Why Evolution and Christianity are Fundamentally Irreconcilable

[Audie]

What vast array of specified information predetermines anything?

Every atom must have it. Every sebatomic particle and
all of electromagnetic energy, and of course, dark
matter with all of the subdivisions there may be!

Specified info in everyyhing!

 

[shunyadragon]

Maybe some people are monkeys and others are angel's. Or what about the possibility that mankind evolves wings to defend itself against evil dragons, as the humans become angels.

No evidence of humans with wings other than mythology.

 

[sooda]

There are certainly no evidences of bottleneck in 4000 BCE, or 6000 years ago. And certainly no bottleneck occurring 13,000 or 12,000 years ago.

According to the Jewish calendar it has been 5779 years since creation,

 

[sooda]

If you don't mind please explain in more details with reference for Judaism scriptures.

The concept of inherited sin does not exist in Islam. Islam teaches that Adam and Eve sinned, but then sought forgiveness and were forgiven by God.

The doctrine of "inherited sin" is not found in most of mainstream Judaism.

Although some in Orthodox Judaism place blame on Adam and Eve for overall corruption of the world, and though there were some Jewish teachers in Babylon who believed that mortality was a punishment brought upon humanity on account of Adam's sin, that is not the dominant view in most of Judaism today.

Modern Judaism generally teaches that humans are born sin-free and untainted, and choose to sin later and bring suffering to themselves

 

[ecco]

I thought no one was allowed to post porn on RF.

 

[sooda]

I thought no one was allowed to post porn on RF.

Oh.. sorry.

 

[ecco]

Oh.. sorry.

No need to apologize to me. My name isn't John Ashcroft...

Cover-Up At Justice Department

No longer will the attorney general be photographed in front of two partially nude statues in the Great Hall of the Department of Justice.

The department spent $8,000 on blue drapes that hide the two giant, aluminum art deco statues. For aesthetic reasons the drapes were occasionally hung in front of the statues before formal events. The department used to rent the drapes, but has now purchased them and left them hanging.
Justice Department spokeswoman Barbara Comstock said the decision to install the curtains was made by Attorney General John Ashcroft's aide who handles advance work. "It was done for TV aesthetics," she said.

ABC News reported that Ashcroft ordered the statues covered because he didn't like being photographed in front of them.​

 

[shunyadragon]

I thought no one was allowed to post porn on RF.

Wardrobe malfunction

 

[sooda]

No need to apologize to me. My name isn't John Ashcroft...

Cover-Up At Justice Department

No longer will the attorney general be photographed in front of two partially nude statues in the Great Hall of the Department of Justice.

The department spent $8,000 on blue drapes that hide the two giant, aluminum art deco statues. For aesthetic reasons the drapes were occasionally hung in front of the statues before formal events. The department used to rent the drapes, but has now purchased them and left them hanging.
Justice Department spokeswoman Barbara Comstock said the decision to install the curtains was made by Attorney General John Ashcroft's aide who handles advance work. "It was done for TV aesthetics," she said.

ABC News reported that Ashcroft ordered the statues covered because he didn't like being photographed in front of them.​

I remember thinking that ashcroft was the boob.

 

[shunyadragon]

No need to apologize to me. My name isn't John Ashcroft...

Cover-Up At Justice Department

No longer will the attorney general be photographed in front of two partially nude statues in the Great Hall of the Department of Justice.

The department spent $8,000 on blue drapes that hide the two giant, aluminum art deco statues. For aesthetic reasons the drapes were occasionally hung in front of the statues before formal events. The department used to rent the drapes, but has now purchased them and left them hanging.
Justice Department spokeswoman Barbara Comstock said the decision to install the curtains was made by Attorney General John Ashcroft's aide who handles advance work. "It was done for TV aesthetics," she said.

ABC News reported that Ashcroft ordered the statues covered because he didn't like being photographed in front of them.​

Another wardrobe malfunction. "Hands up!" said the Department of Justice law enforcement officer.

 

[viole]

There is one thing (likely the only thing) that Answers in Genesis got right, but many other Christians refuse to accept. The theory of evolution and Christianity are fundamentally irreconcilable. Here's why:

If evolution is true, then there is no actual distinction between humans and other animals. The line drawn between humans and our more primitive ape ancestors is completely arbitrary. In other words, if evolution is true, then there was no first human, and thus no Adam or Eve. If there was no Adam or Eve, then there is no original sin. If there is no original sin, then the entire belief system of Christianity fall like a house of cards, because the doctrine of original sin is the very foundation upon which all of Christianity is built.

Am I saying that it is impossible to be a Christian and accept evolution? No, because many people (perhaps the majority of people) hold inconsistent beliefs. However, I do believe strongly that evolution and Christianity are fundamentally irreconcilable in that they both cannot be true. If Darwinian evolution is a fact (and it is as close to a fact as we can get outside of mathematics and logic), then the core metaphysical claims of Christianity cannot be true for the reasons given above.

I cannot agree more. The sole idea that a benevolent God, who knows what He wants, created such a cruel, wasteful and inefficient mechanism that involves catastrophes, the tuning of asteroids to destroy entire species, volcanoes, earthquakes, the extermination of 99% of all species, the eating of the weak, the burning of the slow, etc. etc. to create an ape, allegedely in His image, a few billions years later....is mind boggling.

It is a like having a cake and eating it too. Still hold a belief while be scientific cool. Without realizing that both science and the bible are damaged by that stance.

Of course, the liberal christian follows a very simple algorithm for what concerns the bible:

1) if a passage is obviously defeated by science, then it is figurative
2) the rest is literal, for now

Not sure how intellectually honest that is. And I agree that fundies, while being obviously wrong, seem intellectually more consistent.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Maybe, but most Christians believe that humans have immortal souls and other animals do not. So, at some point in human evolution, they'd have to believe in a human/ape who had an immortal soul, but whose parents do not.

Otherwise, by recursion, all living beings, including bacteria and bananas, would have an immortal soul.

It follows logically from the premises.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

There is one thing (likely the only thing) that Answers in Genesis got right, but many other Christians refuse to accept. The theory of evolution and Christianity are fundamentally irreconcilable. Here's why:

If evolution is true, then there is no actual distinction between humans and other animals. The line drawn between humans and our more primitive ape ancestors is completely arbitrary. In other words, if evolution is true, then there was no first human, and thus no Adam or Eve. If there was no Adam or Eve, then there is no original sin. If there is no original sin, then the entire belief system of Christianity fall like a house of cards, because the doctrine of original sin is the very foundation upon which all of Christianity is built.

Am I saying that it is impossible to be a Christian and accept evolution? No, because many people (perhaps the majority of people) hold inconsistent beliefs. However, I do believe strongly that evolution and Christianity are fundamentally irreconcilable in that they both cannot be true. If Darwinian evolution is a fact (and it is as close to a fact as we can get outside of mathematics and logic), then the core metaphysical claims of Christianity cannot be true for the reasons given above.

I agree. That was one of the things that led me to drop Christianity. It doesn't reflect known history and science. I've heard various explanations that try to make Original Sin work with evolution but never found them convincing or that they make most sense. Traditional polytheism just works better because it doesn't ask you to believe anything you haven't experienced and is in harmony with the natural world, as it is our primal religion, the religion of nature.

 

[sooda]

I cannot agree more. The sole idea that a benevolent God, who knows what He wants, created such a cruel, wasteful and inefficient mechanism that involves catastrophes, the tuning of asteroids to destroy entire species, volcanoes, earthquakes, the extermination of 99% of all species, the eating of the weak, the burning of the slow, etc. etc. to create an ape, allegedely in His image, a few billions years later....is mind boggling.

It is a like having a cake and eating it too. Still hold a belief while be scientific cool. Without realizing that both science and the bible are damaged by that stance.

Of course, the liberal christian follows a very simple algorithm for what concerns the bible:

1) if a passage is obviously defeated by science, then it is figurative
2) the rest is literal, for now

Not sure how intellectually honest that is. And I agree that fundies, while being obviously wrong, seem intellectually more consistent.

Ciao

- viole

That's what Rambam concluded in the 11th century AD.

 

[viole]

Another case of atheists trying to tell Christians what they believe to fit their own twisted agenda.

A very well thought, profound, compelling and articulated rebuttal of the OP.

Ciao

- viole

 

[shunyadragon]

↑
There is one thing (likely the only thing) that Answers in Genesis got right, but many other Christians refuse to accept. The theory of evolution and Christianity are fundamentally irreconcilable. Here's why:

If evolution is true, then there is no actual distinction between humans and other animals. The line drawn between humans and our more primitive ape ancestors is completely arbitrary. In other words, if evolution is true, then there was no first human, and thus no Adam or Eve. If there was no Adam or Eve, then there is no original sin. If there is no original sin, then the entire belief system of Christianity fall like a house of cards, because the doctrine of original sin is the very foundation upon which all of Christianity is built.

Am I saying that it is impossible to be a Christian and accept evolution? No, because many people (perhaps the majority of people) hold inconsistent beliefs. However, I do believe strongly that evolution and Christianity are fundamentally irreconcilable in that they both cannot be true. If Darwinian evolution is a fact (and it is as close to a fact as we can get outside of mathematics and logic), then the core metaphysical claims of Christianity cannot be true for the reasons given above.

Well, ah . . . your faced many problems with this view. I would completely agree that contemporary science, including the science of abiogenesis and evolution, are irreconsilable with the ancient mythical world of Genesis and for that matter the rest of the Bible and the ancient scripture of other religions, but . . . The contemporary science, as well as the science of abiogenesis and evolution, is falsified beyond a reasonable doubt base don the same objective verifiable evidence and methods that make our computers work, and airplanes fly.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I agree. That was one of the things that led me to drop Christianity. It doesn't reflect known history and science. I've heard various explanations that try to make Original Sin work with evolution but never found them convincing or that they make most sense. Traditional polytheism just works better because it doesn't ask you to believe anything you haven't experienced and is in harmony with the natural world, as it is our primal religion, the religion of nature.

How is the existence of your polytheistic gods any more probable than the Christian god?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

How is the existence of your polytheistic gods any more probable than the Christian god?

Well, they're not a mess of contradictions that define them out of existence, for one.