Homeroids said:
Andrespetmonkey said:
Evolution contradicts Adam & Eve.
If evolution is a fact that means no Adam & Eve, no Adam & Eve means no original sin, no original sin means no need for the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.
The evidence that supports evolution also contradicts Noahs ark and the world being under 10,000 years old.
|
Well not necessarily. For want of a better word, you are assuming a fundalmentalist view of the book of Genesis. My take - it's certainly not a book to be taken on "How" God created everything (the Universe). For if that was it's intent it would be a might bigger :). However, if one is to take a more holistic view of Genesis and not look at it as a purely "historically" themed book of the Bible, other avenues (that to me), make more sense suddenly appear.
For example, if one looks at Genesis as a book for possibly "why" God created everything (the Universe), then one only needs to take the ground work it lays down for a possible plan that "God" has for mankind. The theological ideas of original sin, redemption etc can still apply. And that's not saying here that you or anyone need agree with that since the idea of free will and choice being as important as it is, is also given explanation in Genesis :).
Now as to whether there was a literal Adam and Eve, or if this is an allegory of 2 initially created beings (Home Sapiens), I don't know. To go down that path will digress to theology.
Now as to "evolution" - it's a word that in a way simply means to progress. In most people's minds evolution will conjour the idea of biological evolution explained using Natural Selection. This is Darwinism and is an explanation for Biological evolution. However, The Big Bang was a term coined by a Belgian Priest and astronomer called Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966) and he challenged the more accepted idea of an eternal universe (which Genesis does not agree with) that held sway for centuries, and which even Einstein at the time held (an Aristotle influence). Lemaitre made an application of Einstein's theory of relativity and in 1927 worked out a precursor to the Hubble constant regarding the fact of an expanding universe. Ironically, the Big Bang is a theory that brings a confirmation to Genesis in that the Universe is NOT eternal.
Richard Dawkin's may argue that Genesis, in respect to the UNiverse being eternal or not had a 50% chance of getting this right, but the theology of Genesis (beginnings) goes a lot deepr than a 50% chance. It affects the whole, what you elude to, "no Adam & Eve, no Adam & Eve means no original sin, no original sin means no need for the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. "
So, yeah, interesting :).
|
