Positive
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 »
KYLakeDiver · 51-55, M
Evolution has nothing to do with the debate. This whole discussion boils down to this, either:

1 Someone much more advanced existed before the universe and used or developed bioengineering to construct living organisms.

Or

2 Only matter existed before the universe and nothing developed life. It happened on its own.

As humans we should understand how easy it is for us to develope things that are less complex than ourselves. But, as humans it seems impossible for some to accept the possibility that anything is greater than we are. Saying "prove it" does not diminish the possibility.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@KYLakeDiver Evolution by Natural Selection explains how it is possible for things simpler than us to become more complex than us, without needing us... or any other sort of agency
KYLakeDiver · 51-55, M
@newjaninev2 Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@KYLakeDiver That’s true... I wasn’t talking about abiogenesis. All we know about abiogenesis is that it happened at least once.
Sharon · F
@KYLakeDiver If one considers the universe too complex to have come into being without a "creator", how does one explain the existence of that "creator"? Then, without the use of double standards, how does explain why the universe could not have come into being the same way?
@KYLakeDiver Many theists accept the fact of evolution—how could they not, with all the evidence and reasoning supporting natural selection?—but they remind us that the initial appearance of self-replicating molecules has not yet been explained. They are right. Although there are many good hypotheses, we still don’t know how this happened. But this does not allow theists to fold their arms and say, “See—you don’t know. We have an answer and you don’t. We’re smarter than the scientists!” That argument for God is based on ignorance, not facts. It is a “god of the gaps” argument. Failure to solve a natural riddle at this time does not mean there is no answer. For millennia humans have created mythical answers to “mysteries” such as thunder and fertility, but the more we learn, the fewer gods we need. God belief is just answering a mystery with a mystery, and therefore answers nothing.
KYLakeDiver · 51-55, M
@Sharon @BlueSkyKing It isn't a test of who is smarter. My reply is only making the choices clear.
Virgo79 · 61-69, M
@KYLakeDiver bingo!
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@KYLakeDiver But you’re only offering two choices
KYLakeDiver · 51-55, M
@newjaninev2 You are inconsistent and I never care about your opinions like I used to. I don't care how many choices you want. Im not here to please you. Get lost
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@KYLakeDiver I want a myriad of choices. I want to be able to choose that the universe was created by a group of turtles. After they created the universe they became the first self-replicating molecules on one of the insignificant planets they created. Why isn’t that a choice?

Why can’t it be that as a choice?

Why self-limit to two choices, and who gets to choose them, and why?

and why is this conflating cosmology, abiogenesis, and evolution... three disparate topics.