ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Bible With Evolution Is False

Our youth leader -a recent college grad- says evolution and the Bible are both OK. Is this possible?

Moderator - Evolution is an adult myth. Take both the creationism and evolution Bible quizzes.

Join Our Free Chat and Take The Creationism Quiz
 ---MedfordMark on 9/7/07
     Helpful Blog Vote (7)

Post a New Blog



Jerry(to the subject of the thread) The fact bad people in history used evolution or created 'social darwinism' is no reflection on the truth/untruth of science. Spliting the atom can be used to kill millions with a bomb, or kill cancer cells-so is the science or scientist right or wrong? A biologist does good/bad, it does not invalidate, or validate his profession, the theory or LAW his profession is built on. Therefore your quotes mean nothing. There is a clearly a hole in someones logic.
---MikeM on 10/1/07


andrea, the only thing worse than your appalling lack of historical knowledge is your not even attempted hiding of your hatred of everything Catholic. Some Catholic must have really hurt you. You suggestion is simply vile.
---alexia on 10/1/07


RitaH ... if you remember I was giving some examples where people might both say the Bible is infallible, yet still have different interpretations of what it says/means.
If you scroll down just a few items on this blog, you will see that there are different interpretations (on these blogs) of the infallible words of the Bible regarding the Temptations, and about for whom the instruction "go forth and multiply" was intended.
---alan_of_UK on 10/1/07


Alan, I'm not sure which 2 other examples you refer to. Are they on this blog or some other one? Please remind me. You might be interested to know that I actually found the verse for the women and children via Google. I tried several on-line condordances and could only find one text for the feeding of the 5 thousand. However Google provided me with 4. Isn't that wonderful. I might try Google first in future.
---RitaH on 10/1/07


There is a new book out called "from darwin to hitler" and it explains the natural path of thinking humans can be manipulated through genetics

and how this philosphy was used by Hitler on the German people to explain the 'final solution'. Even the RCC did not try to stop him - he was the answer to 1000's of years of problems.
---Andrea on 10/1/07




RitaH Sorry ... Ihad not looked up the verse!
I was relying (wrongly) on someoen here who stated categorically that there were exactly 5000 because that's what the Bible said.
Perhaps you can shoot down my other two examples?
---alan_of_UK on 10/1/07


Alan, regarding the five thousand. John 6:10 in KJV uses the words about five thousand and mentions only men. 'And Jesus said, "Make the men sit down". Now there was much grass in the place. So the men sat down, in number about five thousand.' There is a verse somewhere, which I cannot find at the moment, which says men, plus women and children, so that would make the total much higher. Perhaps someone can tell me where it says that.
---RitaH on 10/1/07


Alan, the verse you want, regarding women and children is Matthew 14:21. "Five thousand men, besides women and children."
---RitaH on 10/1/07


Jerry #3. Another example is how many were miraculaously fed? Was it exactly five thousand ... did anyone actually count? Or was it a great multitude, about 5 thousand (kids and women included? ... some will say women were not counted then)
But all will say the Bible is infallible, but I suspect the fundamentalist will say it was an exact figure?
---alan_of_UK on 9/30/07


Jerry #4. My own favourite is the temptations of Christ ... and Satan taking Jesus to the top of a mountain and showing Him all the kingdoms of the whole earth. Some say that indeed Jesus's mortal eye saw the whole world, even the Inca empire the other side of the globe. Others say this was metaphorical and Jesus was led to visualise the whole world's kingdoms, rather than physically see them
---alan_of_UK on 9/30/07




Jerry #5 These examples show some people saying the Bible is infallible and that it may mean THIS, when others insist that because the Bible is infallible it means THAT.
It is over such differences that persecution has arisen in the past. We should not be too dogmatic ... that becomes bigotry, which in the past has led to accusations that other Christians are heretics, fit for hell only, so we start to burn them now.
---alan_of_UK on 9/30/07


Jerry #1 Your questions to Alexia made me think.
Of course there is no definite answer to them because the questions are imperfect.
What does "infallibility" actually mean? It clearly does not mean that every word has to be taken as strictly and grammatically literal, since we have parables and metaphor ... and some take as literal what others say may be metaphor. So both will agree the words are infallible, but still disagree with the meaning of the words ... literal or metaphorical.
---alan_of_UK on 9/30/07


Jerry #2 Then there is the question whether an instruction in the Bible was for that historical moment, or for ever ... the one that springsto mind is "Go forth and multiply" Some fundamentalists take this as God saying we should still all be reproducing as fast as possible, others, equally Bible beleiving Christians, say it was a historical instruction, for that time, when there were few beings on the planet.
Again both will agree the record is infallible, but ascribe different meanings
---alan_of_UK on 9/30/07


jerry read more, Luther was the basis for most of Hitler's anti jewish diatribe, and misuse of a doctrine is no evidence against it in the first place. I disagree with the infallibility argument of the fundies. all the rest of the fundamentals are irrelevant to this discussion of evolution.
---alexia on 9/30/07


biblical infallibility is subject to logical scrutiny. If God wrote the bible or caused it to be written it must be perfect, not so much as a typo, or God is not perfect. The rest of teh fundamentals are issues of pure faith, and are not subject to rigorous scientific evaluation.
---alexia on 9/30/07


Alexia: The question is still on the table. By your own definition, to which of the following fundamentalist doctrines do you object?

The infallibility and inspiration of Scripture.
The virgin birth of Christ and the Deity of Christ.
The substitutionary death of Jesus Christ for sinners and the blood atonement.
The bodily resurrection of Christ and His visible return to earth.
A judgment of the saved and lost followed by a literal heaven and a literal hell.
---jerry6593 on 9/30/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Bankruptcy


To those of you who are Darwinists: Have you considered the implications of the full title of Darwin's famous work "The Origin of the Species by Natural Selection - or - The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life?" Don't you find that outlandishly racist? Hitler liked it. He named his book, "Mein Kampf" [My Struggle] after it.
---jerry6593 on 9/29/07


"One need not read far in Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' to find that evolution likewise influenced him and his views on the master race, genocide, human breeding experiments, etc." - Robert Clark, Darwin: Before and After (1948), p115.
---jerry6593 on 9/29/07


jerry, actually it started out as a simple little pamphlet. Thanks for doing teh research. It was an attempt to restate the fundamentals of the faith. And BTW, evolution is not a religion, except in the minds of fundies.
---alexia on 9/29/07


evolution has been factually established over and over again. You do not understand the scientific definition of theory. Several disciplines use the evolutionary model as their own because it fits the facts they have uncovered. No other model does this. You cannot accept it. so just say that. We know evidence doesnt sway you.
---alexia on 9/29/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Cash Advance


Alexia-2:

The term originated in America as a part of Christianity when "The Fundamentals: A Testimony of the Truth" was published between 1910 and 1912 - a 12-volume set of books outlining the "fundamental" beliefs which were supposed to be required of all Christians.
---jerry6593 on 9/29/07


Alexia-3:

The following are "fundamentals of the faith" according to most born again believers:

The infallibility and inspiration of Scripture.
The virgin birth of Christ and the Deity of Christ.
The substitutionary death of Jesus Christ for sinners and the blood atonement.
The bodily resurrection of Christ and His visible return to earth.
A judgment of the saved and lost followed by a literal heaven and a literal hell.
---jerry6593 on 9/29/07


Alexia-4: I guess that makes me a fundamentalist even by new-age definition. Just curious, which of the above doctrines do you disagree with.
---jerry6593 on 9/29/07


Mikie, Mikie, Mikie: Why do you continue to do this to yourself?

Gravity is NOT a THEORY!!! It is a scientifically testable LAW. If it's only a theory, I dare you to jump off a tall building.

Evolution, on the other hand, is not even a theory. It is an hypothesis at best (since it cannot be tested or proven), but is better described as a pagan religion with heavy doses of conjecture and fakery thrown in for good measure.
---jerry6593 on 9/29/07


Shop For Christian Gifts & Jewelry


Alexia: (Mike thinks you are male. Are you?) I didn't say you were Mark, but you sound a lot like Mike M.

I took your advice and researched the modern, liberal, progressive definition of religious fundamentalism. Here's what I found:
---jerry6593 on 9/29/07


"I note the fundamentalist are bailing." This really is a favourite phrase (or should I say 'accusation') of yours isn't it MikeM? There comes a time when nothing can be achieved further by continuing certain discussions. Has it occurred to you that many of those who have discussed subjects with you and now 'bailed' have actually now decided to leave the matter with God and are now praying for your soul? They haven't abandoned you or your theories - just the opposite.
---RitaH on 9/29/07


Gravity is a theory.

I note the fundamentalist are bailing.

(I disagree with alexia on several points, but I am accused of being him, and other people.)
---MikeM on 9/28/07


jerry, no im not mark, I think there are two but I cant keep them straight. Fundamentalism as such in christianity is a recent invention, Its barely 100 years old, and is an american invention.any google will set you straight. Your so obviously wrong on Jesus its laughable..reread the NT.
---alexia on 9/27/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Credit Counseling


hint: it was the pharisees who would be called the fundamentalists today...Its like an elephant in the room and you cant see it.
---alexia on 9/27/07


If you believe in the biblical account of sin and that sin began with Adam and that his sin brought about DEATH...then how could countless creatures haved DIED for billions of years prior to Adam?
---Martin on 9/27/07


Alexia: Are you really Mike M?

*** News Flash for Mike M - Alexia ***

!!!!!! JESUS WAS A FUNDAMENTALIST !!!!!!!
---jerry6593 on 9/27/07


Jesus quoted the Torah - He didn't need to rewrite it. The NT apostles explained how God created the Universes. Are they mistaken? Do these evolutionist have some kind of input to the Lord that allows them to understand our Maker better then they.

I believe Christ quoted the OT bc He knew it was the word of God.

and for sure He knew how the world was made and that one day people would come along and challenge that. He still did not correct it.

Darwin to Hitler..............
---Andrea on 9/26/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Relief


sorry rita, but if you cant see it that's not my problem. Actually I never learned this in the context of anything about evolution. Its commonly accepted in the scholarly community. Has been for years. Fundies object because it screws up their sola scriptura
---alexia on 9/26/07


catherine. You must first learn what theory means in science. Many things are considered theory in science that are accepted as fact for all practical purposes by the average person. Theory and fact have very specific scientific definitions. YOu need to learn them before we can discuss intelligently.
---alexia on 9/26/07


Re my last post, I have confused Mark with MarkV. My last post to Alexia should have referred to 'Mark'. My apologies to all concerned.
---RitaH on 9/26/07


alexia: "How does this diminish in any way the factual basis of evolution?"

Could you specify what portions of evolution are FACT?

Even scientists the believe evolution will say it is theory and not law/fact.
---Christina on 9/25/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Settlement


Alexia I asked both you and MarkV to show me the 2 creations and floods. When I wrote this "Mark, please, please, please, tell me how you make 2 different stories of the flood from the verses you quote - Genesis 7:15-24 and Genesis 7:2." you seemed to respond. It is to Genesis 7 that I then replied not Genesis 1, 2 and 3. Either we have our wires crossed somewhat or you and Mark V are one There is no way that the verses in Genesis 7 show two different floods.
---RitaH on 9/26/07


2. And the verses in Genesis 1, 2 and 3 are all speaking about THE Creation. Only people who wish to fit evolution into the bible can see two creations and I think that only the Holy Spirit can correct you here. This has been thrashed to death so many times and only evolutionists have a problem with it. I can see from your other posts that believing the bible is causing you some other problems also. Ask God for the answers.
---RitaH on 9/26/07


rita, Is this so hard to find? Creation 1 - 1:2:4a, creation 2 - 2:4b-3.24. Two geneologies of Cain 4:17 and 5:12-17. There are about 6 more in Genesis alone. The two creations were written by two different authors, the redactor chose to include them both.
---alexia on 9/25/07


Andrea, I read it as both, depending on the evidence. Fundamentalists view the entire world differently, You must understand that to understand their inability to rationally debate. They are literal and figurative as they see fit.
---alexia on 9/25/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Distance Learning


jerry, you probably are right. How does this diminish in any way the factual basis of evolution? Just pejorative rhetoric to make people feel its wrong instead of proving it so.
---alexia on 9/25/07


so all protestants are only allowed to divorce if adultery occured? How many are following that? Literalists indeed.!
---alexia on 9/25/07


I don't know of any reputable biblical exegete who believes Moses wrote anything. The Torah had at least 4 authors, and goodness knows how many redactors, coiests, etc.
---alexia on 9/25/07


djconklin:

There is no scripture that actually explicitly states that Moses actually personally wrote any of it. It could just as easily have been later scribes writing down oral tradition passed down from Moses.

This doesn't make it any less inspired.

I'm just pointing out that we often read things into the scriptures that aren't ACTUALLY said anywhere.
---StrongAxe on 9/25/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Education


alexia:

Jesus's ban on divorce was NOT absolute:

Matthew 5:32 (emphasis mine)
"But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, SAVING FOR THE CAUSE OF FORNICATION, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."
---StrongAxe on 9/25/07


"During World War I, German intellectuals believed natural selection was irresistibly all-powerful (Allmacht), a law of nature impelling them to bloody struggle for domination. Their political and military textbooks promoted Darwin's theories as the 'scientific' basis of a quest for world conquest, with the full backing of German scientists and professors of biology." - R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 59
---jerry6593 on 9/25/07


Alexia if they are so plain then it shouldn't be difficult for you to point them out to me. Separate the verses for me, show where it shows flood one and show me where it shows flood two. Show which verses prove to you that these are two different floods and not one continuing account of one flood.
---RitaH on 9/24/07


alexia - The Bible is at times literal and at times very symbolic. How do you read it?

The fundies comments and other derogatory comments don't help your argument. It makes it a lot easier to hear you if you'd be a bit kinder.
ps- I'm not a true fundamentalist - Pentecostals maybe but not necessarily.
Do you believe the Bible?
---Andrea on 9/24/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Home Equity Loans


rita, im sorry you cant see the obvious two stories. Its pretty darn plain. Fundies only use literalism when they wish to, they are just as apt to tell you a certain passage isnt literal if it doesnt fit their beliefs, i.e. eat my flesh, drink my blood, and Jesus' absolute ban on divorce.
---alexia on 9/24/07


it is a requirement of fundamentalism that you learn the ability to retain two completely apposing ideas as the same time, argue vehemently that both are true, and refuse to see any contradiction. It's quite a trick.
---alexia on 9/24/07


Andrea, you are so correct. One can take the Bible literally or take it differently if they want. Accually people can twist it all they want and even get angry because others won't agree that it is true. But that is why we are finite creatures. We cannot ever see all that God see's. Second, it takes faith in God's Word in order to believe it. Without faith, there is no light from the Spirit. One Godly teacher has more light then all the evolutionist put together. Because he has faith in God's Word.
---Mark_V. on 9/24/07


1.Genesis 1:12:3, which exclusively uses the word Elohim to describe God, is ascribed to the Priestly source, who uses only Elohim until the revelation of the Divine name YHWH (Yahweh) to Moses (Exodus 6:3).
---MikeM on 9/24/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Interest Rates


2.Genesis 2:424, which uses the words Yahweh Elohim to describe God, is ascribed to the Yahwist, who uses Yahweh exclusively. The combined form Yahweh Elohim, which appears only in Genesis 2 and Genesis 3, is thought to be the work of a later editor (known as R, for Redactor), who combined P, J and other texts into a single text, the five-book Torah, in the post-Exilic period.
---MikeM on 9/24/07


As to the actual subject here, evolution, transitional fossils, two seperate creation stories, in the wave of objective infromation, KNOWLEDGE presented all the fundamentalist have bailed, resorting only to AD HOMINUM attacks and dogmatic rhetorical statements,basically "it aint so because it aint so." This reveals more the nature of fundamentalism than anything else, a hatred of knowledge, education, thinking itself.
---MikeM on 9/24/07


Mark, please, please, please, tell me how you make 2 different stories of the flood from the verses you quote - Genesis 7:15-24 and Genesis 7:2. How is it that you cannot read this as one continuous account of what happened. Nowhere in those verses can I see that there are two separate floods. Please explain, in detail, what it is in those verses that makes you see two floods. I'm not trying to trick you, I'm interested and I'm curious.
---RitaH on 9/24/07


2.Though not a word is spoken, his confident amalgamation of the two made the point Put Darwin and Bible together!

Hollywood revela in that visual message considering the acceptance of evolutionism in the world and and in MOST Christian Churches since the Scopes Trial in 1925!
---Xevolution on 9/23/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Internet Marketing


4.That movie and that scene were merely a dramatization of the ability of the Evolutionist to bring discredit and scorn upon the Bible as the source of Absolute Truth, while elevating "science" to the role of Truth Giver equal or superior to the Bible and able to make It bow when the two conflict!

Dismiss science altogether, like oil and water the Bible and science do not mix. Rebury those fossils and reopen the Bible.
---xevolution on 9/23/07


1.Inherit The Wind, Is Hollywoods thinly disguised mockery of fundamentalism. In the movie Darrow (played by Spencer Tracy), alone in the courtroom in the final scene, picks up a copy of the Bible in one hand and a copy of Darwin in the other, thoughtfully weighing this one, then the other one. Then, smiling broadly as if in response to revelation, he slaps Darwin and the Bible together, tucks them under his arm and walks out.
---Xevolution on 9/23/07


"Just where does the Bible "claim that ALL of Genesis was written by Moses"?
The first five books are called "the books of Moses", but it does not state explicitly that he wrote every word in them (In fact, if he DID, then how did he write the account of his own death?"

Obviously the notice of his death was added on, that does not however mean that he did not write the rest of the five books.
---djconklin on 9/23/07


There is only one account of creation and that was Genesis 1:1-2, Genesis 2:4 is the history of the creation given from Genesis 1:1-2 and the rest of Genesis including all through verse 24. What that section of Scripture does, is fill in the details all through the beginning. Four times it says He completed His work, and three times it is said this included all His work. Anyone that wants to make two accounts of creation are only putting their own meaning to the context of Genesis.
---Mark_V. on 9/23/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Life Insurance


Andrea ... I have not believed any atheist about the Bible. They would say it is all imagination or hopeful lies.
I can't think oof anywhere in the Bible where it says that every word and sentence has tobe taken literally ... that seems to be where we differ, for I allow the Genesis Creation to be a broad brush descriptuion of how our great God made our world and put us here, whereas you accept it as strictly literal.
---alan_of_UK on 9/23/07


jerry6593:

Just where does the Bible "claim that ALL of Genesis was written by Moses"?
The first five books are called "the books of Moses", but it does not state explicitly that he wrote every word in them (In fact, if he DID, then how did he write the account of his own death? And even if he did, how do we have it now, since he died somewhere nobody knows - so nobody could have gone to his grave and found the last few pages).
---StrongAxe on 9/23/07


lorra:

Joh 5:46, 47 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
---jerry6593 on 9/23/07


Alexia, where are these two creation stories and two floods?
---RitaH on 9/23/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Make Money


Dual Creation Accounts: Genesis 1:1 - 2:3, then Genesis 2:4 - 24. Dual Flood Accounts Genesis 7:15-24 and Genesis 7:2.
---Mark on 9/22/07


Jerry, where in the Bible did Jesus categorically state that the different accounts in Genesis were both literal and absolutely without any possibility of interpretation other than that by 20th century fundamentalism? Are you smarter than Jesus that you would presume to speak for Him.
---lorra8574 on 9/22/07


There are bristlecone Pines with tree rings older than fundamentalist are comfortable with. Do fundamentalist sit on juries where DNA evidence is presented? They should not as the same evidence confirms so many things they do not accept. This is all about cognative dissonance, and living, as a consequence in a dogmatic bubble.
---MikeM on 9/22/07


Ignorance and contempt of God is at the bottom of all wickedness that is in the world. God must rule, but man will not be ruled.>>>This will be our down-fall.
---catherine on 9/22/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Rehab Treatments


My same question always remains unanswered: explain how this massive generations long, tens of thousand strong, conspiracy is kept up? and why?
---alexia on 9/22/07


Mikie: You are so steeped in your Darwinist Reincarnation religion that you even think that the Bible - like you - evolved from a strain of bacteria. The Bible itself claims that ALL of Genesis was written by Moses. Jesus believed the creation, the flood and the Jonah accounts to be literal and historical. Why don't you? Are you smarter than Jesus?
---jerry6593 on 9/22/07


this site is hysterical. I posted to Jerry a site which is simply a science site on evolution. answers all the question...this sites response? censor the post. you folks have NO credibility, since you just ignore what you dont like.
---alexia on 9/22/07


Everyone in 1st year bible study at any reputable university knows Genesis is the cut and paste end of 4 separate writers, whom unknown persons put together. thats why there are two creation stories and two flood stories. Fundies call it looking at the same event from a different perspective. too funny.
---alexia on 9/22/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Stocks


Fish to Amphibians
Tiktaalik roseae
Osteolepis
Eusthenopteron
Panderichthys
Elginerpeton
Obruchevichthys
Hynerpeton
Tulerpeton
Acanthostega
Ichthyostega
Pederpes finneyae
Eryops
Amphibians to Amniotes
Proterogyrinus
Limnoscelis
Tseajaia
Solenodonsaurus
Hylonomus
Paleothyris
Synapsid mammal-like "reptiles" to mammals
Protoclepsydrops
Clepsydrops
Dimetrodon
Procynosuchus
Thrinaxodon
Yanoconodon
---MikeM on 9/22/07


Diapsid reptiles to birds
Yixianosaurus
Pedopenna
Archaeopteryx
Changchengornis
Confuciusornis
Ichthyornis
Evolution of whales
Pakicetus
Ambulocetus
Kutchicetus
Artiocetus
Dorudon
Basilosaurus
Eurhinodelphis
Mammalodon
Evolution of the horse
Hyracotherium
Mesohippus
Parahippus
Merychippus
Pliohippus
Equus
---MikeM on 9/22/07


Jerry clearly said, "Only fundamentalist can be scientists." Lots of colleges to shut down. Lots of books to torch. Lots of people to burn at the stake as the banjos play. "Raew ignorance" at work. I am scared
---MikeM on 9/22/07


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.