Religion & Spirituality

Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Creation versus Evolution. Why evolution is not sufficient to prove Bible wrong?

Bible is the holy book of Christians. It is nothing but the word of God.
Christianity should be considered for its historical viability.

We, Christians believe that God created the earth and the universe. Estimated age of earth is ~6000 years old. Some may argue that earth is billions of years old. We can term as old earth theory. But it is illogical to conclude something or question Bible without asking sufficient questions. Often people get carried away by some evidence and come to a conclusion. Evidence should be complemented by logical reasoning.

Everyone agree that Adam and Eve were the first humans created by God. When both Adam and Eve were created did they appear one day old. No. They were created as adults. Conclusions without logical reasoning and asking every possible questions are not sufficient to prove Bible wrong. Remember Bible is nothing but the word of God. Human ideas are also evolving and our science and research is improving day by day. It may not be perfect today but it may be more perfect tomorrow. Improvement is an ongoing process and perfection is never attained. Only God is perfect. Everything else is in transition. We need to ask do cosmology, geology and other sciences have evolved enough to prove Bible wrong? My belief in Jesus, our only savior helps me confidently say that Bible can never be wrong. It may be difficult for many to understand, but belief in God empowers logical reasoning.

About evolutions, can it prove Bible wrong? No. True that living beings may adapt to the environment. Let us agree that adaptations are genetically heritable and it is heritable across different environments. This is just an accumulation of data. That addresses What part of the phenomenon. But logical reasoning enables us to think about how and why ?
Why does genes behave in a particular way way ? Why does it adapt? Was it designed that way ? This is where creation/creator comes into picture. Without asking sufficient questions evolution or transitional forms is an incomplete understanding. Evolution by itself may not stand out, it may need a force to drive it.

The entire life on earth is driven by one force and I need not repeat it!

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

DocSavage · M

1) we do not agree that Adam and Eve were the first humans. Adam was a golem, Eve was a transgender clone if you accept the Bible as fact. Askr and Embla were the first humans if you prefer Norse mythology as I do.
Human evolved over time, and as a population, not as one couple . There was no garden of Eden, Adam and Eve, did not eat from the tree of knowledge and there never was a fall. There was no sin. Which means that there is no need for redemption or a savior. Which means Jesus didn’t change anything, he was a mortal, he died , he isn’t coming back. Etc. Etc. The entire religion is unraveled , but it was just a fairytale to begin with.
2) Evolution is a theory which how life diversified over millions of years in to what we see today. It is an explanation made from observations, confirmed studies and facts.it has nothing to do with religion. It just is. It works, and there are no arguments with it.
Apologists bring it up, because they’re afraid education will take the place of faith.
It is not Evolution that has a problem with Christianity, it’s Christianity that has a problem with the real world.

1-25 of 41

wildbill83 · 41-45, M

@DocSavage

It is an explanation made from observations, confirmed studies and facts.

really? who exactly "observed" a human evolving from something else? 🤔

DocSavage · M

@wildbill83
Before we get into this, would it be asking too much of you to actually learn a few of the basics of evolution? Clearly you know nothing about it, and I don’t want to spend a lot of time correcting all your misinformation.

sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M

@wildbill83 Paleontologist's

wildbill83 · 41-45, M

@DocSavage evolution - /ˌevəˈlo͞oSH(ə)n/ - noun
1.
the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
2.
the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.

apparently you don't understand your own belief... 🤔

sputnik · 70-79, M

@wildbill83 Humans didn’t evolve ‘from something else’. Humans and chimpanzees share common ancestry. if you think that one species somehow turns into another species then you completely misunderstand evolution.

I recommend that you heed DocSavage’s suggestion

DocSavage · M

@wildbill83
I understand it just fine. Now answer my question. What kind of evidence are you looking for ? What part of it are you not convinced about, that debunks the whole theory for you ?

wildbill83 · 41-45, M

@sputnik

if you think that one species somehow turns into another species then you completely misunderstand evolution.

Where did humans come from then? Where did the first dna strand come from? complex proteins? etc.

Humans and chimpanzees share common ancestry.

your ancestors might have... common DNA isn't proof of "common ancestry", could as easily be considered proof of similar designer...

sputnik · 70-79, M

@wildbill83

Where did the first dna strand come from

from something simpler, of course.
Have you seen newjaninev2’s posts on retroviral and pseudogene evidence? If not, you can find it on her profile. I’d love to see how you explain that evidence!

DocSavage · M

@wildbill83
Try reading up on “Chromosome Two” it may give you a little insight. A small change can make big differences over a great amount of time.
And since we’re still on the subject of proof. Where is your proof that a “designer “ exist, and is responsible for us. DNA is evidence that we’re related. But it doesn’t show we were created.

wildbill83 · 41-45, M

Bananas share about 60% of their DNA with Dogs; would you therefore conclude that they must have a "common ancestor"?

If so, please cite the laboratory experiment demonstrating a Banana "evolving" into a Dog or vice versa...lol

wildbill83 · 41-45, M

@sputnik

from something simpler, of course.

Humans didn’t evolve ‘from something else’.

So human's didn't evolve from something simpler, but humans evolved from something simpler?

way to contradict yourself... lmao

sputnik · 70-79, M

@wildbill83 All species share common ancestry with every other species.
For goodness sake, please heed DocSavage’s advice.

You’re still talking as if one species somehow turns into another species. Such an idea is not part of evolution.

sputnik · 70-79, M

@wildbill83 Have you found Newjaninev2’s posts on retroviral and pseudogene? I’d be interested in your explanation for that

wildbill83 · 41-45, M

@sputnik

All species share common ancestry with every other species.

You’re still talking as if one species somehow turns into another species. Such an idea is not part of evolution.

Your words, not mine.

sputnik · 70-79, M

@wildbill83 The common ancestor for humans and chimpanzees was more primitive, which means closer to other common ancestors.

Please stop assuming that anything simpler than human is somehow ‘lesser’. Simpler merely means less complex than its descendants, not ‘better’.

You seem to have a limited understanding of this topic. Would you like some help with that?

DocSavage · M

@wildbill83
Obviously, but your words are not backed up by science or research. Just fairytales in an old book.

wildbill83 · 41-45, M

@DocSavage neither are yours, they're merely backed up with assumption and circumstantial evidence... aka, belief/faith

sputnik · 70-79, M

@wildbill83

Your words, not mine

So you accept that one species doesn’t somehow turn into another species, and that such an idea is not part of evolution.

DocSavage · M

@wildbill83
Blind faith in. Data that has passed numerous testing and peer reviews. Some how, I don’t feel guilty about that. What have you got to justify your faith ? What practical use is there for creationism for example ?

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

DocSavage · M

@wildbill83
Assumptions - scientific study, testing , peer review
Circumstantial evidence -supporting facts, that lead to a testable conclusion.

Didn’t you say something earlier about there being no scientific method involved ?

sputnik · 70-79, M

@wildbill83

more time to study what can be proven

So just drop other stuff into the ‘too hard’ basket and invent some or other convenient fiction

wildbill83 · 41-45, M

@DocSavage Empirical science (scientific method) is based upon 1 - Observation, 2 - Testing, 3 - Repetition.

In other words, no one has ever "observed" a Human evolving from a chimpanzee
No one has ever tested/replicated a human evolving into a chimpanzee in a laboratory experiment
let alone repeating it because it doesn't meet the first two prerequisites

By that definition, evolution isn't scientific, it's merely pseudoscience

circumstantial evidence & circular reasoning isn't fact

sputnik · 70-79, M

@wildbill83

a human evolving into a chimpanzee

For the third time, humans didn’t evolve from chimpanzees.
Do you understand that humans and chimpanzees share common ancestry?
Do you understand that?

DocSavage · M

@wildbill83
No one ever said a human evolved from a chimpanzee.
Chimpanzees are apes. So are gorilla, so are orangutans
A chimp is not a gorilla, or an orangutan
A gorilla is not A chimpanzee or an orangutan
A orangutan is not A chimpanzee or a gorilla
They are all primates, they are all apes. They are all different species.
Humans are primates, humans are apes - we share several characteristics
We don’t argue that the other apes are related, why should it be different with humans ?
DNA says we’re related. We’re just a modified version of what we started with.
You see it in ring species today. And in fossils from yesterday.

1-25 of 41