Poll of the Day > Wait.... where does it say in the Bible that life can't evolve?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Why is this a point of contention?
---

The part where men were at the start, as were every animal we recognise from the Bible. Evolution says men, pigs, goats, cows, etc. were all different animals if you go far enough back despite the Bible stating they were in their current state always.
---

Maybe because a vast majority of religious people once denied it? And some still do?

Kyuubi4269 posted...

the Bible stating they were in their current state always.

This is the argument i hear, but where does it say it?
---

have you read the bible?

green dragon posted...

have you read the bible?

vis a vis: If i read it I wouldn't need to ask
---

Lokarin posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

the Bible stating they were in their current state always.

This is the argument i hear, but where does it say it?

I don't study scripture but as far as I'm aware there's no reference to the animals being different despite hundreds of years of editorials to apply context. Adam is described as a man, he is meant to be in God's image as is the rest of man. If there was evolution, wouldn't it be referenced in the Good Book? (Basically don't think too hard, religion isn't for the skeptical.)
---

Paul 8-26 "And thoust shall have never been a single celled organism, so sayeth the lord"

It doesn't say that it did happen in the bible though so it definitely never did. Checkmate atheists

Checkmathiests

Then there's the "earth is 6000 years old" BS.
---

Lokarin posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

the Bible stating they were in their current state always.

This is the argument i hear, but where does it say it?

Book of Genesis, chapter 1, verses 20 through 28, describes God creating the creatures of the world, plus humanity, in two days time.

That's usually what's cited by fundamentalists as the defining word. Most Christian denominations don't support a literal reading of Genesis anymore (and some haven't for centuries), but it still sticks around amongst the more anti-scientific of the sects.
---

That's abiogenesis, not evolution.
---

It doesn't, people take the bibleway too literal though. To say evolution doesn't exist, in my opinikn, limits GOD. To say humans were created perfect day one and never had to adapt to climate is a fallacy. Just because we are made in their image, doesn't mean our body structure is the same. Cause then GOD and the angels would be human. We just look like them, we are not them. We were made to adapt to the earh in all it's ways. If the bible talked about evey single science thing, then it would a science book. It just states what GOD made now how he made it, exception is woman. Who is from the rib of man. But even then, that isn't literal. They are metaphors used to describe to others how the world was created. In fact us being made from the dust just proves that we came from the earth. We share aome DNA with all the animals, to me this jsut means we are all earthlings.
---

That's what I mean though.

How can a Christian say evolution isn't real, when it's NOT contradictory to the Bible in the first place?
---

The better question to ask is, why do people believe that every word of the Bible is and must be literal truth, when it doesn't actually make that claim, and Judaism itself has always acknowledged that at least some of those stories were either allegorical or metaphorical?

I mean, it's pretty obvious that people from that era were capable of not taking everything literally, considering that's more or less the entire point of Jesus teaching via parable. You're not supposed to assume that every story he's telling is literally true, as much as you're supposed to understand the moral point he's making via a tangible example.

Keep in mind, there are plenty of Christians who consider most of the "God made the world in six days" narrative to itself be a metaphor for millions of years, with "evolution" being perfectly acceptable as one of the tools God used to create life over the long term. It's really only the more extremist/fundamentalist fringe who tend to argue the "No, it's exactly six days as we know them, and everything was magicked into being instantaneously."

Especially since, if you actually READ Genesis, and attempt to understand it in context, the beginning isn't even a single story as much as it is two separate related stories that have been interwoven in an attempt to represent different viewpoints.

It's also why the early parts of the Bible use multiple names/titles to describe "God" (at least in the original translations, English versions tend to steamroll over all the subtlety and just use "God" or "The Lord"). Different versions of the story referred to God by different names, and someone thousands of years ago basically just took all those stories and tried to turn them into one coherent narrative.



TheCyborgNinja posted...

Then there's the "earth is 6000 years old" BS.

That's not actually in the Bible. That was literally one asshole doing the math himself and then extremists taking it at face value. I'm pretty sure even the Catholic Church doesn't accept that as factual at this point.


---

when did lokarin become so fucking annoying
---

Lokarin posted...

How can a Christian say evolution isn't real, when it's NOT contradictory to the Bible in the first place?

It's not IN the Bible either though, and a straight forward reading of Genesis gives the impression that God just went *poof* there's a doggy. God spending millions of years pushing DNA around doesn't get a mention, and would probably be worth noting.
---

PaddysPub posted...

when did lokarin become so fucking annoying

What would you prefer I talk about? SJWs? Trump? Trudeau? The Blackwatch private wars?
---

Kungfu Kenobi posted...

It's not IN the Bible either though, and a straight forward reading of Genesis gives the impression that God just went *poof* there's a doggy. God spending millions of years pushing DNA around doesn't get a mention, and would probably be worth noting.

To be fair, it's not as if the people writing the stories would have any capacity to understand that as a concept, and the people they wanted to read it certainly wouldn't.

Imagine yourself traveling back in time and trying to explain what a cel phone is and how it was made to a caveman, without resorting to "ehh, umm... okay, it's sort of like magic" to explain away some concept that they're thousands of years away from ever understanding.

That's actually one the arguments in favor of at least the Old Testament having more roots in reality than most people are willing to admit. Most of the Leviticus-flavored prohibitions people always love to whip out when they're trying to attack religion had relatively rational reasoning behind them ("Don't eat pork because there's no refrigeration and trichinosis is a thing"), but you'd literally never be able to EXPLAIN the logic behind it to people who only just finished inventing the concept of cities and irrigation in their Civilization tech trees. So "Don't do it because it makes God mad" is as useful an explanation as anything else, and probably helped save quite a few lives over the years.

It's really only later, after Paul had a seizure and bolted Jewish history and backstory onto insanely metaphorical Greek mystery cult logic that things start to get a bit more esoteric, but even then he (and other early Church leaders) didn't necessarily see the world the way you think they did (because all we really know about his views comes from the Bible, but the prevailing theory is half the books in the Bible he supposedly wrote weren't written by him anyway, just like none of the Gospels were written by any of the Disciples, in spite of you clearly being meant to think they were).


---

I just wanna know why evolution is a point of contention when it's wholly compatible.
---

Lokarin posted...

I just wanna know why evolution is a point of contention when it's wholly compatible.

If you wanna know the answer, it's bc science makes the bible seem like a bunch of ridiculous unbelievable crap

Like if someone were to be raised to study science and the bible was introduced to them in their 20s their reaction would be pretty much "lol." The reaction to science from people raised on the bible is pretty much, "la la la I'm not listening" and that tells you all you need to know really

Lokarin posted...

I just wanna know why evolution is a point of contention when it's wholly compatible.

I'm a christian by the way and im going to be a pasture. Basically it goes back to learning things like in elementary. Example pluto, we were taught pluto was a planet, so we believed it. People were taught to believe a certain way and eventually it is what they know. So that is one of the things i plan to correct when i teach others. But i have a ways to go before i am at that point lol
---

That could be difficult if you become an open field
---

yutterh posted...

im going to be a pasture

I too dream of being an open field

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Lokarin posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

the Bible stating they were in their current state always.

This is the argument i hear, but where does it say it?

I don't study scripture but as far as I'm aware there's no reference to the animals being different despite hundreds of years of editorials to apply context. Adam is described as a man, he is meant to be in God's image as is the rest of man. If there was evolution, wouldn't it be referenced in the Good Book? (Basically don't think too hard, religion isn't for the skeptical.)

That's not a very strong case. After all, the Bible features more on the people than the animals around them. The only thing it directly precludes is human evolution and dinosaurs. Other things would still be on the table.

Lokarin posted...

How can a Christian say evolution isn't real, when it's NOT contradictory to the Bible in the first place?

Because the Bible has expansion packs released by the Pope. Some of the previous Popes have claimed it was false, although more recent ones have started to reverse that opinion somewhat.
---

Lokarin posted...

That could be difficult if you become an open field

OhhhJa posted...

yutterh posted...

im going to be a pasture

I too dream of being an open field

Ya knew what i meant XD

Pastor*
---

yutterh posted...

Lokarin posted...

That could be difficult if you become an open field

OhhhJa posted...

yutterh posted...

im going to be a pasture

I too dream of being an open field

Ya knew what i meant XD

Pastor*

Lol yeah I just couldn't pass up the opportunity

ParanoidObsessive posted...

To be fair, it's not as if the people writing the stories would have any capacity to understand that as a concept, and the people they wanted to read it certainly wouldn't.

Imagine yourself traveling back in time and trying to explain what a cel phone is and how it was made to a caveman, without resorting to "ehh, umm... okay, it's sort of like magic" to explain away some concept that they're thousands of years away from ever understanding.

I do imagine that, because all nerds imagine sending relatively advanced technology back in time. But that's neither here nor there.

I don't think that's fair at all. There are plenty of metaphors for iterative construction that would be readily grasped by bronze-agers. None are apparent in a straight reading of Genesis. So even as an allegory it's hard to argue that Genesis doesn't contradict evolution, at least implicitly by the omission of such a metaphor.

We're talking about the Kent Hovinds of the world, people who take a very strong (and decidedly selective) stance against anything the Bible doesn't say. Why it doesn't say it isn't of any relevance to them, and the fact that they dismiss the notion of the Bible being a product of its time is extremely important to addressing Lok's question. This is a point that differentiates something like Young Earth Creationists from other Christians.

As for Leviticus, my takeway is that it shows the importance of having some working clocks to test a broken clock against. Elsewise you gum things up with at least 5 needless chapters on the magical properties of goats amidst some decent advice on not drinking too much alcohol.

(Also, I don't have a fucking clue how Paul saw the world, let alone think a certain way about it. :p)
---

Leviticus 2:18
---

What does the bible say about dinosaurs?
---

Ok, someone on reddit posted an answer I can accept -

Adam was the first sinner and the cost of sin was death; so death did not exist before sin therefor death (or trillions of deaths required to get to mankind) before Adam cannot exist.
---

"made in his image" etc, etc.
---

Kungfu Kenobi posted...

I don't think that's fair at all. There are plenty of metaphors for iterative construction that would be readily grasped by bronze-agers. None are apparent in a straight reading of Genesis. So even as an allegory it's hard to argue that Genesis doesn't contradict evolution, at least implicitly by the omission of such a metaphor.

We're talking about the Kent Hovinds of the world, people who take a very strong (and decidedly selective) stance against anything the Bible doesn't say. Why it doesn't say it isn't of any relevance to them, and the fact that they dismiss the notion of the Bible being a product of its time is extremely important to addressing Lok's question. This is a point that differentiates something like Young Earth Creationists from other Christians.

As for Leviticus, my takeway is that it shows the importance of having some working clocks to test a broken clock against. Elsewise you gum things up with at least 5 needless chapters on the magical properties of goats amidst some decent advice on not drinking too much alcohol.

(Also, I don't have a fucking clue how Paul saw the world, let alone think a certain way about it. :p)

Pretty sure evolution as a concept would require either a fossil record or for them to track the differences of animals over time, so the fact that ancient man didn't observe the changes then record it in the Bible (or, alternatively, "it wasn't significant enough for mention") doesn't make the omission significant. Further, there are a lot of scientific phenomena not listed in the Bible which people might have encountered.
---

Zeus posted...

Pretty sure evolution as a concept would require either a fossil record or for them to track the differences of animals over time, so the fact that ancient man didn't observe the changes then record it in the Bible (or, alternatively, "it wasn't significant enough for mention") doesn't make the omission significant. Further, there are a lot of scientific phenomena not listed in the Bible which people might have encountered.

That's a discussion to have with Kent Hovind, not me.
---

Kungfu Kenobi posted...

Zeus posted...

Pretty sure evolution as a concept would require either a fossil record or for them to track the differences of animals over time, so the fact that ancient man didn't observe the changes then record it in the Bible (or, alternatively, "it wasn't significant enough for mention") doesn't make the omission significant. Further, there are a lot of scientific phenomena not listed in the Bible which people might have encountered.

That's a discussion to have with Kent Hovind, not me.

Most christians believe in lemons, which were created through natural design.
---

Firstly, Adam was the first man. When he came into the world death did not exist and it wasn't until after the original sin that things like disease and death became possible. As such evolution could not have happened as survival of the fittest is a key part of evolution.

Secondly, I recall hearing somewhere that God proclaimed that each and every animal was to produce after its own kind which, apparently, meant that no amount of breeding dogs could make them mogs. You'd only ever get dogs no matter how long you bred them. Because God said so.

I also VAGUELY recall some mentions here and there about how God made everything the way it was for a reason which would make the idea of animals evolving to fit new niches while old ones died out a difficult, though not impossible, fit.

HOWEVER!!!! This is important. A LOT of Christians no longer fully believe the six-day creation story and the like. Especially with the 6,000 year age thing. For example, the story of Job apparently doesn't line up with the Biblical Flood as it would have meant he would have been alive when God decided mankind was too evil to let continue or he somehow survived the flood (maybe disguised himself as a sheep) to die after depending on the translation apparently. Geological evidence is also heavily against a world-wide flood and there is plenty of other problems with a literal interpretation.

Most Christians focus primarily on the New Testament which is the life, work, and deeds of Jesus. Many don't have a problem with evolution in-of itself. What they DO have a problem with is stuck-up little snobs who gladly mock them for 'believing in an invisible man in the sky' and claiming that they are so much smarter and well-informed because they believe that they came from a monkey.

Take this from a former Creationist. Most of us don't give a damn. We just want to live our lives out and not be treated like idiots for believing in the literal six days or have people wondering just HOW we can play Pokemon or enjoy Star Trek if evolution doesn't exist. And yes, I've gotten those comments.
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Especially since, if you actually READ Genesis

Whoa whoa whoa.

Let's not get any radical ideas like actually reading the Bible now. We've got our beliefs here, and we don't take too kindly to newfangled ideas like that.
---

It's because God is supposed to have gotten it right the first time he designed all the creatures I guess.
---

Kimbos_Egg posted...

"made in his image" etc, etc.

Let us create mankind after our image, not let me create mankind after my image.
---