If evolution is true, then obviously "Jesus" is not real.

Non sequitur

Non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises.[SUP][1][/SUP] In a non sequitur, the conclusion could be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion. All invalid arguments are special cases of non sequitur. The term has special applicability in law, having a formal legal definition. Many types of known non sequitur argument forms have been classified into many different types of logical fallacies.

 

It seems like this discussion has gotten really stale.

Plus, it isn't even addressing the title of the thread.

Today, we have a LOT of Christians who do believe that Genesis is allegory. We even have a Pope who points out that religion and science are two different realms that should remain so. In other words, this shouldn't be seen as Bible vs. biology.

As allegory, it is far more important than a biology lesson when one thinks about the meanings of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, the tree of life, and what they say about mankind's original sin and human nature.

Thoughts?

 

And how do scientists come to that knowledge? Speculation based on evidence. Unless you think that scientists are somehow pulling divine knowledge straight from the Universe via telepathy or something.

And let me just point out that you still are avoiding the VAST majority of my points. You're deceitful. You claim you don't get evidence when it is in fact provided to you, and you just ignore it.

 

The first point of the OP is "if" evolution is true. It has never been proved to be true. So the second point is moot.

Genesis is an historical account (the only eye-witness account) of Creation. No scientific research has ever contradicted the Creation account. No scientific evidence has ever proved evolution true.
Added proof of that is, I have been asking the parishioners of the Church of Darwin for three days + for a single piece of evidence for evolution with zero results. I knew that when I began this debate.

If you got it, then now is the time to put up or shut up.

 

I'd like to point out that for the description of original sin to work, there needed to be an Adam to make a choice for all mankind.

 

Do you have the foggiest idea what true knowledge is? I can speculate the Moon is made of green cheese.

You have yet to provide your scientific evidence supporting your myth of evolution? Not opinions. Opinions are like anuses, everyone has one and they are of no use to anyone but the one who has it.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, there was no death before sin.

 

Still struggling to figure out what that word means, I see. The conclusion that biologists gave up the word "kind" most certainly follows from the premise that it doesn't work. Keep trying though.

 

Understanding of something. In the case of science, it's understanding of natural phenomena based on observation.

I'm not talking about pure speculation, I've been talking about speculation based on evidence. You can speculate that the moon is made of green cheese, but there is no evidence to support such a view.

Scientific studies are opinions? You do realize that the theory of General Relativity started out as an opinion of Einstein's, don't you? It wasn't until years later that his opinion was proven to be true.

 

According to Genesis 3, yes there was. Dude doesn't even know his own holy book.

 

Good. And you didn't even C&P that one.

Speculation is speculation, regardless of any underlying evidence. Anyone can take the same evidence and speculate anything they want.

but it isn't an opinion now. and is an example of post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy.

 

I think someone just confirmed the premise of the OP. With evolution, there is no Adam and Eve, and no Garden of Eden, and no original sin. Without original sin, there is no reason for Jesus to sacrifice himself to redeem mankind. Therefore evolution is a threat to fundamental Christianity.

 

Very astute, because that IS their (evolutionists) stated goal. Not science.

 

As stated by who?

 

Checkmate? I did not realize that you and I were in competition. Going back a few posts I noticed that you became suddenly defensive as though I were one of your spiritual opponents. I don't believe that we are... therefore, there is no chess game going on with regard to being a believer in the 'Bible'. On the other hand, I also don't agree with a lot of the professed Christians on this forum with regard to particular dogma that they propagate (and I am sure they feel the same way about the things that I say). By the definition that I have presented for the term 'fact', I will agree with you... I also "BELIEVE" the 'Bible' to be true. However, 'believing' and 'proving' are two different things. I only have a little over 23,000 postings on this forum (99.99% which are at odds with non-believers), so if you would like to check out that record, then I graciously invite you to do so, and tell me one passage of scripture that I have attempted to deny. I will be waiting for your investigative summary.

 

Yes. My point is that the whole formulation of the title is wrong.

Christianity doesn't depend on Genesis being literal.

As for the "first person account" part, Adam is not believed to be an author of Genesis. And, not even Adam was a witness of the creation of the universe. A person can not witness what came before that person - including their own creation.

 

So you're basically saying science is a useless field. Damn, glad we have all that progress to prove that wrong. And no, you can't just "make up" any kind of hypothesis based on the same evidence. That is falsifiably wrong.

It IS still an opinion, it is just backed up by loads of evidence now. Look at your signature, it literally cries out against what you're saying. ALL science starts out AND ends as opinion, just opinion with varying amounts of evidence behind it.

"Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested."

Do you know what tentative means?

"Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses"

Do you know what "well-substantiated" means? It certainly doesn't mean something is 100% correct.

Also, your claim that it is a Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy doesn't even make sense. I never stated anything cause another thing to happen erroneously, which is what that type of fallacy means.

 

Krauss & Dawkins just to name two.

 

The creation allegory describes man's original sin with great richness.

Beyond that, take a look around this world.

Then, tell me if man doesn't need redeeming.

 

They must be pretty influential if they could get people who lived over a century earlier, most of the Christians themselves, to come up with a theory that's only goal was to destroy their beliefs.

 

No, they are not if we have to quibble. Evolution does not require evolving.

 

Yes, they are:

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/change

It's the fourth synonym provided under change (verb). So... you're wrong. If you think that thesaurus is wrong, you can look it up else and find the same results. What exactly do you think is the difference between the word "change" and "evolve", why are they not synonyms?

Again, what you're saying makes no sense. How can evolution happen without evolving? That is an impossibility. Evolution is literally just a word to describe the process of evolving.

 

The difference is evolution can happen without evolving as was proved in the Miller-Urey experiment. Change precedes evolving.

 

....WUT

One, you claim that they aren't synonyms and then when I provide a link to a thesaurus you just ignore it? You're just as deceitful as NaturalBorn.

Two, define evolving. If you're simply going to say that evolving means changing, then yes, chemical evolution happened BY the changing of non-living materials into amino acids.

 

I don't understand the difference you are trying to identify.

 

I think you're playing word games.