It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Which makes more sense evolution or bibles teachings.

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 07:09 AM

Originally posted by jedimiller
Let me ask you a question.

Can science prove that the bible is fiction? Can science prove that the bible is made up of lies? and can science prove that there was no Jesus?Can science prove that the bible is NOT historic?

Science can neither prove nor disprove the answer to these questions, at least, not 100% proof. There is, however, an over abundance of scientific evidence (by scientific I mean observed, tested and accepted in absence of evidence to the contrary) to support the theory of Darwinian Evolution (geology, anthropology, biology, ecology, palaeontology, genetics etc.) and very little 'evidence' (or no evidence that is able to undergo rigorous scientific questioning) to support the claims made in the Bible.

Just because there is no scientific 'proof' that God/Jesus/the Bible stories does/did not exist for certain does not mean they are fact.

Richard Dawkins

Burden of proof

[edit on 19-9-2007 by Skunky]

posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 10:31 AM
They actually compliment each other, the story of creation found in the book of Genesis and the process of Evolution. Without either of the two, the formation of mankind would be incomplete to us regarding our history.

For we know many of the stories in the Old Testament are indeed true, describing individuals such as King Nebuchadnezzar and King Solomon, both of which can be said confidently were true existing human beings, especially Nebuchadnezzar. Many historical 'documents', parchments and stone carvings, from various places and nations of the era, describe these individuals as existing. Also, another is Egyptian Pharaoh Ramses III. There is an Egyptian carving explaining some version of a story regarding him defeating a people and pushing them into the sea, or defeating them at the sea shore, etc. This is dated to the time of the supposed Exodus, yet the story is obviously going to differ slightly so as to not shame the Pharaoh by his own sculptors and carvers.

These stories, contained in books, come from the same people that the book of Genesis came from. It is known that there was never just 1 man and 1 woman human beings on the earth and no others, but it is also proven that there is a technical "adam" Y-chromosome from 1 unique male ancestor of the whole human race, and one X-chromosome from 1 unique female, "mitocondrial eve" or whatever they call it. So, just like all biblical books, the stories depicted are not literal in their content consistently, but also symbolic, and the story of Adam and Eve is a symbolic one, whos main point is to show how mankind fell from innocence as he gained intellect and knowledge.

tell me im wrong!!!

[edit on 9/19/2007 by runetang]

posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 12:17 PM

Originally posted by grover
Is this one of those trick questions? What do I get if I get it right?

Science... with empirically tested thesis and high standards of proof.... no no no... ahh the Bible written 3,000 years ago composed of myth and metaphor with no standards or thesis... just faith.... noo thats not right either.... Do I get another choice?

(closes eyes, and randomly picks) SCIENCE!!! Yippie!!!

are you trying to say that sciece has proven that evolution is real? when did they prove this? Actually, science disproves the possibility of evolution!

where is the complete fossil record? Where are the transcendiary fossils that show the emergence of one species that changes to another? I'll tell you where they are! They do not exist, because evolution is BS and laughable!
Darwin renounced the theory of evolution on his death bed and pronounced God as the creator of all things! Darwin felt bad that his survival of the fittest theory had began to challenge the authority of God creating all things. His theory is so misunderstood today that it amazes me. all he postulated was that the strong live to reproduce according to their kind and the weak perish. Nothing more! The Leaky's have stated that Lucy was a hoax so that they could get more funding. Why do people continue to support these lies prepetrated against them. I'll tell you why! Because to admit the existance of God is to admit that they will have to change their ways, or suffer an eternal existance away from God!

However, Man, or the devil, in his prideful arrogance, changes this simple thesis to try to disprove the existance of God! Man, does this to justify their way of doing things so that they ignorantly remove God from the equation of life and all things. If God is real, they theorise, then we will have to change our lifestyles accordingly, because one day we will have to stand before him! Man cannot handle this so they have to remove God so that they can keep on living in darkness and ignorance. No, man prefers to think that they do not need God.

Today, right now, as I write this, scientist can create an entire universe in the laboratory! Does this disprove the existance of a creator? I think not! This gives more credence to God's existance! If you don't believe me, research it!

People sometimes are so ignorant! People don't realise that size is reletive and meaningless with respect to the size of all things. Our entire universe could be contained in a single grain of sand, but people cannot comprehend this simple statement, because they arrogant enough to think that they are more than they actually are! People do not realise that space is relative and the their is an infinite amount of space between one sixteenths and two sixteenths. Don't believe me! Give me all the fractions between 1/16 and 2/16! You cannot, they are infinite!

We are nothing, with respect to all the matter in the universe! How stupid can people be to think that man has went from puddles of goo to the complex organisms that we are! We were created by God to reproduce after our kind (according to the Bible). The first chapter of Genesis leaves no room for evolution! All things were created by God and all life was created by God to reproduce after its own kind!

Now, God did say that he would let us believe whatever we want to believe! So you keep on believing in the scientists that only wish to be given grants so that they can continue to offer nothing to humanity. You can continue to blindly follow the theories of ignorant men, who don't even believe the bunk they teach you! Or you can listen to and believe God! The choice is yours.

As for me and my house we will serve the Lord and creator of all things!

posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 01:46 PM

Originally posted by vincebaby
Ok, got got me on continental drift.
But creatures crawling out from the sea could have been amphibious animals.
I do not believe the bible stats that man was created by single celled organisms.
But wait, wasn't Eve created by one of Adams ribs.
Also there is no record of any person being successfully asexual.
If Adam was asexual well then we would be clones and only one skin color. But wait mutations another little factor of evolution.

I did specify man as separate from amphibious creation. but it wasn't just animals.... birds too. genesis 1:20 "let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that have life, and the fowl[birds]that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven" man was latter made independent of all this.

posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 01:55 PM

Originally posted by merka

The bible, for all its intents and purposes, is just a book.

If there's anything history teach us, its never ever to trust a single books account on anything because its always biased one way or another,

[edit on 19-9-2007 by merka]

This also describes Darwin's book.... but as i just mentioned in another post. with the exception of humans in the bible as a separate entity. the two books aren't completely per animals. it is possible to have a clean religious discussion on a scientific topic such as this.

[edit on 19-9-2007 by DIRTMASTER]

posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 02:51 PM
reply to post by BugZyZuncle

When it comes to science and evolution... you really don't know what you are talking about. Myself and many others have refuted such claims as yours before and it is becoming really really tedious. Keep your illusions. I have better things to do with my time besides debating with people who refuse to listen.

posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 03:13 PM
reply to post by grover

posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 03:21 PM
reply to post by melatonin

YARR....Ain't that the matey!

I need one of those for here.

posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 04:34 PM
has anyone ever wondered why/how we are so much hotter looking than apes?

its not just because of the lack of hair, all of the features have been seemingly finely chizzled and perfected, compared to an orangutan.

this is b/c we were generally designed to look "like" God .. not as good but, kinda like him. we are all little idols of the one true God, lol ..

[edit on 9/19/2007 by runetang]

posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 04:44 PM

Originally posted by DIRTMASTER

Originally posted by vincebaby
Well todays discussion is "Which makes more sense evolution or bibles teachings"
Evolution teaches man has had many physical and mental changes due to adaption to the environment.
While the bible teaches us that god had created everything 7 days.
Which makes more sense, ask your self.
I am sorry that I could not provide more information on evolution or the bible teaches because it would be about 7000 words but if you click the link provided you will find all the information you need.

It doesnt say or even apply that land animals came forth from the sea. Not sure aht bible your reading but no matter how hard I try I can not see how you are coming to that conclusion based on the black and white text in the book of Genesis chapter one.

Actually evolution was in the bible- first..long before Darwin. reread it carefully.. the animals that first developed by merging out of the sea...the very first lesson for creation in "evoloution" it just wasn't applied to man in the bible. Also continental drift was also in the bible thousands of years before science discovered it.

the flaw isn't the answer.. its the parameters of your question.

posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 04:56 PM
To reply to the OP's question. I believe the bibles account for our existence makes the most sense and is the most comprehensive of the two arguments. There are 17 razor edge parameters that must be met in order to have life one one planet. There are to many mathematical accuracies that have to be met and sustained to say it was just blind luck or chance. No in my 41 years or research and study I have now been convinced the universe and life on this frail planet is the product of careful thought and design. DNA alone is mind boggling to jump to the preposterous conclusion that this and by this I mean everything just happened.

It is far more likely that I take every bit of material needed to build a simple house, pile it up and then blow it up and have a finished home built. I don't care how much time you give it or how many times you try. It will never happen. If something as easy as that cant be accomplished by the bang theory then how much more unlikely is it to create an entire universe using the same method? To me its just plain ole common sense. Sorry but I guess I haven't been enlightened or educated to the point to believe such nonsense as the nothing exploding and creating everything. Forgive me my ignorance and stupidity.

posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 05:05 PM

Originally posted by jedimiller

on topic. I believe in the creation from the bible. I took numerous archeology and anthropology courses and it's all rubbish.

Archeology is a broad subject to rubbish. Infact, it's probably one of the most profoundly ignorant statements I've read, especially since as the Bible is a religious book, many scholars take the position that it is biased and cannot be trusted unless we have corroborating evidence from extra-Biblical sources.... cue archeology to your rescue:

*NB For the record, I'm not religious nor believe in the bible, god or anything relating to it but, unlike some, my mind isn't closed.

It was once claimed there was no Assyrian king named Sargon as recorded in Isaiah 20:1, because this name was not known in any other record. Then, Sargon's palace was discovered in Khorsabad, Iraq. The very event mentioned in Isaiah 20, his capture of Ashdod, was recorded on the palace walls. What is more, fragments of a stela memorializing the victory were found at Ashdod itself.

I'm willing to bet you've never studied archeology. If you had, you'd understand that it provides a key to our past that no faith can deny.

In a roundabout way, I've sort of given a hint of my opinion on the original post. I believe in evolution.

posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 05:18 PM
reply to post by runetang

I don't think that orangutans would agree with you that we are 'much hotter looking'. Judging by their reproductive behaviour, they seem to think that other orangutans are quite hot.

Incidentally, since you kindly reminded us that we are designed to look like God, does this mean that God has a penis? and if he does, what does he use it for?

posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 05:22 PM
reply to post by nobodyv2

I would offer a suggestion but i would probably get several warnings for it.

posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 05:25 PM
This thread is asking me

a) do you believe in a god you must worship otherwise you will go to hell?


b) that your existence is a pointless coincidence?

and I am saddened to see that that the bible/creationism/religion vs. evolution/atheism debate is repeated on ATS again and again and again, as if those are the only two options availible.

neither option appeals to me. I deny both.

posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 05:27 PM
Its the number one problem with literalist's.... no imagination.

Doesn't it make more sense to suggest that the phrase made in God's image is meant metaphorically, in that we are more made spiritually like God than physically?

It really is a simplistic attitude to think that there is a physical god with 2 arms, 2 legs a head etc. rather than a being of pure spirit.

posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 05:40 PM
Well, I think evolution makes more sense. But I choose to believe in creation by God. Though not in the bible, I may add. My theory is that evolution is real, and took place due to God, with the exception of humans, who he created close to as stated in the bible.

posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 06:27 PM

Originally posted by runetang
has anyone ever wondered why/how we are so much hotter looking than apes.

[edit on 9/19/2007 by runetang]

I am unattractive; "God" sure didn't care about making me look good when he made me.

posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 06:27 PM

Originally posted by melatonin
reply to post by grover

That picture wins.

posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 07:56 PM

Originally posted by jedimiller
people didn't make stuff up like that..everything in the bible can be traced to a real event, a place a time and a location.

Trace me back to the time when the Earth was flat, or when the Earth was in the middle of the universe....

Originally posted by NuclearPaul
Charles Darwin? Didn't he renounce his own pathetic theory of evolution shortly before his death? Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot there's a certain group of people who don't want you to know that...

He didn't create evolution did he? So how does that matter? Look at what church thought, Earth in the middle of universe my ass... You think that made it true? Belief won't change the facts...

Originally posted by jedimiller
Let me ask you a question.

Can science prove that the bible is fiction? Can science prove that the bible is made up of lies? and can science prove that there was no Jesus?Can science prove that the bible is NOT historic?

Lol yes... Already done. Sorry to say the Earth is not flat...

Science can't prove if Santa is false. Does that make it true? So every book that science can't prove is true? There's more than 1 religion you know...

[edit on 19-9-2007 by AncientVoid]

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in