/lit/ - Literature

It can't. Any attempt to do so is cope. That being said evolution is bullshit and God is real. The scientific theology aspect will fall aprt hecause you've blasted the very foundation meaning in due time people will realize it doesn't work and find "god" elsewhere.

>>16551977
It can't, the theory of evolution killed God once and for all.

>>16551977
The people that believe both just don't interpret the contradictory passages literally, any theologians in the thread that disagree with that choice feel free to explain why they're wrong

>>16552006
But as I have seen on the internet catholics believe soul was created in a instant moment. But also believ in evolution. Its makes no sense. How come one generation of Homo was animal with no soul and their children were "humans" (in a christian way) even though they wouldnt be different from their parent is any meaningful way.

Than there is first sin and the fall of man. Pretty much the whole of Christian theology circulates around this event. Because no bad things in this world would happen if we didnt stray from god. But we know nothing of this sort happend and we are animals whose ancestors acted upon pure instinct and urge. There was no "fall".

Than we have the Neanderthal argument. They lived 200 000 years ago at the same time Homo Sapiens did. They were probably as intelligent as we and even buried there dead so they had a sense of spirituality. But they got extinct. Were they soul filled humans too?? Whats with the half sapiens half neandhretal babies that were born in that period of us interacting with them when we left Africa. 2-4% of Europeans have Neanderthal DNA in us. Are we not 100% human than? Whats with those first half Neamderthal babies? How can a soul less animal and a human have a child?

>>16551987
Well it killed an Abrahamic god. I don't negate the fact he can exist but he probably is nowhere near the madeup human gods we think he is.

>>16551982
So did god just put the t-rex fossils in places you wouldn't find human or rabbit fossils for the lulz?

>>16551977
I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, what you're really getting at is the cause of everything, the Big Bang, or creation and the thing is, neither is actually scientific.

I say that because the first order in the Scientific Method is observation. We cannot observe the moment of either creation, nor the Big Bang, and so we must look at the evidence before us and reason one way or the other.

I personally find it fascinating that both Christians and agnostic scientists can look at the same data and come to different conclusions because the real question, I think, comes down to this: without God, how can there be life? If all that existed after the Big Bang was matter and energy, and these things being inorganic, how can they give rise to life?
The natural world shows us over, and over again that life makes life. Everything produces after it's own kind.
How then, does life arise when there is no life? How does the organic come from the inorganic?

And that's not even getting into things like pic related, DNA, RNA etc.

>>16551977
Leaving out the fact that there have been Christians who thought that genesis was allegorical since the first millennium AD, your point is still questionable. Many Christians believe humans to be a special case (though this seems to me a cope) and others may point to Adam and Eve being actual humans who at some point in the past existed in interaction with God, why might God not have acted through evolution to shape Apemen and THEN endowed the divine spark in two of them?
Christians have little problem with “the firmament of waters” being allegorical, they don’t think that pic related is actually what the world looks like, and haven’t believed that since it was understood what the nature of the earth was, so why can’t they see the rest of genesis as allegory in light of evolution?
>inb4 some zoomer from /x/ says they do believe in the firmament literally
Stay in your containment board, schizo.

I’m glad that you didn’t mention creation of Man/life at least because Darwin himself (though not really a Christian (this was more for reasons of moral theology than interpretations of the scripture literally)) attributed evolution as a law through which God acts on creation, “the Creator” is literally mentioned in the concluding sentence of On The Origin Species. Which is incidentally why this>>16551987 anon is a retard, evolution presents a challenge to biblical literalism but in no way presents challenge to belief in a God of philosophical (rather than religious) conception, in fact evolution is more fitting with an Aristotelian God or Spinozist God (distinct from each other as those are) than it is with Atheism, to which nothing is fitting.

Atheists need to stop pretending that they base their belief on evolution, they seek evolution to justify it, atheists existed long before Darwin, who was himself not an atheist. It’s notable that it’s atheists, not biologists who claim the link, in higher education evolution classes, the first thing taught is that there is no conflict between belief in a higher power and evolution, which is unsurprising considering that this statement can be taken from Darwin and many other evobiologists since.

>>16551977
Since the theory of evolution, Christianity has been in severe cope. I don't think it will ever recover

>>16552117
>I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, what you're really getting at is the cause of everything, the Big Bang, or creation and the thing is, neither is actually scientific.

No no Im not.. Just read my post >>16552075

Also stop embaressing yourself. Universe isnt 6000 years old.

>>16551977
Just wait until we make contact with aliens. The whole idea of Genesis and creation will be obliterated forever

>>16552144
Where did I say anything about the age of the earth? Don't assume such things, I'm simply offering a point of input.
But, have you ever considered that the date of things is wrong?

>>16552120
>in fact evolution is more fitting with an Aristotelian God or Spinozist God (distinct from each other as those are) than it is with Atheism, to which nothing is fitting.

Sure.. Evolution in no way disproves existance of God but it definitely highlights all the holes in the christian doctrine of the fall of man
See >>16552075

>>16552160
Yes it might be but at least is is grounded in the scientific method not a 3000 year old Jewish fairy tales. Science is open to constant change and new understanding of our universe. Religion is not. Abrahamic religions are being disproven with every new scientific discovery on the age and origin of life and universe.

Well, the evidence isn't there for a *single* ancestor (i.e. key transition fossils). Scientists who say otherwise are just coping.
The evidence is there for a variety of species originating from a common ancestor, though. Old earth creationists look to Genesis mentioning how animals were created "each according to their kind" which allows space for microevolution to create all the species we have today. Also, other places in the Bible speak of time being relative to God, so "7 days" is more a way to set up the sabbath archetype than it is actual, literal days. Other example: forty days/forty nights is never meant literally but carries symbolic meaning in Hebrew.

>>16552158
I dont want to wait for that. I hope that doesnt happen any time soon. We will probably be destroyed by them.

>>16552117
There's no definition of God that makes sense within the model of evolution and the Big Bang besides one which describes God as the universe itself, which makes it a tautology.

>>16552194
Evolution not the creation of the universe... Im talking about first soul, first sin etc. These things dont work in a evolutionary model
See my post >>16552075

>>16551977
It's apples to oranges. The two viewpoints are incommensurable. "You can't reason someone out of something they haven't reasoned themselves into." And you can't unreason someone out of something they haven't unreasoned into. The only way evolutionists will be convinced is if you formulate an empirically supported refutation of it strictly in terms of conventional biological jargon. Nothing creationists can say will convince them otherwise because creationist have no data. Meanwhile the only chance creationists have of changing their belief is to fundamentally shift their epistemological framework from a faith-based, scriptural to one that does what science does, come up with a guess, goes out into the world, find evidence for said guess, and develop it into a theory. They're different language games you might say.

>>16552194
>Well, the evidence isn't there for a *single* ancestor
>who is the mitochondrial eve

>>16552158
I'll wait :)

>>16552231
>Meanwhile the only chance creationists have of changing their belief is to fundamentally shift their epistemological framework from a faith-based, scriptural to one that does what science does,

Well if they do that they are gonna come to the same conclusion evolutionists do. This theory has been tested time and time again for the last 100+ years.. The discovery of DNA just strengthend the theory and made it a fact in biology.

>>16552234
>who is the mitochondrial eve
Merely a term for a period of change for a particular species that spanned who the hell knows how many thousands of years.

>>16551977
The answer is stop taking myths as 100% logical, real events when they are always used for a symbolic nature, and stop missing the forest for the trees when examining natural processes.

You fucking retard christcucks are supposed to take the lessons out of the Garden of Eden not be trying to prove something outside the bounds of measurable science or history. Hoe about you take the lesson that Man is a very special beast to rule the earth, which comes directly from the divine and that through his transgressions, fell from what could be a perfect existence.

And you atheists are dumbasses to have lost your mind in arguments with Christians about whether dinosaurs lived with man or whether this species came before that one. You take nothing out of the grand story of evolution except autistic nihilism, when theres tons to be taken from the mundane lesson about survival of the fittest and that Nature itself has a very specific and demanding will which effects the state of all life to create and destroy what we have seen, are seeing, and will see until the end of time.

You both suck and miss the point.

>>16552291
Based and redpilled
t. Biology graduate

>>16552291
>The Bible was never meant to be taken literally! It's all one big metaphor!

>>16552291
>>16552304
Both of you retard read my post >>16552075

The whole point of christianity becomes obsolete when we realize there was no first soul, first sin and fall of man. Jesus had no point in coming when the very nature of man is sinful. We have been sinful because we are animals. We were not some moral,immortal human that didnt have cancer because we lived in accordance with god. Than we made the first sin and somehow we started getting cancer, birth defects etc. This is what christianity teaches. All bad things happen in this world because our ancestors didnt listen to god. Evolution disproved that.

>>16552319
Symbolic tales and stories.

>>16552234
You clearly dont know what the mitochondrial eve means.
See my pic. Its just means one maternal lineage managed to surpass others.

>>16552326
You don’t seem to have read the two posts you’re replying to given that one is pure affirmation of the other, and the other is clearly not Christian, just against atheism’s retarded attitude to the interpretation of evolution: nihilism, which evolution does not provide because evolution indicates life has something that it innately does: propagate itself while adapting to changing environmental conditions to propagate itself more. Evolution should give man perhaps the clearest goal it has ever had

>>16552334
Yeah.. Its not something you should make a religion out of. I understand that jt is being taken metaphorically but the absolute truth dogmas in christianity like the fall of man or the first humans and first souls dont go in hand with evolution.
Were neanderthals humans with souls or just animals? When do homo sapiens start to have a soul?

>>16551977
Anything science that doesn't fall in line with the Bible is fake science. The question should be, "Can Atheist apologetics on /lit/ explain how can evolution not be in a state of contradiction with the bible?"

>>16552336
Every lineage but that Eve lineage is hypothetical.

>>16551977
Genesis is about theological truths rather than a biological history? I think it is difficult, though not impossible, to square Adam and Eve with evolution, it's just not the point of the story.

>>16552376
>Anything science that doesn't fall in line with the Bible is fake science.
What's the reasoning, other than because the Bible tells you to think this?

>>16552115
>dinosuars
>real

>>16552319
Different books are of different genres, this isn't hard.

>>16552389
Sure.. and what are those theological truths? I mean explain to me how can a soulless neanderthal animal have a child with homo sapiens? How can you explain theologically what is a human soul and when does it come into existance. When did the homo sapiens become a human the Bible teaches?

>>16552326
>the whole point of religion becomes obsolete when we look at darwinism.

Well I'd say Someone trying to improve peoples accordance to divine law and the eternal something is definitely crucial in the process of natural selection. Especially given that atheistic societies have never and cannot ever exist in any large numbers or for any extended period of time. Go live in the violent unevolved thieving barbaric shithole of Africa and say that there's no benefit to religion for a group of beings to survive.

Science measures Nature. Religion measures Infra-Nature (where things such as morality, tangible symbolism and deep life expressions can be found)

You're not getting civilization without it, you're not getting a thoroughly evolved intelligent species without it. Grow up idiot, you haven't thought any of this through.

>>16552348
That's literally what the living process of religion is about. It's not supposed to be fixed fact or empirical chsrscteristics, those are contingent and ever developing and will never equate to an eternal something. Religion is about infra-natural truths.

Every living thing has a soul, whether or not it's eternal is a whole other debate.

>>16552075
The fall refers to exclusively human sin not "all bad things". Catholic teaching agrees with the Stoics when they say the regular processes of nature are divine and working as intended.

>>16552429
Scripture says in both the ot and nt that death and decay entered the world due to Adams fall. Creation groans under our sin and the lamb will lay with the lion when redemption is made universal after the coming.

You can not be a christian and believe in evolution. I mean you can but you're going to get shit kicked by athiests in debates and have to concede on your very foundation.

Genesis was literal, there's plenty of resources discussing this and its not just american evangelicals. The orthodox church has many apologists that talk about genesis and its metaphysics.

>>16552392
>What's the reasoning, other than because the Bible tells you to think this?
The sky is blue because I can look up and see it as such. Likewise the Bible is true because I can observe its objectivity.

The hypothetical extra-biblical sciences do not have such proof because they are false.

>>16552424
>Especially given that atheistic societies have never and cannot ever exist in any large numbers or for any extended period of time. Go live in the violent unevolved thieving barbaric shithole of Africa and say that there's no benefit to religion for a group of beings to survive.

Im not disproving that. I understand societies need god but myself internally just see it as a bunch of mumbo jumbo we made up so we can have a cohesive, moral society. Having a god is a great way to keep people in line and have a mentally healthy moral citizens. But advancements in science disproved the existance of the Abrahamic gods.

>>16552448
Thank you for the non-response.

>>16552429
So humans killing other humans was not sinful? When did our ancestors even become humans? When did killing other people become a sin and not as you yourself said "process of nature". There is no line in evolution where we turned from animals into modern homo sapiens.

>>16552462
The the record reflect that you did not prove evolution correct or the bible wrong

I don't think it can, but on a side note I grew up believing that there was incest in Genesis, but when I read it for myself I realized that's not the case, because God creates man in the end of chapter 1 but then Seemingly God created man again in chapter 2, my interpretation was that there were already hunter-gatherer man, and that Adam was the first civilized male that created agriculture, another notion that supports this would be Cain having descendants.
However I cannot say the same about Noah's case.

>>16551977
I don't know but there are some fringe theorists that believe Adam and Eve were not persons but rather a nation, and that the nation of Eve did some bad stuff and eventually corrupted Adam too, but I can't find it.

>>16552120
Educated Christians have NEVER accepted the Firmament as being anything but allegory. Even in the first century AD they fully accepted the Greek theories of a spherical earth.

Flat Earth is, similar to the 6,000 years theory, a Modern heresy.

>>16552452
>>16552452
That's because the abrahamic Gods are very shitty explanations of the Gods.

Fuck it, mask off

Theres also Paganism, Hinduism, and Buddhism which very well describe the processes of reality and the human role within it.

Modern science worships the contingent, Religion worships the eternal. This is why both are necessary for civilization

>>16552486
>>16552515
Imagine thinking anyone gives a shit about your opinion enough you put a tripcode on. Jesus /lit/ is full of pompus psueds.

You underestimate the mental gymnatics theist will do to hang on to their beliefs. It's irrelevant what science finds, they will always reinterpret their texts to be just close enough not to be laughed at. This is what religion has done since the dawn of time.
So I'll give you an example. This is just something I'm coming up with right now, although I've read some things along these lines in all Abrahamic religions.
>Well you see, the seven days of creation are not the seven days. They are actually varying time periods that line up perfectly with the geological ages of evolution. The creation of Adam and Eve happened after the creation of animals, which lines up with evolution as well. First sin is just a metaphor for humans doing the cognitive leap. Everything else is just metaphors, allegories and parables, you silly goose! The important part is god is definitely real and religion still explains all the gaps science never will.

The thing is, most people, even those who claim morals only exist through religion and whatnot, would still retain their morals if their religion was proven to be impossible. Their life wouldn't have to change much, but they believe it would, and they are scared. These are the decent people, mind you. There's also the ones in it just for power, connections, taking advantage of those that are vulnerable and etc. Evangelists in South America live in mansions that make hollywood celebrities look like a joke, all with money they extort from very poor people that go to their churches. These people could never let science take these things away from them, for better or worse. Religion is an extremely political matter.

>>16552515
Imagine thinking anyone gives a shit about your opinion enough you put a tripcode on. Jesus /lit/ is full of pompus psueds

>>16552515
>Evola
>Trip
This isn't /pol/ tradfag.

>>16551977
It can't, unless you take at least the relevant parts of the Bible as allegorical.

>>16551977
idk how you can be so dumb to not see you can just say God is the one who keeps nature and all the physical laws in motion. Not even a Christian but I think Christians and atheists are good opponents for each other if this is the kindve refutations they muster up..

>>16552174
Yes, if there is a god, I think it is Spinoza's, Natura naturans and Natura naturata, or the Prime Mover.

>>16552587
>just keep saying because God, even after it stops meaning anything, that'll work

>>16551977
All beings were made in the image of God, hence the common ancestor

>>16552539
>>16552546
I'm still better at having a Tripcode than you are

>>16552616
Fwoosh

>>16551977
I hate to burst your bubble, OP. But Muslims discovered evolution, not Darwin

>>16552467
No because they did not have the knowledge of good and evil which is the event of adam and eve eating the apple.

>>16552731
>muslims discovered evolution
explain

>>16551977
I think a great short story about this is Darwinian Pool Room by Asimov.
Anyways here's my personal (albiet unscientific) take;
Firstly a lot of anons are right, rationalist theology is a cope.
Secondly, why should we assume that time behaves the way we think it does? Our concept of time really revolves around death (in terms of a Christian cosmology), a product of sin, making time a product of the human optic. In-between the time Christ was crucified and ressurected, he went through all of "time" trampling down death and destroying all of human sin (even that predating his Crucifiction). If the divine does not operate under the human conception of time, then why should we attempt to reconcile the two? Doing so not only demeans God but also over glorifies man, because there are things we probably will never understand until they happen to us. I view evolution with the same optic as time. Creation is as much a part of our cosmology as time, and equally mysterious. So my lay opinion: time and Creation don't operate on man's standards, so at some point it's fine just letting it be a mystery. Go talk to a priest.

Imagine being such a retard that you believe evolution is the source of life

>>16553171
>source of life
What do you mean by this, as in a beginning? Beginnings are a fallacious concept when everything is evolving.

>>16553171
Imagine being such a retard you don't know what chemistry is

>>16551977
Evolution is the scientific explanation for the origin of species. It is useful in biology. Otherwise, it doesn't have much value at all.

Christianity is the spiritual explanation for life on earth. Anything that contradicts the Bible relates to the world of matter, not the spiritual.

Materialism is death.

>>16552075
To the ancient Greeks, animals and even plants had soul (psyche, thymos, noos).

>>16551977


CHRISTIANITY DOES NOT NEGATE EVOLUTION AS SUCH, BUT, RATHER, THE DARWINIAN THEORY OF EVOLUTION, AND ITS SPINOFFS, CONTRADICT CHRISTIANITY, BUT, REGARDLESS OF THIS CONTRADICTION, THE DARWINIAN THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS ERRONEOUS IN ITSELF, BECAUSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN PRO ITS VALIDITY, AND MUCH EVIDENCE AGAINST IT.

«DARWINISM» PERSISTS SOLELY BECAUSE IT IS THE MOST ELABORATE —THUS, CONVENIENT— SCHEME THAT RATIONALIZES THE ORIGIN OF BIOTIC ENTITIES IN ANTITHESIS OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

>>16554384
>... IN PRO [OF] ITS VALIDITY...

>>16552616
>All beings were made in the image of God
Only man was made in the image of God

>>16552231
But a lot of people accept those worldviews without being aware of why they accept them. You absolutely can reason someone out of a position they weren't reasoned into, they might have accepted it without thinking of epistemological frameworks at all and so have no barrier to considering a reasoned argument. In any case there is no dividing line between faith-based views and empirical ones, hardcore creationists try to use reason and empirical evidence to support creationism. In fact, a common argument from their camp is that science does support creationism but that there's a conspiracy to cover up the evidence.

>>16551977
what?

Any serious Christian knows evolution is sciencecuck fag shit. God created the world under the firmament like 10,000 years ago

>>16552075
Catholics are all mentally ill molestation victims, just ignore their furious incel rants

>>16554361
The Bible constantly makes claims about the physical world, which are in the realm of scientific investigation. For example, the number of generations after Adam isn't just in Genesis but is repeated and expanded in 1 Chronicles 1-8 and Luke 3:23-38. The world being created a few thousand years before Jesus was accepted by many church fathers, e.g. Clement of Alexandria (Miscellanies 1.21), Hippolytus of Rome (Writing on Daniel 4), Origen (Against Celsus 1.19), and Augustine (City of God 12.10).

These claims are shown to be false by scientific investigation. As an example, we can see the light from stars we can calculate are millions of light years away, there must have been millions of years for that light to reach us.

>>16554505
Science is not opposed to God. What we find about the world can be used for good.
The story outlined in the Bible is the story of man and the word of God. As the word of God, it is infallible.
As the story of man, it might include details about the scene that were inaccurate or simply lost through time.

>>16551982
If evolution disappaers from public consciousness, its because the stupid masses will use social pressure, mass-hysteria and violence to beat down the small independent portion of society that can still think.

Basically what the left is doing right now, but 10 times worse. Most people who dislike the theory of evolution have never bothered to read a serious modern book on the subject, most in fact cant.

>>16552194
>Well, the evidence isn't there for a *single* ancestor (i.e. key transition fossils).
I have a question, are you going to apply the same logic to your Christian faith and ask for skeletons of pre-noahide people who are clearly centuries old?

Every time I see Christians talking they demand evidence from us, but apparently dont have to offer any themselves.

>>16554548
It's not the word of God. It's just a book written by men. Men who knew next to nothing about the physical world. If you can't recognize this you are hopelessly indoctrinated,