Posted: Apr 19, 2017 8:58 pm
Tzelemel wrote:theropod wrote:Tzelemel wrote:When debating a Creationist, never debate the Bible. It has nothing of substance to debate with, so you don't want to be drawn into an argument about it, because you're effectively wasting your time arguing over nothing. Furthermore, if you start debating that, you're effectively saying that evolution is directly opposed to Christianity, which is patently false.
Bold edit by me.
Evolution negates the entire premise of the Bible and therefore Christianity. Christianity is based on mythology. The only valid interpretation of evolution is that it is an observation of reality and a fact. I am challenging you to defend your assertion.
RS
Evolution cannot negate the entire Bible, because it only pronounces on the creation of species. It therefore only negates the bits of the Bible that talks about the creation of species, and even then, I'm stretching the definition of evolution to include abiogenesis.
The Bible is a piecemeal document, written by several different authors. To prove Genesis wrong, does not prove the rest of the Bible wrong, unless you believe that the entire Bible is God's uncorrupted, divine word. If you believe the Bible is God's word, filtered through flawed, and maybe politically biased, humans, then it'll take more than evolution to prove the entire Bible wrong. The former is the fundamentalist's viewpoint. The latter is the more moderate Christian's viewpoint.
Now, it could be argued that we just need to target the fundamentalists, in which case, evolution is indeed all you need to negate the Bible. If you wish to target all of Christianity, however, then evolution is not enough.
Thise bits of the Bible about creation also are a central tenet of Christianity. Without the original sin, for which the Christ provided the perfect sacrifice to attone for this sin, there is no need for forgiveness and no need for the Christ. If there is no need for the Christ there is no defense of Christianity. Of course you could be referring to a flavor of Christianity where no association to said sacrificing is needed, but no such Christianity can then be called Christianity.
Abiogenesis does not apply in any way as evolution makes no such claims about how life arose. Since it is a fact that man was not created, but rather is the result of purely natural, and unguided, processes evolution counters even the most secular versions of Christianity. One could employ the teachings of the Christ as a guide for living without a speck of faith in the supernatural aspect, but this would require ignoring the parts of these very teachings and negate the ability to claim such as Christianity.
Cali, I see, has beaten me to the punch yet again. Also, in his usual style, has made the case in a much more succinct and thorough manner than I could ever hope to.
RS