Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jay_Gatsby123)
    Adam and Eve...
    And the fact that evolution takes millions of years but the bible suggests the earth and Universe is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old.
    But that is only if you take the minority view and frankly, the least defensible position of reading Genesis not just literally but as intended history and science. Only then is there a contradiction. The vast majority of Christians who have argued why that is wrong and other views are right have no such difficulty with evolution.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    Adam and Steve? Noah's Ark. The whole created in 6 days.
    not to be taken literally
    And how does Noah's ark disagree with evolution?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JM999)
    not to be taken literally
    And how does Noah's ark disagree with evolution?
    I see. So when it suits you it is to be taken literally and when it doesn't, it's not.

    And how many species do you think exist.

    How many species do you think could fit on an ark?

    How many species would be alive at the end of that?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ModernGoodGuy)
    I certainly don't think so.

    Evolution disproves a 7 day period of creation. Origin of life disproves a 7 day period of creation. But it doesn't disprove Genesis. In the same way, evolution disproves Adam and Eve as the first humans created from dirt which then gave rise to the human race. However, if you don't read Genesis as literally meaning 7 days I don't see why you should take Adam and Eve so ultra literally?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    That's why I can never really understand Christians. They changed their belief system, calling anything that contradicts science metaphorical.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    That's why I can never really understand Christians. They changed their belief system, calling anything that contradicts science metaphorical.
    I'd recommend you look back at the history of Christian thought. Origen and Augustine both argued that Genesis is not a literal description centuries before evolution. Origen was in the third century and Augustine was in the fifth. They are but two with many Christian theologians, philosphers and scientists (spanning different Christian sects like Orthodox and Catholicism) who had developed independent arguments and reasons for Genesis being non literal. This line of thinking can be traced from as close to Darwin as John Welsey (just before Darwin developed the theory of evolution) back through many thinkers to the earliest church fathers (including prominent Christian figures like Aquinas.

    So it is simply false to accuse Christians of changing their reading of Genesis in light of evolution and only reading it non literally because of evolution. They were reading it that way practically from the inception of Christianity and up until evolution was even discovered.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ModernGoodGuy)
    I'd recommend you look back at the history of Christian thought. Origen and Augustine both argued that Genesis is not a literal description centuries before evolution. Origen was in the third century and Augustine was in the fifth. They are but two with many Christian theologians, philosphers and scientists (spanning different Christian sects like Orthodox and Catholicism) who had developed independent arguments and reasons for Genesis being non literal. This line of thinking can be traced from as close to Darwin as John Welsey (just before Darwin developed the theory of evolution) back through many thinkers to the earliest church fathers (including prominent Christian figures like Aquinas.

    So it is simply false to accuse Christians of changing their reading of Genesis in light of evolution and only reading it non literally because of evolution. They were reading it that way practically from the inception of Christianity and up until evolution was even discovered.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    So what is the purpose of these non-literal teachings of Genesis? Honest question.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    So what is the purpose of these non-literal teachings of Genesis? Honest question.
    To give theological truths (truths about God) and theological truths about creation and the role of man.

    So Genesis teaches that God is a Creator and that creation is involved with living things (in a sense this differs the Judeo- Christian God from a deistic God).

    Another teaching from Genesis is that creation is fundamentally good. This was in quite stark contrast with other creation myth such as the Babylonian creation myth where the world came from violence between the God's (Marduk kills Tiamat). Genesis opposed the surrounding creation myths of the time and argued that creation was intrinsically Good and God was good. It also a reason given by the Genesis writers to argue Yahweh deserves worship.

    You see this many times in Genesis. It uses language and motifs similar to all of the surrounding religions and creation myths to make a point about God. So the sun and and the moon are listed as being created in the fourth day. Even ancients knew that this was weird when Genesis mentions that there was light before the Sun and the moon were created. This was to make a point that they many religions which worshipped the sun and moon were wrong, by demoting them in their significance.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ModernGoodGuy)
    To give theological truths (truths about God) and theological truths about creation and the role of man.

    So Genesis teaches that God is a Creator and that creation is involved with living things (in a sense this differs the Judeo- Christian God from a deistic God).

    Another teaching from Genesis is that creation is fundamentally good. This was in quite stark contrast with other creation myth such as the Babylonian creation myth where the world came from violence between the God's (Marduk kills Tiamat). Genesis opposed the surrounding creation myths of the time and argued that creation was intrinsically Good and God was good. It also a reason given by the Genesis writers to argue Yahweh deserves worship.

    You see this many times in Genesis. It uses language and motifs similar to all of the surrounding religions and creation myths to make a point about God. So the sun and and the moon are listed as being created in the fourth day. Even ancients knew that this was weird when Genesis mentions that there was light before the Sun and the moon were created. This was to make a point that they many religions which worshipped the sun and moon were wrong, by demoting them in their significance.
    I see what you mean. I'm not entirely convinced but thanks.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    I see what you mean. I'm not entirely convinced but thanks.
    I would be surprised if two short paragraphs convinced you. I mean, with the west in general the caricature of Genesis as some kind of science textbook (just a really bad one) is widespread and to understand the strength of the arguments against it you'd need to read about the literary genre, evidence of poetic form and theological significance of certain points over other contemporary creation stories. I mean, just looking at the evidence for the first two puts the strong scientific literalists camp on very unsure footing.

    Anyway, if I'm not mistaken you are Muslim aren't you? Does the Quran teach a literal story of creation?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ModernGoodGuy)
    I would be surprised if two short paragraphs convinced you. I mean, with the west in general the caricature of Genesis as some kind of science textbook (just a really bad one) is widespread and to understand the strength of the arguments against it you'd need to read about the literary genre, evidence of poetic form and theological significance of certain points over other contemporary creation stories. I mean, just looking at the evidence for the first two puts the strong scientific literalists camp on very unsure footing.

    Anyway, if I'm not mistaken you are Muslim aren't you? Does the Quran teach a literal story of creation?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Right ok cool.

    I am yes. And as far as I know, yes (with room for interpretation).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    Right ok cool.

    I am yes. And as far as I know, yes (with room for interpretation).
    I think the quran has a very similar description in terms of Adam being made from dust and such? Does that mean abiogenesis is against the Quran?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ModernGoodGuy)
    I think the quran has a very similar description in terms of Adam being made from dust and such? Does that mean abiogenesis is against the Quran?
    Is abiogenesis a fully evidence-supported theory?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    Is abiogenesis a fully evidence-supported theory?
    I think a case can be made either way that the theory will turn out either fruitful or fruitless, but that's because the endeavour is still relatively young. There still is a way to go.

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2011/02/22...ow-life-began/

    This gives a fair highlight of what RNA world has achieved and how far it has to go.

    http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...ow-life-began/

    This comments on the article and the author seems quite skeptical about what RNA can accomplish.

    But the bottom line is that the abiogenesis train is moving. However, this was slightly beside the point. I wanted to know if abiogenesis would contradict the quran. Of course that is assuming for the sake of argument that abiogenesis is a well supported theory, so we don't need to wait until/if it actually is.

    If we assume that abiogenesis does contradict the quran, and in the end you are confronted with a fully supported theory of abiogenesis, would that put you in a difficult situation or are there other interpretations you can support? And how can you do so without - as you said earlier - changing beliefs and arguing something is metaphor because of what science has shown?

    Thanks for the convo so far.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ModernGoodGuy)
    I think a case can be made either way that the theory will turn out either fruitful or fruitless, but that's because the endeavour is still relatively young. There still is a way to go.

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2011/02/22...ow-life-began/

    This gives a fair highlight of what RNA world has achieved and how far it has to go.

    http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...ow-life-began/

    This comments on the article and the author seems quite skeptical about what RNA can accomplish.

    But the bottom line is that the abiogenesis train is moving. However, this was slightly beside the point. I wanted to know if abiogenesis would contradict the quran. Of course that is assuming for the sake of argument that abiogenesis is a well supported theory, so we don't need to wait until/if it actually is.

    If we assume that abiogenesis does contradict the quran, and in the end you are confronted with a fully supported theory of abiogenesis, would that put you in a difficult situation or are there other interpretations you can support? And how can you do so without - as you said earlier - changing beliefs and arguing something is metaphor because of what science has shown?

    Thanks for the convo so far.
    Oh right. So hypothetically, if it was fact, I wouldn't think so. I don't think there's any actual detail about God creating the first cell/living thing in the Qur'an. Though, on the lines of natural selection, I haven't looked into it enough, but we can maybe say, evolution did take course with the exception of Adam and Eve, who weren't born. It seems impossible to say Adam was the result of evolution if the Qur'an describes him fatherless.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    Oh right. So hypothetically, if it was fact, I wouldn't think so. I don't think there's any actual detail about God creating the first cell/living thing in the Qur'an. Though, on the lines of natural selection, I haven't looked into it enough, but we can maybe say, evolution did take course with the exception of Adam and Eve, who weren't born. It seems impossible to say Adam was the result of evolution if the Qur'an describes him fatherless.
    OK. So life in general evolving from abiogenesis is consistent with the Qur'an but humans don't come from apes?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ModernGoodGuy)
    OK. So life in general evolving from abiogenesis is consistent with the Qur'an but humans don't come from apes?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Pretty much afaik.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I've always understood Genesis to be largely metaphorical, which makes sense when you put it in the context of its creation. Discussing the literal stages in the creation of the world would have been off-putting and unnecessary for the people of the time, distracting from its core, theological message. Iirc, Genesis is thought to have been written almost 1500 BC. Therefore, scientific theories such as evolution and the Big Bang Theory can work in conjunction with the Bible. Religion doesn't intend to describe how, but why.

    I wouldn't define myself as a (practicing) Christian, but I, too, had a Christian upbringing and believe religion can run alongside science. I'd also note that when people are citing the sun, the weather, the ocean etc. as evidence for a God, they are not saying that this is evidence for God because it cannot be explained scientifically, they are saying it is evidence for God because it seems too perfect to have happened by chance. Much as nobody would look at a watch and declare it had no designer because it is too complex and too perfect to have occurred by chance (Paley's watch analogy), many people also look at humanity - the nervous system, the human eye, defence in the body - and conclude that there is no way something so intricately 'planned' could have occurred by a series of lucky chances.

    Neither religion nor science has all the answers but you can believe in the two mutually; while many would have you believe that you can only place your 'faith' in one or the other - and many would have you believe that all Christians are evolution-deniers - the vast majority of Christians and many scientists believe in both, and view them as able to exist in conjunction with one another, because they see the evidence for both.

    It's up to you what you decide, just some potential answers to questions you seem to be struggling with. Just remember that whatever you conclude is OK, and there's no reason why you have to make a definitive decision right now; agnosticism is more than acceptable! Hope this helped a bit, and don't stress over it too much! (:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inhuman)
    Can I ask what you think a theory is?
    A specific hypothesis that is confirmed by experiments that don't confirm other hypotheses.

    As such, evolution does not even qualify as a theory since there’s no direct, observable experiment, and creation of life forms containing enough genetic information to adapt to different environments fits the facts better.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jay_Gatsby123)
    You're confusing the word theory with 'hypothesis'..
    You are right, evolution is a hypothesis.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NJA)
    A specific hypothesis that is confirmed by experiments that don't confirm other hypotheses.

    As such, evolution does not even qualify as a theory since there’s no direct, observable experiment, and creation of life forms containing enough genetic information to adapt to different environments fits the facts better.
    But that's not true...we have seen evolution in many species in our lifetime.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: May 20, 2016
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.