spell check accepted the word moonlight. I guess its a word.
Could moonlight exist if there was no moon?

You can get even more technical than I did and try to tear down the meaning of "light" all you want. The generally accepted meaning of "a light" which would have been the kind of "light" referred to in saying "God put two lights in the sky" is, of course, something that emits light. The moon emits no light. It is only reflective.

Put it this way - consider the average person who existed during the time that the Genesis account was written. If they had been clever enough to fashion a mirror, and then used that mirror to direct the light that the sun provides into a dark-corner of their home, do you think that they would call the mirror "a light?" Fat chance.

And THAT is the exact relationship of object to source of light we're talking about here. And I argue that, had those writer's understood the subtleties in the relationship between the sun and moon and light they never would have written "two lights." They would have made the text more accurate, more correct in the usage of terms. Even the simple fact that I, and some like me, would take issue with this mention as an imperfection should have provoked enough stir in the "divine inspiration" of the text to make sure it was written to an exacting specification if it was ever to be hailed as perfect. In other words - if God exists, He knows the relationship between the objects, and so God could have made sure it was written this way, but He didn't, because... well... you know what I would say.

 

[Sonofason]

Maybe. I was mainly exploring the meaning of the word "perfect"



Why shouldn't he? I willfully join my wife as well.



God should have been there to protect them from the serpent rather than sick it on them while unsupervised. The serpent must have thought that it was Christmas. He decimated the human race that day. Unbelievers know who to blame in that scenario.

So, I suppose then that you have succumbed to the notion that you, along with the rest of us, are incapable of doing the right thing, incapable of obeying a perfect and just God. It's His fault because He made rules that are just too darn difficult to follow, it's His fault for making such disgustingly weak fallible creatures.

It was just one command that God gave to mankind, and we failed miserably. Do you not suppose for even a moment, that it was God's intention that the human race fail this test? Given the fact that God's plan required that man be given free will, what better circumstance could have transpired than to have the pride of man crushed from the very start. We need God. Without Him, we are nothing at all. And I do believe that it is important to Him that we know this.

 

[Sonofason]

You can get even more technical than I did and try to tear down the meaning of "light" all you want. The generally accepted meaning of "a light" which would have been the kind of "light" referred to in saying "God put two lights in the sky" is, of course, something that emits light. The moon emits no light. It is only reflective.

Put it this way - consider the average person who existed during the time that the Genesis account was written. If they had been clever enough to fashion a mirror, and then used that mirror to direct the light that the sun provides into a dark-corner of their home, do you think that they would call the mirror "a light?" Fat chance.

And THAT is the exact relationship of object to source of light we're talking about here. And I argue that, had those writer's understood the subtleties in the relationship between the sun and moon and light they never would have written "two lights." They would have made the text more accurate, more correct in the usage of terms. Even the simple fact that I, and some like me, would take issue with this mention as an imperfection should have provoked enough stir in the "divine inspiration" of the text to make sure it was written to an exacting specification if it was ever to be hailed as perfect. In other words - if God exists, He knows the relationship between the objects, and so God could have made sure it was written this way, but He didn't, because... well... you know what I would say.

I doubt that you have any idea what the intention of the author was when he wrote the book of Genesis. What is clear to me is that the author believed that it was God who created the object that we call the moon. The truth of this is not debatable. Whether or not God did indeed create the moon with this purpose in mind is of course debatable, but there is no substantial evidence to support nor contradict this claim. And it is clear to me that the author believed that the moon was created by God with the intention to provide light to the earth at night, and to signify times and seasons. Do you think the author of Genesis had a physics or an astronomy degree? When the Bible speaks of the creation of the moon as a light in the night sky, it was our author speaking, not God. It was not one of those "God said" moments. It was just a man, a man who did not have a physics degree, but a man who believed very much that it was God who did it. And that is as far as you can go with this. Why try to read into this more than is said? God did not write the Bible, but surely the men who wrote it were doing so under inspiration of God. And I'm okay with that.

When living beings do things, they do those things because something has inspired them to do it. My hunger inspires me to eat. My desire to care for my children and myself inspires me to work hard. A beautiful landscape can inspire someone to create a painting of a beautiful landscape. Evil thoughts inspire people to do evil things. And yes, a belief in the existence of God inspires people as well. "God" inspired the author of Genesis to write. Does God absolutely exist? I don't know. I believe He does, and that inspires me.

The Bible is not a Physics book. It is not a book of Astronomy. It is a historical collection of inspired writings by numerous authors documenting their perceived relationships between themselves and the object of their inspiration. You do not have to believe in God, but you will have to contend with those who do.

 

[Jenny Collins]

The conjecture of evolution, not fact. I don't think you understood what I said. Evolution is not consistent with the Bible. Therefore, anyone who believes it, cannot accept the Bible as valid. The two cannot be harmonized and if they think they can, they do not know the Bible well. Therefore by default, they would have to choose to be atheist, or some other religion. What you are trying to correct about my statement, I do not quite understand.

 

[Jenny Collins]

Your words are confusing. Don't know how they are applicable to anything I said either.

 

[Jenny Collins]

The Bible is indeed not compatible with evolution, and yes people were made from dust. Easy to prove the Genesis account was literal. Adam is listed first in the lineage to Jesus. Adam is also listed as a true person in other parts of the Bible.

 

[Jenny Collins]

Evolution is proven wrong. And it certainly isn't proven right.

 

[Jenny Collins]

The word for day, used in Bible, does not only refer to a literal 24 hour period. Sunrise and sunset would just mean the end of one period and beginning of another. Someone may say, "In the sunrise of my life..." or the "I am in the autumn of my life." Just expressions. Sabbaths do not only apply to seven, 24 hour days. There are many Sabbaths mentioned in Bible. Did you know the Bible says that "a day to God is as 1,000 years." Meaning, not a fixed period, and can be quite long by our own standards. But long times, are nothing to God. Scientific evidence has proven that the earth is old.

 

[Jenny Collins]

Of course I mean Darwinian evolution. I thought that was obvious. Yes, I know that microevolution is true, never heard of "theistic evolution", must be a term unique to your denomination. Of course there are changes that occur in animals and plants. But a moth remains a moth, they may change colors, size, etc. Fruit flies remain fruit flies. Mutations may occur that make them deformed, but they remain fruit flies.