A Theory on Creationism and Evolution Matching Up

Disclaimer: Nothing what I'm about to say comes from an official source. This is all my ideas from living a life bombarded by the Bible and, well, every other book. Also, if I mention "evolution" I mean scientific theory in general.

I was born on the fence between the two side. My dad is Agnostic and my mom is heavily Catholic. So I have grown up struggling to logically fit Christianity in with the logic and evidence of science. Eventually I came to this little pet theory: they are both the same.

The way I see it, if Jesus had sat on a rock with all his followers and told the people then that we all came from monkeys and giant lizards walked the earth, he would have been chased out of town. Instead, he told them stories of the type that where more common of the time, focusing to instill the right spirit into people, rather than getting the facts straight. However, he did make sure that there where certain parallels with the theories we have today.

How, here's where my theory starts. Scientific theory holds that the first cell organism was created a long-ass time ago in a swamp when all the conditions where right (I forget what the theory is called. I believe a German scientist actually recreated the process in a test tube). This cell eventually split off a piece of itself and created another cell.

Now the Bible: It says that the first human created was Adam. God split a piece off of Adam (his ribs) and created the second human (Eve).

That's not the end of my theory. For the first couple of cells, life was pretty nice. They didn't have to worry about anything, it was paradise (Eden). Eventually though, the cells became more and more complex so that they needed more sustenance then sunshine. And so the cells started consuming each other.

Just like how Adam and Eve ate the Apple. They gained knowledge and became more complex, but in exchange, they also gained evil. Interestingly enough, in the Bible, the first murder was when Adam's son Cain killed his brother Abel, in the same way the original cell's offspring started eating each other.

Again I'm not an expert. I am just giving a crazy idea I had. I would like to know other people's thoughts, or just hear from other Christians or any people of other religions who also struggle to fit in religion with what they learn. (Also, I appreciate anyone who reads to the end. You have my respect)

This is just your own interpretation of the bible, no one can tell you that you're not allowed to do that because different churches make different interpretations.

Why does it really matter to you in the first place, anyway? Do you really need a book to define your moral code or are you capable of knowing what is right and wrong?

Also, keep in mind, that these two theories are radically different in a major way. Evolution is a proven to be real by observation; we see what is happening and find out what is causing it and what the effects will be based solely on what we can see is real. Religion is accepting claims with faith, no one can prove that an intelligent creator exists or doesn't exist (that's why they call it a leap of faith). It's a philosophical choice of observation vs faith; whether to believe in something because your senses tell you or to betray your senses and believe in what some other source tells you. What you're doing is in-between, trying to believe observational facts and mix in claims that are unprovable observably.

I'll give you an example to clarify. Let's say all of a sudden you find a $100 on the floor. You can either be unassuming and only know that there are certain facts about the incident: you found $100, somehow it was there, you don't know why and can't find out why. You could also assume that an invisible buffalo left it there and you just believe it based on nothing, i.e. faith. These are two very different approaches of reasoning and I think it to be contradictory to believe your senses and then betray them with things they can't perceive.

Actually that's a quite a theory you got, in some sense these so called Jesus perhaps have the knowledge of the first living organism but in those era where everyone was a stupid idiot or whatever you wanna called it reign supreme so he have to alter a bit of those story to boost the confidence in those people. But instead using a living organism such as bacteria or other cell (i kinda remember it but forgot it)he use human to do the work.

It's quite a knowledge for a person who live at that era. But i to also have a theory it's not so different from your theory but my theory suggest that thee person called Jesus was a human but from a far future who holds the advance knowledge of evolution but during these time he got stuck (perhaps got into an accident with his time altering device) in this time frame and have to live there. So to live there he made a low profile image and spread it around.

For me that's was another theory that have not been proven but hold some basis in it. How do you or some, want to explain it that people from 2000 years ago have a knowledge that have only recently been discover? it's quite a crap if you say 'God tell him'. Please God are just someone mind product, if he even exist why can't he save those in need
especially those who live dedicating their live ti HIM. God never care r perhaps didn't exist at all that's why i say that it is better to say that Jesus wasn't a God child but a time traveler that got stuck in those time frame.

Before I comment, there's a video one should watch concerning how 'creationism' and 'evolution' match up. It was made by a doctor, so it's pretty good.



Anyway, concerning your idea that the bible and modern scientific theory are "parallel" in any way...no.

First, I'd like to point out that how God created the universe in Genesis doesn't at all match up with current scientific understanding. The sun and stars were made after light, the sun was made after the earth, night and day were made after light, plants were made before the sun. It's all nonsense.

And besides that, not only is the comparison of Adam, Eve, and knowledge to the intricacies of how organisms evolved over time...asinine...but there are so many unanswered questions about the story. Why was the talking snake included? And why was the snake(contrary to what we can observe) standing? Why did God have to sentence the snake to crawl on its belly forever? Why did God condemn man for 'getting more complex'? And why did he do it by saying, "You must toil the fields."? Why did he condemn woman for getting 'more complex'? And why did apparently giving birth not hurt before she was punished by...him making it hurt? None of the story makes sense. The most you can do is pick out one or two small details, extrapolate them to current scientific knowledge(which you butchered, by the by). And let me ask you, how dumb does a god need to be to write shit down in a book that doesn't become scientifically relevant for thousands of years, and even then only through use of post diction, which gives a lot of people reason to doubt the veracity of the book in the first place? Kind of an incompetent god if he's trying to teach any sort of science.

But the bible isn't the only one people try to draw these parallels with. The same can be said of the Quran.

"Do not the unbelievers see the heavens and the earth were joined together before we clove them asunder?" 21:30 - I could say this is indicative of the big bang in the Quran using postdiction if I wanted.

"Moreover, he comprehended in his design the sky, and it had been smoke, he said to the earth "Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly." They said "We do come together in willing obedience." 41:11

Sounds like Accretion to me.

And I can do it with other beliefs too.

The Norsemen believed the world was made from the body of a dead giant. And hey! Science tells us the earth is made from the remnants of a dead star that exploded! HOW COULD THE NORSEMEN HAVE KNOWN THAT?!

The Greeks believed the universe began as an egg, which hatched into Eros and he created the earth and sky. Sound like the big bang to anyone?

in Hindu mythology, Brahma splits a lotus flower, uses two pieces to make the earth and sky, and stretches the third to make the heavens. So not only did the Hindus know about the big bang, but also the expansion of the universe!11!!1

TL;DR, people have been performing this kind of postdiction for years, you can do it with any religion, the more logical conclusion is that you're just reading too much into the correlations you'd like to see, even though they're not really there.

We're humans, pattern seeking creatures. We see patterns in everything, correlations in everything, even when it's not there. Anyone else see the picture of the dog's ass that looks like Jesus? It's not Jesus...it's a dog's ass.

Same with the bible. It's not parallel with science...it's an old story passed down by illiterate goat herders.

The important part in religions is not how everything got created, it's the teachings of how one should live. I'd say the parts that explain how the world is and who made it are just to back up the importance of following the rules. God/gods made it all -> do as he/they say(s). This topic and these ponderings are irrelevant. The goal is to live a good life and secure it to others too.

Light is a particle of the EM field and is an elementary particle crucial to the function of the universe so it must've been made before the Sun. The elements that make up the Earth are too heavy to have been produced by the Sun; only supernovae can generate them. You can interpret things anyway you like and twist them to fit the truth.

Specifically shooting down the bible is not a permanent argument against the existence of a generic intelligent creator (i.e. not specifically the Bible's god or Qur'an's allah or w/e). That's because even if you disprove some of the ridiculous claims made by the Bible, it doesn't disprove the concept of the universe being intelligently designed. The fact is you can neither prove or disprove this intelligent creator and it's all up to a person's choice to believe only in what he can perceive or things that he can never perceive.

But not before all stars. The only things that give off light in the universe are stars, and exploding stars. The vast majority of the universe is black, empty, nothingness as a result.



I know you can, but you can't get around the fact that planets don't form before the stars they orbit. Scientific fact. To accept genesis you must deny this, and to deny this is to accept the bible is scientifically innacurate.



Ahem. MOST gods can be disproven because MOST gods we should expect evidence of their existence, should they exist. So the fact that we cannot see evidence for those particular 'designers' is a proof against them.

There's also whenever someone assigns characteristics to the 'designer' in question, like that they love us. This god can be disproven through simple observation.

The only god, really, that can't be disproven is a deistic god, and even then I can still demonstrate that it's more REASONABLE to not believe in a deistic god than TO believe in one. Because a deistic god we shouldn't expect evidence for, has no known characteristics, and is simply an answer to a question(where did everything come from) that doesn't further our knowledge as to the actual answer to the question anymore than "Magic" or "I don't know". It's a presupposition of a designer that is indistinguishable from one that doesn't exist, because this proposed designer doesn't interact with us, show us any evidence of his existence, and doesn't CARE about us either.

So yeah, I think being an atheist is the most reasonable position.

The only problem I have with Atheism is how absolutist it is. Saying there are no gods or anything because you can't prove they exist is kind of a logical fallacy.

I think you can't tell the difference between "not believing in the existence of god" and "believing in the nonexistence of god".

I'll just call the first positive atheism and the second negative. The negative is just as bs as religious fundamentalist, to me at least.

Isn't the first Agnosticism and the second Atheism?

No. Both are atheism. Agnosticism is just those too lazy to form their own opinions and shrug it off as unknowable.

Also, it's not a logical fallacy to say something doesn't exist if you can't provide evidence that they exist, provided we should expect evidence for this thing's existence.

I'm agnostic concerning a deistic god, by its very nature it's indistinguishable from a non existent god, and unable to be proven one way or the other. I DO however claim to know that certain gods don't exist, though not to an absolute certainty, just to as much a certainty as I can know that...say...a square circle isn't at all drawn anywhere in the universe.

OP needs to go read up a bit more on evolution.

Photons being particles of light mediate the electromagnetic force of electrons. Electrons and the EM field cannot exist without photons and since the Sun depends on these particles before it can be created then my statement was correct.



It is an interpretation where phrases aren't taken at face value. I was simply stating that with interpretations you can twist anything to fit the truth but that doesn't make what was interpreted right.




No evidence does not make something not exist. Let's pretend for a moment that there are 20 universes where each one can't observe the other. Simply because one universe has no evidence of the other doesn't change it's existence. If there is truly an intelligent creator then it exists even when you say it doesn't. If there isn't then it doesn't exist even when you say it does.



Irrelevant to the generic concept of an intelligent creator. One that hasn't been assigned any properties besides having created the universe and being intelligent.



Just because something doesn't interact with us doesn't change it's existence. Even when a tree falls in a forest with no one around to hear or see it doesn't change that it fell.



Indistinguishable doesn't change existence either. You can't say for certain whether something exists if there's no evidence. All that you can say for certain is, "I don't know" or "there's no evidence to prove or disprove it". It's all just insufficient information to draw any conclusions.


This discussion is tangential to the OP's thoughts. The god of the bible when taken literally can be disproven easily by it's own claims. When you interpret the bible in your own way to fit scientific theory, you're dissolving some of the absolute claims made by the bible such as "The planets were made before the Sun" into lesser claims such as "The planet's materials were made before the sun but the sun was finished first". If you keep dissolving the claims you end up with ones that can't be proven or disproven by science because those left aren't observable and science organizes only observable knowledge. Since the idea of a god lies outside the domain of observability it holds no place next to science.

The Bible is old stories written down after countless years being spread by word of mouth. Especially the Old Testament.

Anyone who takes it literally and expects that proving anything physically wrong with it (these don't match up) is a complete idiot.

As much so as the same person who takes it literally and uses it to cement their face based on its interpretation.

Men are fallible. They will not be able to recreate anything perfectly; especially true for events they never witnessed.

But none of these doesn't make the Bible any less important. Even if you are not Religious, you would have be a complete ignorant fool to disregard a lot of the messages and lessons it has to offer. Anyone who says it's bullshit has never take a serious look at it.

"But I don't agree with these parts it says!" So what? You honestly always agree with what someone or something says 100%? No, you don't ever. If you focus on the negative you will never see the positive that something has to offer.

Hating something just because you feel you have to absolutely hate it or else you get influenced by it is the same type of reasoning that groups like the KKK come around and operate.

The Bible has immense value because it is a collection of lessons that our Ancestors felt were so important that future generations needed to know about them. Even if you do not have faith in God does not mean you cannot learn from those that came before us.

And again, Science and Religion are not designed to be enemies to each other.

I think you've left out part of this sentence. I don't understand it. Just saying.



...None of them doesn't...so the bible is...still just as less important as ever? Just saying.



Or they have, and simply are able to evaluate things that might appear to be good moral lessons and messages as...asinine, redundant, hypocritical, or unoriginal. Please, give me a single good moral lesson the bible teaches that is exclusive to the bible. Should be fun.



I prefer to learn from those that came before us outside of the bible. Not that I don't respect the philosophical insight of christians in history. St. Thomas Aquinas brought about the concept that all things should be judged on a case by case basis, and not on an objective standard of "Action X illicits punishment Y regardless of intent, situation, circumstance, or anything"

Immanuel Kant, also a christian, wonderful moral philosopher.

Soren Kierkegaard, also a christian, brought about existentialism.

But these aren't biblically learned things that were espoused by these philosophers, these were things these philosophers figured out on their own, and may or may not have given credit to the fact that they were believers.

The bible's only worth, as far as I'm concerned, is in teaching about the finer points of reading and understanding classical literature.



Yet they are, regularly. And philosophers of science will regularly use scientific findings to undermine religious beliefs. One of the biggest being the debunking of mind body dualism.

Science and Religion aren't two antrhopomorphic entities that are sword fighting each other because, "THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE!"

What's happenning is religions all around the world make specific claims about the universe. Science investigates the universe, with not a thought in mind about saying, "Well we're out to prove you wrong" but more just wanting to see what's out there. What science regularly shows is that religious claims...tend to be wrong.

If religious people choose not to fight science, then great! IF they do, well then who are you to tell them to stop? They have beliefs, these beliefs are contradicted by scientific discovery, and they're not ok with that. That's where we get this thing called 'debate'. And 'debate' is a good thing.

Dude as you said, it was a crazy idea to mix up Religion/belief with science, those two things are fundamentally different, science try to answer many un-explained nature phenomenon, while religion, was originally the form of ancient wisdom that try to define a human being.
interpreting religion to be understandable by science is just useless, since it's originally just a whole lot of folklore of jews, bundled into one book, thus we call "Da Old Testament."
if you want a Rational Answer to all your Problem? ==> read science book
If you want a soothing Answer to all your problem? ==> read da Bible
have you heard "your eyes see what you want"?

this theory doesn't match up with what science thinks anyways. The order of events are all wrong. If the bible said that god made eve, and then god got eve pregnant, and all her children and children (everyone was female). The multitude of Eves' eventually started living in different camps and developing different interest. Some camps assimilated the intersts of other camps and added them to their own. One day A camp decided that they should eat other camps and so they did. Eventually god got a bit tired of these babaric man eating beasts and decided to make a man that could impregnate them so god didn't had to touch them. Then, the bible would make a bit of sense.

You are assuming that the original cell, and that cells that split off from the original cell even HAD a gender. Cells are asexual.

it's a matter of perspective. I simplified quite a lot and tried to make things more human, the thing that was before sex would've been pretty similiar to females. Also, my cells are very much male, thank you. With the exception of my red blood cells.

You are also seem assuming the following, which are most certainly wrong
There was swamps
Things were nice when life began
Evolution is the process of making simple life more advanced

I like my story:)