It's Always Sunny - evolution versus Christianity

[Huggy Bear]

You guys never seem to realize that creationism/evolution aren't mutually exclusive.

Evolution doesn't explain how life came to exist....

And you don't understand that it is not supposed to!

I never said it was....

Atheists are the ones that always seem to act like it's creation vs evolution.....

read the op.

[Minimalist]

What do you mean "again?"

[Minimalist]

I never said it was....

That's exactly what you said, asshole.


"Evolution doesn't explain how life came to exist...."    That's what YOU wrote.

[LadyForCamus]

And you don't understand that it is not supposed to!

I never said it was....

Atheists are the ones that always seem to act like it's creation vs evolution.....

read the op.

The OP was in regards to logical fallacies commonly used by creationists who are trying to cast doubt on evolution; fallacies we have seen here on this forum over and over again. Sorry you are butt hurt over it, but it's the truth. And where in the bible is evolution explained? Since that was your whole thing to begin with: evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive. If you accept evolution, why isn't it described in your bible?

[LadyForCamus]

And Huggy, no, I have never read the bible cover to cover, nor would I ever claim to have expert knowledge of its contents, but I DO know that the theory of evolution is not contained within it.

[Huggy Bear]

I never said it was....

That's exactly what you said, asshole.


"Evolution doesn't explain how life came to exist...."    That's what YOU wrote.

Seriously?

need me to spell it out for you?

I said creationism/evolution weren't mutually exclusive, meaning both can exist.... are you with me so far?

Evolution doesn't attempt to explain where life came from, but creationism posits that there is a creator.

Therefore life being placed here by a creator can evolve.... Meaning one can believe in creation AND evolution at the same time.

Got it?

speaking of logical fallacies it's interesting is that you took my quote that "evolution doesn't explain how life came to exist...." and interpreted it to mean "evolution is supposed to explain how life began"....

I was simply stating what evolution doesn't explain, not what it does.....

now run along.

[Drich]

what in your mind says both evolution and creation could not both happen?

Common sense, Drippy.  Something that you are painfully lacking in, unfortunately.

What if...

Their was no time line mentioned or implied in the bible between the end of 7th day of creation and the fall of man/expulsion from the garden? that would make the majority of the genesis account, an accounting of the Garden 'preserve'/Eden rather than the whole planet.  God created the garden (estimated to be the size of 2/3 of north America given the 4 rivers it mentions,) to reflect the evolutionary progress of the world at the time of the fall of man. allowing everything outside the Garden to develop on its own evolutionary track. Which means the 6000 or so years the geologies that count back to Adam and Eve only accounts for the time "Man made in the image of God/Man with a soul" existed outside the Garden. Meaning it has only been 6000 years since the fall.

This would account for everything that YEC can not explain without pointing to incest.

Evolved man... "Monkey man" is man without a soul. He is the one who built the cities mentioned in Genesis that Cain fled to, and monkey man was also the genetic stock that provided husband and wives for the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve.

The problem with your brand of 'common sense' is that it requires one to not think or examine what is and is not said in the bible, but only rely on the traditional view of the Creation account. One that can not stand up to scrutiny. The Creation view I provided not only stands up to full biblical scrutiny, it also encompasses any and everything 'science' can throw at it. (Many here and other places have tried, and fallen short.) I can provide links to some of the discussions that explain everything in detail if you like.

[LadyForCamus]

Yeah, I've read your discussions. I've seen you blatantly lie about what it says in the bible so that your assertions appear supported by it. I'll stick to my own brand of common sense; the kind that tells me you can't take a book about flying angels and talking snakes too seriously. Thanks, though.

[Esquilax]

Atheists are the ones that always seem to act like it's creation vs evolution.....

No, we don't. We don't, because it's not "creation vs evolution," it's actually "creation vs science."

Evolution is just the scientific theory that christians decided to make their opponent in that particular culture war- and your woeful misrepresentation of how this historically goes, that it's atheists acting like the two are mutually exclusive instead of your particular brand of theocrat is laughable- but the real beef is between your non-evidenced, faith based, deeply unrealistic fable and the scientific method, which both commands respect for its accuracy and also shows why we cannot accept creation, at least not based on the justifications you give for it.

Creationism, both in its concepts and the religious demands for faith that it makes, is directly antithetical to the scientific method and thus, by corollary, to the products of that method, including evolution. That is why there is a conflict there, not that the two positions are strictly mutually exclusive.

... Of course your vapid biblical claims aren't mutually exclusive with anything; the only way they've survived as long as they have is by being mutable, yet with adherents willing to pretend that they're objective, unchanging truth anyway.

[Huggy Bear]

And Huggy, no, I have never read the bible cover to cover, nor would I ever claim to have expert knowledge of its contents, but I DO know that the theory of evolution is not contained within it.

In a way it does... I'll explain.

Everyone is familiar with the story of Noah's ark. The problem is everyone ASSUMES Noah had to fit 2 (or seven depending on if the animal was clean or unclean, but for the purposes of this example i'll just say 2) of every single animal on the planet in the ark.

In the bible Noah is explicitly instructed to take two of every "sort" of animal.

Genesis 6:19
And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

The words "sort", "kind" and "species" are synonomous.

spe·cies
/ˈspēsēz,ˈspēSHēz/
noun
noun: species; plural noun: species; noun: sp.; plural noun: spp.

1. Biology
a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial, e.g., Homo sapiens.
synonyms: type, kind, sort;

How the bible determines what belongs to a species is whether or not they can produce fertile offspring.

Genesis 1:11
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Genesis 1:24
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

remember kind = species

So each species must produce offspring "whose seed is in itself", in other words, fertile.

For example a wolf and a dog can produce fertile offspring, but a horse and donkey cannot, and therefore would be of different "sorts", meaning the wolf and dog would qualify as belonging to the same "sort" and Noah would only need to take one of each.

This means Noah didn't need to take very many animals on to the ark at all, he just took a few and evolution did the rest... I mean come on, science even tells you that a bunch of animals went extinct all at once, but when the bible says it, it's ridiculous.