June 15, 2013

  • Why Theistic Evolution is Incompatible with the Bible

    I am mainly doing this for my own thought process, because these things are so important. And it seems some people are ignorant of how important these things are. This is why I make this public. So, as you read this, know that my mind is made up and closed like a steel trap and I care not what you think about it. As far as I am concerned the following are concrete facts, and to deny them as such is pure folly. 

     

    1.) You have to ignore the declaration (six times over) that, “the evening and the morning were the _____ day.”

     

    2.) You have to ignore the declaration of God Himself, which He said twice over, that He made everything in six days.

     

    3.) You have to ignore the command by God for every living thing to reproduce “after his kind”, because you are saying every kind came from one kind. 

     

    4.)  You have God declaring millions of years of mutation mistakes and death “good”. 

     

    5.) You have to explain how plant life survived for however long you are claiming each evening and morning actually are, for the creation of the sun – which happened the day after plants were created.

     

    6.) You must ignore the declaration that man brought death into the world through sin. Death has been going on for millions of years before man existed.

     

    7.) You also have a new problem explaining why bad things happen. In essence, why a perfect loving God created such an imperfect cruel world.

     

    8.)  You run into problems with the Biblical declaration that Jesus conquered death as “the last Adam”, because you have made death an integral element in the creation of man. 

     

    9.) (This is very important to me.) You are letting men who hate God tell you how you ought to interpret His Word.

     

     

     

     

    Problems with denying a world wide flood (which usually goes hand in hand with believing in evolution).

     

    1.) You make God a promise breaker and a liar, because He promised to never do such a thing to earth again. So every time you see a rainbow you can remember that broken promise it is to be a reminder of.

     

    2.) Apparently God is not very efficient, because it seems it would have been a lot simpler to just tell Noah to go to higher ground in that 140 years he had to prepare. 

     

    3.) Now you run into problems with explaining the lifespan of humanity because all of a sudden they stop living so long, after this “local” flood. 

     

     

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

     

     

    In essence, like any time a lie is told, you have to make up more and more lies to cover the first one. So when you twist the Genesis account of creation to fit the lie of evolution, you then have to twist other things to force them to fit in the account also. And eventually you get to the heart of the whole need for a Savior coming into question. I can never see any instance of Darwinian Evolution ever being compatible with the Bible.

Comments (32)

  • [I can never see any instance of Darwinian Evolution ever being compatible with the Bible.]

    I agree

  • Good thoughts. Of course, I agree with you.

  • I totally agree. There is of course the possibility that Noah’s flood was not the first time God wiped out life on earth with water. This is the only option I see for old earth.

  • I agree that there are too many issues with Darwin’s evolution for it to be compatible with the Bible.

  • Mr. Darwin personally crafted his theory to destroy the Bible. He made that clear. Today, Stephen Hawking crafts his theory of The Big Bang to destroy the moment of Creation. Science in both cases becomes flawed due to the bias against God. So, in the “debate” between Evolution vs. Bible, the scientists err on their own side by doing skewed science.
    Likewise, Samantha (whom I expect to lose contact with, farethewell), religionists in arguing for a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis, err through a flawed understanding of what Scripture means. In the list of items you cite above, all of them are related to the Book of Genesis, and the first few chapters especially. Your interpretation places strict literal restraints on an ancient text (of more ancient oral sources). In so doing you err. So, oddly, in the argument of Evolution vs. God, the scientists are doing flawed science, and the religionists are doing flawed Biblical interpretation. No wonder the discussion gets nowhere. First, “inspiration” needs to be correctly understood. The human writer is impelled by God to write what he has written, but not “compelled.” The words of Scripture were not generally dictated by God, (if that were the case you could accuse God of writing in the wrong tense several times.) The human writer had to decide what to write and how to write it, so as to precisely express the mind of God. God’s word is rational, written by rational human beings, and addressed to rational human beings. When ancient Hebrew Scripture says that with God “a day is as a thousand years” – do they mean 999 years? or, roughly a thousand years? or a million years? Well, if looked at with reason, it means “a very long time”, or really, if you think about it, it means people cannot apply TIME to God like it applies to humans. So, every instance that Genisis says “DAY” replace that with “x” – like in algebra, because you can’t have a day on the first day if the Earth wasn’t created yet. And Time does not apply to God. The Book shows that God lovingly made life and everything in Space, and that creation reflects a process of development that is almost hierarchical, some things before others. The Big Bang theory, which Stephen Hawking is trying to alter, was developed by a Catholic priest-astronomer to reflect God as creating from nothing, and that Light was created first. Maybe so.

  • @mortimerZilch - This comment from you alone is enough for me to reject the RCC. As stated in the blog, it is very important to me that you let men who hate God tell you how you should interpret His Word. ANd no one ever thought to interpret the creation week as anything other than a week until men who hate God said otherwise. I could never be a part of a church that caves in to the world like that.

  • @mtngirlsouth - Actually, there is reason to believe that it never was taken either as a literal week or as anything else, but just as a lesson in how God is the one who created the universe, before evolution even came into the picture. St. Augustine, for instance, believed that the creation process could have been over thousands of years. I am not saying that either is right, just that it wasn’t a big argument or idea to Jews or Christians until the 19th century, to argue that it was a literal week.

  • @mortimerZilch - 

    You do the very thing you’re accusing “religionists” of doing. I see it clearly. Do you?

    I’ll be back later to point out your ignorance in case you missed it. In the meantime, read your comment again and think on your conclusion of “day” relating to your speaking about writing interpretation.

    Comment fail.

  • Sorry, I was misspoke about St. Augustine–he believed that the creation process began instantaneously, but that it is impossible to say how it continued afterward (he also asserted that God never finished with creation, but is continuing creation to the present day). Here is an article better explaining some of his thoughts: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/may/22.39.html?start=1

    And, once again, I’m not saying that I agree with him. I just wanted to show how some hardcore Christians throughout the ages (people who are far from hating God), did in fact interpret it to mean something other than a literal week.

  • Well, I absolutely agree about one thing. Evolution is incompatible with the bible. I’m sure you’re already aware of which I believe, and I’ve got no intention of trying to change your mind, so I’ll leave it at that. Purely out of curiosity, though, I have wondered something, about the literal interpretation of the bible. In what sense was there a “day”, before the sun? Also purely out of curiosity, does that mean you also don’t believe that the Earth is billions of years old?

  • @Jenny_Wren - That makes sense. But I don’t think the motivation for any of it today is due to anything other than caving into pressure and worrying about what other people might think. It still flies in the face of the actual text also. But thank you for pointing that out.

  • @Maverick83 - Because of the statement “The evening and the morning were the _____ day,” and the fact that God Himself reiterates the idea by saying, “In six days,” I can’t see how it would mean anything other than a day as we know it. I expect God to be able to communicate correctly, and to realize how what He says would be understood. Also, God is very efficient. Not wasteful. He makes it clear in the two places He says He made everything in six days that He rested the seventh day and expects us to take one day of rest. That explains why He took that long to make everything. Him using evolution to make everything is contrary to everything we know about His nature.

    And, yes, I do believe the earth is only about 6 thousand years old. I reject billions of years because the only reason for it is that in order for evolution to be true, and life to be so vast here, it requires billions of years. The “science” behind that notion is very biased and relies heavily on a LOT of assumptions/faith. The difference is that I am willing to admit my assumptions and faith elements of my beliefs.

  • @mtngirlsouth - Some old earthers I know are skilled biblical scholars, and take interpretation very seriously. They, like Augustine, try to receive it as the original audience would have been meant to receive it. Some point out how the first chapter of Genesis was written in a sing-songy, lilting style that was typical of Jewish nursery rhymes or lessons for children. It would have been taken as we might take a song like “Jesus love me.” They argue that while it is very clear that God is the origin of all things, who created from ex nihilo, who personally made Adam and Eve, that the chronological order and even the timeline of Genesis 1 isn’t as important as realizing that God is to be credited as the direct creator of all these things. This is what they say was the attitude of the Jews. The Jews would have thought it secondary and unimportant to argue if it was done in a literal week.

    I’m saying this to shed some light on the Christians who are old earthers and want to be honest about the original purpose of the scripture. Most of them are not Darwinian evolutionists (in the sense that they believe everything came together by chance through cause and effect alone), rather, they question whether or not anyone can be entirely sure what exactly happened before Adam and Eve came into the picture (in a clinical, literal sense). They don’t want to read Genesis 1 in a way it wasn’t meant to be read. They take interpretation from the original Hebrew, from cultural context, without compromising orthodoxy, very seriously. It’s not as simple for them as “caving into societal pressures.”

    And, I respect their concern. I, personally, have not decided where I stand in this issue.

  • @mtngirlsouth - I see. Then, I have to ask, and I apologize as I’m still not attempting to change your beliefs, just to clarify for myself what the reasoning behind it all is. By all means, don’t feel compelled to answer, if you’re uncomfortable doing so…there are a number of celestial objects I could refer to, but just to make it easier to address, I’ll pick one. The Andromeda galaxy is estimated to be about 2.5 million light years away. I could see that estimate being a bit off, but certainly not so much that its true distance would be within 10,000 light years, as we would absolutely notice a dramatically stronger gravitational effect. The light from the Andromeda galaxy had to travel for 2.5 million years, in order to reach us (and therefore would have had to exist 2.5 million years ago), yet in accordance with the bible, it would have come into existence 6,000 or so years ago. How is this reconciled? Is the universe still older than the Earth, or was it created at the same time? Does God allow some light to travel faster than other light? Are we mistaken that the Andromeda galaxy is, in fact, a galaxy?

  • The How of Creation is the least important part of the story and yet remains the most divisive issue in the Church today. Instead of letting it go because it really is not doctrinally important at all (yes I know some will disagree with me on this) it becomes a dividing line of hate. One hand you have people who believe in a billion-year-old universe and evolution that believe people like you cannot look at facts. On the other hand there are people like you who believe in the six-thousand-year-old earth and deny macro-evolution (since you cannot deny micro-evolution as it has been observed to occur) who spread hate by claiming that people who believe so hate God which is false simply through my own experience of observation at a Christian college I attended. The main evidence I have for supernatural beings is the radiance of love, selflessness, and humility these people lived and practiced (as well as the inconvenience of not being able to make themselves believe in a six-thousand-year-old earth.)

    Then, you have the gambit of everything in between those two view points, but I will not go into it right now. In the end, it does not matter if they are right or wrong on how the earth was created. Biblical study requires high work and knowledge and is very complicated, so people are bound to have different interpretations. Having a friendly intellectual discussion on it is fine; making it a dividing point is a problem.

    On a side note, I will add this to the discussion. I am not trying to change your mind, but I started to question a six-thousand-year-old earth when my ACE conservative homeschooling was pointing out the flaws of a billion-year-old universe because death would have occurred which is a point you brought up. Unless all living things lived in stasis and required no sustenance, death would have occurred; even if every single living thing was a vegetarian, that is still death. That, and they claimed that God gave the appearance of age (such as stars), which to me is blatantly false as it makes God a deceiver seems contrary to his nature. He is many things-some not so good-but a liar never seemed to be one of them.

  • @Maverick83 - Well, even though much of those conclusions are based on certain assumptions, even if they are all true, I think of it this way: God did not make Adam and Eve newborn babies, He did not put them in a garden with saplings that they had to wait for years and years to mature to making fruit. The Bible says that the heavens declare His glory, so He made them to give us a glimpse of how powerful He is – it makes sense that He would have made them visible from earth right from the start.

    Questions never bother me. Ask away.

  • @snarkius - No, God is not a liar. BUt Satan has always tried to make Him look as such. The men who push an old earth and evolution most certainly DO hate God. That statement is not me “spreading hate”. There is no other way to look at it. Either the statement that God made everything in six days is true or it is false. God Himself made this statement twice. So if anyone says that this statement is false, THEY would be the ones making God a liar.

  • @mtngirlsouth - Not necessary, I have no further questions. I thank you for clarifying, on those matters.

  • @Maverick83 – Well then, you’re welcome.

  • @mtngirlsouth - 
    well, Samantha, what do you think about John CH.6? “Eat my flesh…” you probably interpret that allegorically, or metaphorically, right? Who taught you to do that?
    He meant it, and that’s why people left Him. (Did you leave Him for the same reason?)
    Peter did not leave.

  • @mtngirlsouth - 

    Of course God isn’t a liar. That was why when I was younger and looked at the stars, the only conclusion I could come to was that the stars were not created with the appearance of age, but that the universe was in fact billions of years old. That is just me though; that same thought process leads to a different conclusion in one of my young-earth friends. Theologically, it does not matter which of us are right. We do enjoy discussing it though.

    “The men who push an old earth and evolution most certainly DO hate God. That statement is not me “spreading hate”. “

    This is where disagreements do matter. I remain friends with professors who teach astronomy and life sciences. They are Christians, but these are the men whom you claim hate God. This is the spreading of hate I am talking about. Are there people who hate the idea of God and push science as evidence of God’s nonexistence? Of course those men exist, but there are also men whose love of God’s creation prompts them to want to study it and teach as much about it as possible. They believe in God; they also come to conclusions based on the evidence they have observed. All they do is teach a science. How is this proof they hate God? By that logic, one could claim that all Christians that live in Kansas are of the Westboro Baptist Church mindset.

    Even Darwin didn’t hate God at least as far as I could extrapolate from his private diaries and letters. He was simply an intelligent observant man whose personal writings show a decades-long transition from faith in God to being an agnostic.

    Why are you painting people who believe in an old universe and/or evolution with one brush? The fact that you are so quick to claim that those people are spreading hate shows that you yourself are doing your part to contribute to the animosity among the different sects.

  • @mortimerZilch - Actually, Peter denied Him three times after that. Because God does not change, and He said that we were not to eat the blood, I believe that the wine and bread were JUST symbols. And just because I can see this devolving into a RCC vs. every-other-kind-of-Christianity I’m going to say right here and now, I’ve looked into it, my mind is made up, and you have no hope of ever converting me or embarrassing me or chastising me or any other method you may attempt. I don’t care what you or your Pope or your literature says. (Quit while you’re ahead.)

  • @snarkius - AS stated previously, THEY call God a liar. Either it is true that He made everything in six days, or THAT is a lie. He said He did. Either He did, or He lied. Period.

  • Right on, girl. God even interrupted his telling of the 10 commandments to say that he created the heavens and the earth in 6 days and ceased from it on the seventh.

  • @mtngirlsouth - 

    They may be mistaken in what they believe, but they believe what they believe not only because of what they see in God’s creation but also due to years of Biblical scholarship. Some historical Biblical scholars through study of Scripture believed the Scriptures pointed to an older earth before current politics and science exerted its influence.

    Whether this makes them liars because of something they genuinely believe is up for debate. How this makes them hate God apparently is still what baffles me about your statements.

  • @snarkius -  Okay. The people I had in mind were the ones like Richard Dawkins. The people you are talking about are not pushing evolution to anyone other than those who ask for it. But anyone who has years of study under their belt either has comprehension problems or do not mind calling God a liar. Doesn’t seem like the behavior of love. Also, it is in line with those who outwardly explicitly do hate God, while conflicting with the words spoken by God Himself. How am I to interpret such behavior?

  • “a day to God is as a thousand years….” duh

  • “So, as you read this, know that my mind is made up and closed like a steel trap and I care not what you think about it. As far as I am concerned the following are concrete facts, and to deny them as such is pure folly. “

    To believe god is infallible is one thing, but to believe your own opinion or theology is infallible is to assume you are infallible, which really is folly. I believe in seeking truth, not and I will never assume I have all of it or a monopoly on it, because that just stops you seeking.

    “1.) You have to ignore the declaration (six times over) that, “the evening and the morning were the _____ day.”

    I’m no biblical scholar but I’ve heard it argued many times that this is a matter of translation, and that the word translated as “day” can mean other things. And then there’s also the issue of what form of literature you think genesis is, a literal historical document, an allegory, parable etc. A story being fictional does not mean it’s a “lie”, most parables are fictional stories meant to convey real, meaningful ideas that are simply too subtle to express plainly. This is what esoteric means, something which can be understood but cannot be simply taught. And many religious and spiritual teachings deal with the esoteric. Fundamentalists insist the bible is 1+1=2 and refuse to allow for the possibility that it could be anything more subtle or complex than that.

    “2.) You have to ignore the declaration of God Himself, which He said twice over, that He made everything in six days.”

    Well it’s a text written by people claiming to speak for god, so not technically a declaration “from god himself”. But yeah you can take it as an allegory. Or even as a myth tacked onto scripture, given that chapters 1 and 2 of genesis give different orders of the days etc, which creates problems if you believe the bible is literal and inerrant. Are your objections any more legitimate than the ones that arise from taking genesis literally? That it takes god the same amount of time to make the sun as it does to make the trillions of other suns in the cosmos? Or that light, night and day, the sun and the earth are made on separate days when night and day are just the shadow created by one half of the earth? Or that it says the stars were made to light the earth when the light from most stars is only detectable from outer space with extremely powerful sensors? Etc, etc.

    “3.) You have to ignore the command by God for every living thing to reproduce “after his kind”, because you are saying every kind came from one kind. “

    “Kind” has no definition, and every living thing does reproduce “after it’s kind” whether you mean cats make more cats and dogs make more dogs (each of their “kinds”) or whether you mean that cats and dogs are felines and canids which are both mammals which makes them both the same “kind”. It depends entirely what you mean by “kind”. This, to me, has always been an arbitrary “problem” creationists promote and not a real contradiction.

    “4.) You have God declaring millions of years of mutation mistakes and death “good”.

    The universe isn’t good? And the things creationists point to as “bad” are actually vital parts of the working of the universe and life. If life didn’t vary (which rarely results in birth defects btw) evolution would be impossible, and evolution is the heart of creation. It’s essentially how the universe generates new ideas to solve problems. In the same way that an engineer usually has to find 5 ways to solve a problem that don’t work before he can find one that does, life has to generate many solutions that don’t work in order to generate the one that does. It’s the nature of creativity, it’s like the universe perpetually brainstorming. And it yields tremendous results every day. Is it “good”? Well without it there would be no mind to conceive of good or beauty or love or happiness, so it is the source of all goodness (and badness) in the universe. Now you can say that god started life and started the universe and say god is the source, but as far as I know that can’t be verified so I make no such claims.

    “5.) You have to explain how plant life survived for however long you are claiming each evening and morning actually are, for the creation of the sun – which happened the day after plants were created.”

    Yup, it’s a problem. Unless they take it as an allegory, in which case critiquing the logic of it is like attacking the story of little red riding hood because a wolf couldn’t have swallowed a grandmother whole and she would’ve suffocated in it’s stomach and probably a hundred other “problems”. But in reality you can’t debunk or disprove little red riding hood because it’s not meant to be a literal historical text, but rather an entertaining story to subtly convey the idea that there are good and bad people in the world, and kids should be wary of strangers. It is essentially a dialogue with the conscious and unconscious mind, not just the conscious. It’s meant to make people think and feel, not just convey dry literal facts. Would it ever even occur to you to call a story like little red riding hood a “lie”? Also ask yourself how do we know it is an allegory and isn’t meant to be taken literally. The answer is of course that it has obvious clues like that it contains many entertaining impossibilities – the most common of which in allegories is talking animals. Does that sound like anything you’d find in the book of genesis?

    “6.) You must ignore the declaration that man brought death into the world through sin. Death has been going on for millions of years before man existed.”

    Again, allegory. And death has existed a long time before people. Fossils and what have you.

    “7.) You also have a new problem explaining why bad things happen. In essence, why a perfect loving God created such an imperfect cruel world.”

    How is that not a problem for you too?

    “8.) You run into problems with the Biblical declaration that Jesus conquered death as “the last Adam”, because you have made death an integral element in the creation of man.”

    This is a definite theological problem but that theology was built upon the assumption that genesis is meant to be taken literally and that the bible is inerrant. If that theology is incorrect then much of modern christian theology collapses too – but that doesn’t mean that that theology is correct. Just that many christians reeeeeeeally want it to be correct. But like anything it’s right only if it’s right.

    “9.) (This is very important to me.) You are letting men who hate God tell you how you ought to interpret His Word.”

    It’s wrong to confuse disdain for religion or a particular religious person with hatred for god. Jesus was one of the biggest heretics of all time, he pissed off the religious authorities of his day so badly they had him executed. Did he “hate god” too? No. But he had a lot of beefs with the religious conventions of his day. And so do many atheists, agnostics, deists and even many theists. I do not hate god. I’ve never hated god, or even been angry with him. I think the depiction of god some people believe in would, if he existed, be monstrous, but I do not hate that being because I have never believed him to be real and I could no more hate him than you could hate the tooth fairy. If you dismiss what someone says because they are different from you, and you assume they are hateful because they don’t share your views, that is just prejudice.

    “Problems with denying a world wide flood (which usually goes hand in hand with believing in evolution).”

    It also goes hand in hand with being christian in most parts of the western world. That atheists tend to accept science doesn’t make science atheistic. Atheists just have no reason to reject ideas like evolution, which were developed largely by deists and christians.

    “1.) You make God a promise breaker and a liar, because He promised to never do such a thing to earth again. So every time you see a rainbow you can remember that broken promise it is to be a reminder of.”

    This is also a sort of circular reasoning, part X of genesis must be true because if it weren’t part Y would be false. It ignores that both parts could be false or that the story could again not be meant to be taken literally.

    2.) Apparently God is not very efficient, because it seems it would have been a lot simpler to just tell Noah to go to higher ground in that 140 years he had to prepare.

    Again, allegory. It would’ve also been a lot simpler to just make everyone who wasn’t noah and his family drop dead and skip the boat altogether. Or just transport them to another world and blow this one up. After all if he can create a hundred billion galaxies in a day it would’ve taken him no time at all to make another solar system.

    “3.) Now you run into problems with explaining the lifespan of humanity because all of a sudden they stop living so long, after this “local” flood.”

    There is no objective evidence that the human lifespan was ever that long to begin with. It’s worth mentioning that genesis was passed on by oral tradition for who knows how long and when it was finally written down there were multiple versions floating around, so who knows what was original and what was an exaggeration that came later. Or even assuming there are divinely inspired books maybe genesis isn’t one of them. There are entire sections of the bible with fantastic stories like Bel And The Dragon (originally included in the book of daniel) that were included in the original KJV and later removed. In some versions bel is an idol to a fictional dragon god, in others it’s a literal dragon that is slain by daniel. Even if the bible were a literal history in the ancient world nearly all history is intermixed with mythology and it is up to us to figure out which is which. I remember debating with a christian who argued the bible was a strict, literal, inerrant history and said that if only we treated jesus the way we do alexander the great we’d accept every word said about him. So I, always willing to entertain a novel idea, googled alexander the great and found out that in his day he was said to be the son of god, born of a virgin and to be a fulfiller of prophecies, some from the bible. So why don’t we believe this? He was said to be the son of zeus, immaculately conceived when his virgin mother was struck by a lightning bolt… I later came to find that there is a great deal of mythology in most ancient histories and that such claims were very common, especially of beloved figures and leaders.

    “In essence, like any time a lie is told, you have to make up more and more lies to cover the first one. So when you twist the Genesis account of creation to fit the lie of evolution, you then have to twist other things to force them to fit in the account also. And eventually you get to the heart of the whole need for a Savior coming into question.”

    Oh the bible was twisted like taffy by kings and emperors and popes long before darwin came along. And again if you take it as an allegory then the literal details are irrelevant. And I always took genesis as being a commentary on the nature of evil, that it requires understanding. In the garden they were doing things which in the context of the story were bad (walking around naked for example, which they realized was wrong when they ate from the fruit of the tree), but they weren’t sinning. So I always thought this meant that sinning is not doing something evil, but rather it’s knowing something is wrong and doing it anyway. That you have to understand that something is wrong in order to be culpable for your actions. So in this way knowledge (understanding of right and wrong) brought sin into the world. It didn’t bring pain and suffering and death and stupidity and nonsense into the world, it simply made us responsible for our actions for the first time. Because once you understand that something is wrong you can’t claim ignorance anymore. It’s a good metaphor for the beginning of human civilization (which is what actually happened around 6-10,000 years ago). In the end of John chapter 9 (jesus healing the blind man) jesus says “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.” and when the pharisees ask him if they are blind he says “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.”

    This seems to echo an allegorical interpretation of the adam and eve story. And of course it’s not hard to take this story as not talking about literal medical healing, but as referring to metaphorical blindness. Or do you think he was saying the pharisees were literally blind?

    “I can never see any instance of Darwinian Evolution ever being compatible with the Bible.”

    If you abandon the doctrine of biblical literalism and inerrancy and see scripture as a puzzle to solve rather than a plain text then it’s not hard. And besides, if gravity is a “problem” for your theology then your theology is wrong because gravity is an observable fact of nature. And evolution is too. Which is why even if every atheist and non-christian dropped dead tomorrow most of the world would still accept it. And the percentage of biologists, geneticists, geologists, paleontologists etc who accept it would change less than 1%.

  • @mortimerZilch - ”Mr. Darwin personally crafted his theory to destroy the Bible. He made that clear.”

    Uh, how’d he do that? (make it clear, I mean)

    “Today, Stephen Hawking crafts his theory of The Big Bang to destroy the moment of Creation.”

    Don’t buy the hype, the media today makes money off of conflict. When you read the man’s actual books he isn’t ideological at all – the last words of A Brief History Of Time are “…and then perhaps we shall know the mind of god.” The last sentence of darwin’s On The Origin Of Species is:

    “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”

    He was a deist who believed his entire life that life was originally created.

    @mtngirlsouth - God is efficient? According to genesis he created trillions of suns to light one planet. He waited thousands of years to send jesus, and made him born into obscurity so that it would take thousands more years for people in some places to hear he even existed at all. God may be many things but if the bible is any indication “efficient” isn’t one of them.

  • @mtngirlsouth - If an atheist says “god is an asshole” they’re either being figurative or just being lazy with their words. If you pin them to the wall and ask them “how can god be an asshole if he’s not real, huh?” they will clarify that they’re talking about the god imagined by the likes of pat robertson or fred phelps, in whose name much hatred and evil is promoted, and that they do not believe he exists. If an atheist is “angry” at god or “hates” god at all it is in the momentary irrational sense that you might fear or dislike the villain character in a movie. But of course you don’t think he’s real, you just get caught up in the moment and feel something that at the end of the day does not reflect your perception of reality. Make sense?

  • @rnjennison - But god inspired my comment arguing against this blog. How dare you question god himself?

Post a Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *