Evolution disproves that Genesis occurred word for word, and shows that the passages in the bible are just stories rather than a factual account
If one part is a story, then there is no reason to assume that the rest are not
Does finding life on another planet disprove religion?
- Thread starter Valentino
- Start date
Evolution disproves that Genesis occurred word for word, and shows that the passages in the bible are just stories rather than a factual account
If one part is a story, then there is no reason to assume that the rest are not
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 9,007
- Location
- Kent
No. It disproves some interpretations, but not religion as a whole.
Though following both science AND religion can be very difficult.
Though following both science AND religion can be very difficult.
Well seeing as the bible doesn't say anything of the sort, it's a bit of a moot point, it says the universe existed before god decided to make us.
It disproves Christianity which holds the Bible to be the word of God written by the authors under the oversight/inspiration/whatever of the Holy Spirit.
I largely misread this first time around, but I agree with the first sentence to the extent that it suggests that genesis is untrue in any literal sense.
For everything else, I think I covered my view in my earlier post.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 15 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 28,140
- Location
- Liverpool
Which is probably the best way to look at religious texts. Stories that can be interpreted in anyway a user wishes. And probably plagiarised a bit for good measure.
Like I stated you are assuming a scientific basis rather than a philosophical one in your pursuit of proof.
Faith relies on a persons subjective proof, not a materially substantiated one.
Also not all religions believe what you seem to think is universal to all religions.
Obviously as your opinion is set and you have no intention of doing anything other than using the platform to pursue your own admitted bias and need to belittle others faith I see no reason to continue this discusdion with you.
Who was that comment even aimed at?
Quite. I almost emailed you about it actually, but given the size of my last correspondence I didn't want to overly burden you. I figured you'd have the choice to either pick up on it, or not, if I posted it here instead.
I'll mail you the link now, however, as I'm certain you'll find it interesting and it's outside the scope of this thread.
Given the mainstream definition of a 'god' it's hardly surprising that s/he, it or they would have no trouble creating a universe such as ours. Especially if we accept those philosophical systems that assert that physical matter is simply an illusion based upon a larger framework ('God' itself). Put another way, that we're simply the thought-creation of a deity experiencing itself, and us, objectively.
You're only a puny human and yet you create infinite varieties of worlds and laws of physics (eg flying abilities) every time you dream. Hardly difficult for a god, therefore, to dream up a universe like ours.
As for your "God's image" assertion, Castiel has already answered you quite well. However I wanted to add that some schools/systems would actually state that we are of God's image because our eternal soul/spirit is a fragment of that of God's, and as such we are 'created in His image'. When you think about it, that would make sense as should we accept that such a deity exist, he's hardly likely to be humanoid and sitting on a cloud. Rather, "he" is all pervading, part of the matter of everything in existence (which he'd have to be, if the universe and all inside it was a projection of his own mind).
Not that I necessarily ascribe to any or all of these theories, but it does help to understand a topic before you attempt to publicly deride it.
What utter ignorance.
How is it ignorant to say that since one part of a book that claims to be "word of god, as things happened" is false then it calls into doubt the other parts?
You, I didn't think so many people would be replying at this time of night.
Because there are facts in the bible and you wish to foist your stupid opinion all over them apparently in the name of science.
It's ******** everytime you try it.
No it does not, and no they do not.
Evolution is not contrary to a belief in God, neither do the majority of Christians believe that Genesis is anything other than allegorical, I have already pointed this out once in this thread, even the bible itself refers to allegory within itself.
You may want to actually learn a bit about that which you wish to criticise before you make such sweeping and ill-informed claims.
I never used the created in a day argument though
Genesis states that God created man, animals, etc
However we know for a fact that things evolved from one another, for instance humans evolved from apes. This means that God did not create humans, as humans evolved from apes very slowly and apes are not classed as humans.
The order of things being created may also not be correct, for instance birds came before animals ... and what about whales?
Lastly, and this is not an evolution point, plants are created before the sun
Last edited:
Rapt just things everything should be in detail and cover everything, but then a book would turn in to a 10billion volume series. At the end of the day religious texts are a short book covering huge number of aspects. It doesn't go against science, science also isn't the all-knowing all solving framework. It is a man made structure with huge boundries and assumptions.
Surely the Bible for instance, is based on the premise that it contains the word of god...how can it suddenly change when science provides evidence to disprove the correctness of certain teachings and subsequent beliefs?
If the teachings are so watertight as most religious followers would have us believe, then surely there should be no need to change the interpretation of certain sections which are proven incorrect by non believers! After all, these holy books supposedly contain the word of god and therefore as god is infallible, the earlier contents of the holy books and beliefs must be unchangable!
Quite. I almost emailed you about it actually, but given the size of my last correspondence I didn't want to overly burden you. I figured you'd have the choice to either pick up on it, or not, if I posted it here instead.
I'll mail you the link now, however, as I'm certain you'll find it interesting and it's outside the scope of this thread.
Thanks, I will reply to your previous email, I haven't forgotten, I just want to visit a certain place first and I'm doing that early in the week, so I will reply then....
But Genesis is not even allegorical, for the only meaning it tries to convey is that god created everything ... YET the order of things being created is wrong, meaning it fails at that