I'm curious why people who will accept micro evolution are so quick to dismiss macro evolution. Could you explain why it's so unbeleviable given a timeline of billions of years? I'm studying some key concepts of cell biology and genetics this semester and can't, for the life of me, understand why our DNA would somehow miraculously prevent us from conveying beneficial mutations to an extent where we see specieation (or speciesisation? the term I'm looking for is the creation of a new species).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Try and respond without a belief too, please. Keep in mind the question is based on the evidence that the earth is around 4.6 billion years old. If you don't like that little piece of information, please, try not to quote bible verses or beliefs at me. Answer as if you were a scientist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Warrior, see, I'm going to be honest here and I'm not trying to sound bigoted, but, you're looking at the face value of religion. Science and religion can fit together, I don't believe any religious text should be set in stone, why couldn't God be at the seat of the universe and still control Evolution, why can't God be nature. After all, they both control the universe. Essentially we believe in the same thing, to me God=Nature, one is just a deity who is more conscious to each person and the other is unconscious to each person, mentally. Two different outlooks, but also very similar at the same time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dude, I agree with you. I'm responding to those who seem to think that they can't.

I don't really have much scientific knowledge on evolution, but just from a modern standpoint, it seems like the vast majority of genetic abnormalities and mutations are not beneficial to the survival of the species, and most of the time mutations (at least in humans) cause them to be infertile, don't they? Another problem I have is that with almost every species we find fossil evidence of slight variations, but we never seem to find the "missing link" for any species. I have never really learned the difference between micro- and macro- evolution, so may information may be totally wrong, but there it is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT: grr... hit submit when I meant preview.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Continuing, I think macro-evolution is just as possible as any other scientific theory, but just from what I've seen the data doesn't necessarily support the argument.

Dude, I agree with you. I'm respond to those who seem to think that they can't.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, sorry, those people are like a page back so I made an assumption, my bad.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-I do know that mutations and disease act as population controllers, without them we'd be doomed. I don't however know enough to have an opinion on the "missing link" theory.

I don't really have much scientific knowledge on evolution, but just from a modern standpoint, it seems like the vast majority of genetic abnormalities and mutations are not beneficial to the survival of the species, and most of the time mutations (at least in humans) cause them to be infertile, don't they? Another problem I have is that with almost every species we find fossil evidence of slight variations, but we never seem to find the "missing link" for any species. I have never really learned the difference between micro- and macro- evolution, so may information may be totally wrong, but there it is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT: grr... hit submit when I meant preview.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Continuing, I think macro-evolution is just as possible as any other scientific theory, but just from what I've seen the data doesn't necessarily support the argument.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, most mutations are bad but no, most mutations don't make you infertile, they may just make you [developmentally delayed]ed physically, chemically or kill you. Granted, good mutations are rare, but things such as the evolution of sex, mieosis, bottleneck events, genetic drift, population genetics and environmental pressures mean that any good mutations that do occur will be multiplied where bad mutations are generally always killed off.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And @ Viktor, no worries.

Assassin, where's this die-hard proven fact called evolution? Last I heard, it's still speculation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It would take a case study thousands of years long to prove evolution. It's just as likely as Creation at this point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's only speculation among Christians who cherry pick things which are reconcilable with their religious views. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ which provides a decent overview of all the types of evidence put forth for what you call macro-evolution.

 

 

 

My personal favourite Endogenous Retroviruses, basically a virus randomly inserts its DNA into yours. This DNA is passed down from generation to generation and across species. Only species which are common will share the inserted DNA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I guess we need to wait before the sun dies to prove our theory of stellar evolution or that we need to wait for a flower to bloom before we can prove the plant's species. Ever heard of abductive reasoning or statistical analysis?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evolution is not a proven theory. Micro evolution is a proven concept, but macro evolution is not proven.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ I can't seem to remember your response to this the last few times I've pointed it out to you.

I'm curious why people who will accept micro evolution are so quick to dismiss macro evolution. Could you explain why it's so unbeleviable given a timeline of billions of years? I'm studying some key concepts of cell biology and genetics this semester and can't, for the life of me, understand why our DNA would somehow miraculously prevent us from conveying beneficial mutations to an extent where we see specieation (or speciesisation? the term I'm looking for is the creation of a new species).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Try and respond without a belief too, please. Keep in mind the question is based on the evidence that the earth is around 4.6 billion years old. If you don't like that little piece of information, please, try not to quote bible verses or beliefs at me. Answer as if you were a scientist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

because there hasnt been millions of years. macro evolotion is a perfectly good theory until you factor in billions of years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i refuse to believe that i came from an ape. there is no way someone who evolved could come up with music, art, love, or anything beautiful.

i refuse to believe that i came from an ape. there is no way someone who evolved could come up with music, art, love, or anything beautiful.

For a start this comment is absurd because humans did NOT, I repeat NOT, evolve from apes. You will not find any credible Evolutionary Biologist or Zoo-ologist that will claim that. we are talking about an evolutionary split from a common ancestor neither human nor an ape.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are also a fool if you think modern humans are the only ones to have created art and music.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm curious why people who will accept micro evolution are so quick to dismiss macro evolution. Could you explain why it's so unbeleviable given a timeline of billions of years? I'm studying some key concepts of cell biology and genetics this semester and can't, for the life of me, understand why our DNA would somehow miraculously prevent us from conveying beneficial mutations to an extent where we see specieation (or speciesisation? the term I'm looking for is the creation of a new species).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Try and respond without a belief too, please. Keep in mind the question is based on the evidence that the earth is around 4.6 billion years old. If you don't like that little piece of information, please, try not to quote bible verses or beliefs at me. Answer as if you were a scientist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

because there hasnt been millions of years. macro evolotion is a perfectly good theory until you factor in billions of years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i refuse to believe that i came from an ape. there is no way someone who evolved could come up with music, art, love, or anything beautiful.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please, read the part I bolded and upsized and try again. I don't want what information you don't agree with or your beliefs about it, I asked you to look through a scientists eyes. Just pretend. Flatter me. Try and explain to me given billions of years, why macro evolution would be such a rediculous concept.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: Sorry, I just noticed the part where you said 'macro evolution is a perfectly good idea when you factor in billions of years' :anxious: :? :oops: You can disregard the above.

Okay, I'm gonna change my mind. I actually do think that some beliefs are bunk. I don't believe that the Bible and Christianity are compatible with the evolution theory. The evolution theory says that humans are no more special than any other species. They might be the most prominent species at the moment, but there is no guarantee that we will always be nor have always been. Why would Jesus die for some random species who currently is at the top of the world? Why would humans be asked to rule all other species? Please enlighten me if I'm wrong.

 

I'm curious why people who will accept micro evolution are so quick to dismiss macro evolution. Could you explain why it's so unbeleviable given a timeline of billions of years? I'm studying some key concepts of cell biology and genetics this semester and can't, for the life of me, understand why our DNA would somehow miraculously prevent us from conveying beneficial mutations to an extent where we see specieation (or speciesisation? the term I'm looking for is the creation of a new species).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Try and respond without a belief too, please. Keep in mind the question is based on the evidence that the earth is around 4.6 billion years old. If you don't like that little piece of information, please, try not to quote bible verses or beliefs at me. Answer as if you were a scientist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Warrior, see, I'm going to be honest here and I'm not trying to sound bigoted, but, you're looking at the face value of religion. Science and religion can fit together, I don't believe any religious text should be set in stone, why couldn't God be at the seat of the universe and still control Evolution, why can't God be nature. After all, they both control the universe. Essentially we believe in the same thing, to me God=Nature, one is just a deity who is more conscious to each person and the other is unconscious to each person, mentally. Two different outlooks, but also very similar at the same time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'll give an answer as an a-theist with a scientific background. From a scientific point of view, religion and science can exist together. From a religious point of view it's a little more tricky.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sound basis of science is the allowance and acceptance of the principle of 'uncertainty'. Any scientist will keep a certain amount of 'uncertainty' in his findings. A scientist observes a certain phenomenon and will formulate a theory that explains his observations. Darwin observed similarities between species found on the Galapagos Islands and species on the continents. He also found dissimilarities in these organisms, big enough to make a distinction as them being sperate species. He conlcuded that by being exposed to different environments, a common ancestor diversified into the two species, through natural selection.

 

 

 

The diversification into seperate species if given enough time is the part of the theory most of religious people have issues with. Evolution itself can be observed on labscale with simple organisms. The natural selection eventually leading into seperate species is not as easy to observe, because it takes such a long time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This, in no way means that Darwin proved God doesn't exist. This is also a public misconception that the evolution theory disproves the existance of (a) God. One can only argue that he provides a different telling on how species came about than the one the bible has to offer. His scientific uncertainty principle will not allow him to say that God doesn't exist. Simply, because he can not emperically prove God exists, nor can he prove God doesn't exist. He also cannot prove or disprove that the driving force behind evolution is initiated by a divine being.

 

 

 

Concluding, from a scientist's point of view, science doesn't exclude religion or the existance of a divine being.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For religious people as said it's a bit more tricky. (Christian) Religion already provides for all the answers from the start. God is all-knowing, all-powerful and infallable. He is the answer to everything and any question. This point of view leaves room for no uncertainty principle: dogmas.

 

 

 

Through his tangible legacy of the bible, He has left mankind a way to follow Him and eventually be allowed into heaven. He also tells His followers through the bible, that they should follow Him, else their soul will be condemned to hell (see bible quotes few posts up). The only 'manual' (no disrespect) on how to follow Him is that very same book. To have a shot at eternal life in heaven, one must believe and obey what's written in the bible (to the letter).

 

 

 

(Evolutionary) Science conflicts with what's written in that bible, it conflicts with God's legacy and therefore with God Himself. It conflicts with the inner core of the believers itself. It conflicts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Having the answers from the start creates the danger of tunnelvision, since one way or another, the answer is always the divinity without question without uncertainty. This manifests itself in various ways when confronted, through dogmas, various leaps of faith and blunt rejection of ideas ('I will not accept that I evolved from apes, God is right man is fallable').

 

 

 

E.g. 'How old is the earth ? According to the script, 6000-10000 years old, but certainly not billions of years. How about carbon-dated fossils ? God is all powerful and can change the decay of the carbon atom at will at any given time in history.'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Don't take offense at my description of the religious point of view, I'm sure I am way off on certain aspects of it since I lack the experience of following a God myself.

Okay, I'm gonna change my mind. I actually do think that some beliefs are bunk. I don't believe that the Bible and Christianity are compatible with the evolution theory. The evolution theory says that humans are no more special than any other species. They might be the most prominent species at the moment, but there is no guarantee that we will always be nor have always been. Why would Jesus die for some random species who currently is at the top of the world? Why would humans be asked to rule all other species? Please enlighten me if I'm wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I can tell you why you're wrong right now:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're using the Bible as fact to over-rule scientific theory. The statement "Why would humans be asked to rule over all otehr species?" is obviously you saying "Why would the Bible say this if it were not true?", well, it's because the Bible isn't necessarily true, for once, and for two, humans have a massive inferiority complex. They had the swords, and the other creatures died to them. Why do you THINK the Bible would say we rule over them? Because we obviously did.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The only thing that makes us special is that we're smarter than the rest of the Earth's creatures. Religious people are personally INSULTED for some reason when you compare them to an animal...Which is stupid, because humans are just animals. Don't believe me? Here, do this...Go out in the wilderness without any human technology. Now, live. I bet you won't live very long. Humans are an INCREDIBLY weak species without A) Other humans and B) their technology. We are perhaps the weakest species on the planet...Well, except Elpaca's. Those things can only spit. Pfft.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are plenty of other species on this planet that would out-kill us, out-perform us, or just out-right kill us period before we could do anything to them. Bears? Tigers? Lions? All stronger, better killers. Dolphins? Smarter than us, arguably. Just not in the "right" way. Can't think of any other animals off the top of my head, but you and I both know there are TONS of species that are much better than us in certain aspects of life.

This is a good article about macroevlution, read it if you're interested.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It also indirectly debunks that ridiculous claim that macroevolution is a load of jiggery-pokery, and therefore the Bible is right.

I think, therefore I am

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

we know nothing beyond that we exist. How can one have faith in a text when one cannot prove it's existence? Do you have enough faith in your own senses as a human to know that every thing you see is what is there, that everything you feel isn't just a random impulse from a neurone, that what you hear isn't your brain creating a blissful scenario while your actual body is in a vegetatice state?

 

 

 

All belief stems form the belief that humans are always right, and therefore this means that God is pointless, as he can only do what we know he can do, so he is limited by our own imaginations. Why didn't God give us antibiotics during the plagues of the middle-ages? Why did God suddenl provide us with knowledge of how to construct weapons of mass destruction afer centuries of horses? Because man invented these things, then priased God for them

 

 

 

I can tell you why you're wrong right now:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're using the Bible as fact to over-rule scientific theory. The statement "Why would humans be asked to rule over all otehr species?" is obviously you saying "Why would the Bible say this if it were not true?", well, it's because the Bible isn't necessarily true, for once, and for two, humans have a massive inferiority complex. They had the swords, and the other creatures died to them. Why do you THINK the Bible would say we rule over them? Because we obviously did.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The only thing that makes us special is that we're smarter than the rest of the Earth's creatures. Religious people are personally INSULTED for some reason when you compare them to an animal...Which is stupid, because humans are just animals. Don't believe me? Here, do this...Go out in the wilderness without any human technology. Now, live. I bet you won't live very long. Humans are an INCREDIBLY weak species without A) Other humans and B) their technology. We are perhaps the weakest species on the planet...Well, except Elpaca's. Those things can only spit. Pfft.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are plenty of other species on this planet that would out-kill us, out-perform us, or just out-right kill us period before we could do anything to them. Bears? Tigers? Lions? All stronger, better killers. Dolphins? Smarter than us, arguably. Just not in the "right" way. Can't think of any other animals off the top of my head, but you and I both know there are TONS of species that are much better than us in certain aspects of life.

 

 

 

If a person doesn't believe the Bible is true then I don't see any point in being a christian. So are you saying the Bible and evolution are compatible or incompatible?

 

 

 

If a person doesn't believe the Bible is true then I don't see any point in being a christian. So are you saying the Bible and evolution are compatible or incompatible?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Bible (in my opinion) is completely true, if you take into account the understanding of the people of the time (context). The Bible is writen in the language of mythos (this is not the same as myth, it means TRUTH), however, this truth extends onto multiple levels: historical, physical, social, and spiritual. Every story in the bible deals with at least one of these issues, keeping with the culture of the time. For example the author of Genesis would have had a difficult time understanding "And in the first 1.5 microseconds God created the laws of physics, developed nuclear chemistry, ect"; this would have been impossible for the author to understand. Thus, God explains the begining of time in a way that the author would understand.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: This does not mean we can not gain truth from Genesis 1 and 2, it simply means we must examine them, and realize the point that God is trying to convey: He created the Earth.

 

 

 

The Bible (in my opinion) is completely true, if you take into account the understanding of the people of the time (context). The Bible is writen in the language of mythos (this is not the same as myth, it means TRUTH), however, this truth extends onto multiple levels: historical, physical, social, and spiritual. Every story in the bible deals with at least one of these issues, keeping with the culture of the time. For example the author of Genesis would have had a difficult time understanding "And in the first 1.5 microseconds God created the laws of physics, developed nuclear chemistry, ect"; this would have been impossible for the author to understand. Thus, God explains the begining of time in a way that the author would understand.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: This does not mean we can not gain truth from Genesis 1 and 2, it simply means we must examine them, and realize the point that God is trying to convey: He created the Earth.

 

 

 

I'm gonna ask you the same question. So are you saying the Bible and evolution are compatible or incompatible?

I think he's saying the story of Genesis is symbolic so that the writer could convey the creation to the people of the world then who could not understand things such as evolution as there was no way of gaining such emprical evidence to support it. It's much easier to throw all creation onto God at the time and have people worship rather than puzzle their minds with something they couldn't understand.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, any beleif in the Bible is completley circular and holds no empirical sense of truth. So i don't see how people can base their morality and lives on such a book which often shows a flawed sense of morality in the followers or a picking and choosing follower. Which isn't really a follower at all in my opinion. They don't beleive 100%? They don't need the Bible to teach them common sense.

Humans are not the strongest or fastest animal, true. We would have been dead meat long ago if we had not, at some point in our history, done something no other species has done or likely yet will do: We made fire. Then we made metal. We made swords. We made bows and arrows. We learned to tame other species; to farm, to ride horses, to keep dogs. And it went on from there, all the way forth to rockets that explore space, subs that explore the deep sea, and nuclear bombs that destroy cities.

 

 

 

So somehow, at some point in history, a single, lonely species that was basically a kind of upright monkey that easily got eaten did the impossible, and went on to rule the world. The mysterious point, where we start to stop being tiger food, and tigers start to become human food.

 

 

 

This, for me, is where God comes into the equation. Why we were chosen, I don't know. But it seems that some sort of God decided to enlighten us with this knowledge. Now that we're Chosen, though, and are more powerful than the other animals, we have a duty. With power comes responsibility, and the humans have a duty to help them, or at least, not let them alone, and not be overly cruel to them.

I think he's saying the story of Genesis is symbolic so that the writer could convey the creation to the people of the world then who could not understand things such as evolution as there was no way of gaining such emprical evidence to support it. It's much easier to throw all creation onto God at the time and have people worship rather than puzzle their minds with something they couldn't understand.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think they would be able to understand. I mean if it's God's creation, why would he create a being that can't understand how they were made? So that he must tell a false version for them to put in a book, which is supposed to hold the truth. It doesn't make any sense to me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Humans are not the strongest or fastest animal, true. We would have been dead meat long ago if we had not, at some point in our history, done something no other species has done or likely yet will do: We made fire. Then we made metal. We made swords. We made bows and arrows. We learned to tame other species; to farm, to ride horses, to keep dogs. And it went on from there, all the way forth to rockets that explore space, subs that explore the deep sea, and nuclear bombs that destroy cities.

 

 

 

So somehow, at some point in history, a single, lonely species that was basically a kind of upright monkey that easily got eaten did the impossible, and went on to rule the world. The mysterious point, where we start to stop being tiger food, and tigers start to become human food.

 

 

 

This, for me, is where God comes into the equation. Why we were chosen, I don't know. But it seems that some sort of God decided to enlighten us with this knowledge. Now that we're Chosen, though, and are more powerful than the other animals, we have a duty. With power comes responsibility, and the humans have a duty to help them, or at least, not let them alone, and not be overly cruel to them.

 

 

 

Again, there is nothing saying we won't lose our dominance, in the future, to some other random species. Or has evolution suddenly stopped since God decided that it would? Sure God could stop evolution, he can do anything. But it just seems like he had no original plan and just said: "Hey, those homo sapiens look pretty good, I'll make them the ruler of my creation."

 

I think he's saying the story of Genesis is symbolic so that the writer could convey the creation to the people of the world then who could not understand things such as evolution as there was no way of gaining such emprical evidence to support it. It's much easier to throw all creation onto God at the time and have people worship rather than puzzle their minds with something they couldn't understand.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think they would be able to understand. I mean if it's God's creation, why would he create a being that can't understand how they were made? So that he must tell a false version for them to put in a book, which is supposed to hold the truth. It doesn't make any sense to me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exactly, that's why I believe man wrote it as a speculation, only God truly knows the whole story.

 

 

 

Exactly, that's why I believe man wrote it as a speculation, only God truly knows the whole story.

 

 

 

I consider the Bible to be the truth. Not man's speculation, that might or might not be true. It's not an option for me to live by some guys speculation, if it's not the truth I might aswell shred my Bible to pieces.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Though I do agree that only God knows the whole story.

 

 

 

 

I can tell you why you're wrong right now:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're using the Bible as fact to over-rule scientific theory. The statement "Why would humans be asked to rule over all otehr species?" is obviously you saying "Why would the Bible say this if it were not true?", well, it's because the Bible isn't necessarily true, for once, and for two, humans have a massive inferiority complex. They had the swords, and the other creatures died to them. Why do you THINK the Bible would say we rule over them? Because we obviously did.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The only thing that makes us special is that we're smarter than the rest of the Earth's creatures. Religious people are personally INSULTED for some reason when you compare them to an animal...Which is stupid, because humans are just animals. Don't believe me? Here, do this...Go out in the wilderness without any human technology. Now, live. I bet you won't live very long. Humans are an INCREDIBLY weak species without A) Other humans and B) their technology. We are perhaps the weakest species on the planet...Well, except Elpaca's. Those things can only spit. Pfft.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are plenty of other species on this planet that would out-kill us, out-perform us, or just out-right kill us period before we could do anything to them. Bears? Tigers? Lions? All stronger, better killers. Dolphins? Smarter than us, arguably. Just not in the "right" way. Can't think of any other animals off the top of my head, but you and I both know there are TONS of species that are much better than us in certain aspects of life.

 

 

 

If a person doesn't believe the Bible is true then I don't see any point in being a christian. So are you saying the Bible and evolution are compatible or incompatible?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They're incompatible, but that's not what my point was...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, I am rather tired of people saying "Science and religion are compatible!" when talking about evolution. SCIENCE, yes. EVOLUTION, no.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I also chuckle at religious people who are think scientists are dumb because they think we came indirectly from "rocks". The Bible says we were made out of dust, but since God apparently made that possible, it's no longer stupid.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And Korskin, you DO know that man wrote the Bible right? I am utterly dumbfounded when people say they believe the Bible because science is just human speculation. People seem to have this thing in their head that makes them say "God wrote the Bible himself!" when he obviously didn't. As far as I know of, the only thing God wrote directly were the orginal 10 commandments, which Moses shattered 'cause he was being a turd. Rather, everyone else was, and he got mad. Whatever.

 

 

 

However, I am rather tired of people saying "Science and religion are compatible!" when talking about evolution. SCIENCE, yes. EVOLUTION, no.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Depends on what religion you mean.

 

 

 

(And my point was always "God and evolution", not "religion and evolution".)

 

 

 

They're incompatible, but that's not what my point was...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, I am rather tired of people saying "Science and religion are compatible!" when talking about evolution. SCIENCE, yes. EVOLUTION, no.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I also chuckle at religious people who are think scientists are dumb because they think we came indirectly from "rocks". The Bible says we were made out of dust, but since God apparently made that possible, it's no longer stupid.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And Korskin, you DO know that man wrote the Bible right? I am utterly dumbfounded when people say they believe the Bible because science is just human speculation. People seem to have this thing in their head that makes them say "God wrote the Bible himself!" when he obviously didn't. As far as I know of, the only thing God wrote directly were the orginal 10 commandments, which Moses shattered 'cause he was being a turd. Rather, everyone else was, and he got mad. Whatever.

 

 

 

Of course it's written by man. Though that doesn't make it man's speculation as they were inspired by God to write what he intended.

 

 

 

 

However, I am rather tired of people saying "Science and religion are compatible!" when talking about evolution. SCIENCE, yes. EVOLUTION, no.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Depends on what religion you mean.

 

 

 

(And my point was always "God and evolution", not "religion and evolution".)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yea, aren't most religions based around a deity? So it's not the specific details, it's the concept in general that is compatible.