Im gonna post this in both /sci/ and /his/ because it has a theological

>>2012461
Apparently the Catholic church doesn't have to many problems with Evolution nowadays, it really just is the fundi protestants that take the bible literally.

>>2012461
Say it with me. GENESIS WAS NEVER MEANT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY.

>>2012494
but im saying evolutions still incompatible no matter what the catholic church thinks

Evolution is only provable to the extent that it can be observed from one generation to the next, otherwise called "variation within a species". Even if you could prove that a dog can eventually turn into a rat it wouldn't prove that rats are "evolved" from dogs or even that the world has been around long enough for that to have happened.

File: 1479334217846.jpg (424KB, 1092x1052px) Image search: [Google]

424KB, 1092x1052px

>>2012506
Not him but I've never read the bible but do know most of the stories in it, when you say genesis what are you referring to? Adam and Eve?

>>2012506
...yeah, it was. please tell me exactly where the "metaphor" ends. is it after the garden of eden? or is the genealogy with people living into the 900s somehow metaphorical? metaphorical flood? was it metaphorical when Abraham lived for about 200 years? until Joshua these upsurd longetivities continue to an extent. hell if absurdity is enough to make something metaphorical we should even call the plagues in egypt a metaphor. but really, what is the difference between this absurdity and the one in Genesis 1? only that the latter has now been proven to be false.

>>2012522

its the most parsimonious explanation for a broad range of biological facts though.

and im not asking anyone to prove evolution, im asking if it were compatible whether true or not.

>>2012541
yeah creation story.

>>2012506

i say genesis because given my limited bible knowledge, it emphasises and describes god's special relationship with man, but im saying with evolution, that special relationship cant exist.

I think the jewish point of view can be reconciled with evolution. I mean in terms of God having a "chosen people" which he prefers over others. Evolution also seems to have certain "chosen" lifeforms that manage the best at evolving, adapting and staying alive. So that would make sense. Christianity, being applied to all "humans" doesn't make sense in those terms, because naturally certain humans are weaker than others and won't adapt as well as others. So evangelical christianity doesn't mix well with evolution i believe.

>>2012574
no it doesn't. evolution doesn't involve teleology. Theres no "chosen life forms". all organisms are best at adapting to their particular niche. theres no objectively best animals.

your jewish thing would only make sense if you can objectively prove jewish people are the best. doesnt make sense given that they were almost wiped out 70 years ago and had to rely on the grace of other nations to give them their state.

>>2012461
Unless they are into Spinozaian p(a)n(theism)

>>2012574
>Evolution also seems to have certain "chosen" lifeforms that manage the best at evolving, adapting and staying alive.
That's probably not going to be humans though and it's not going to be conscious "choosing".
It's going to be thermal vent bacteria or beetles or some shit depending on your choice of criteria.

What is incompatible?

>God created earth, mankind, animals
No mention of how he did it.

>b-but he did it in one day
This is the only contention, easily dismissed as not literal.

>>2012541
All of it was just analogies, meant to teach the basic relationship between God and man

>>2012461
>do you think that the existence of evolution and hard views on it completely conflicts and is incompatible with christianity
No I think they cooperate together better then most people give credit for. The main argument being the "7 days" of Earth's creation is widely argued by some to be a literal day. However it doesn't take into account the fact that the size and position of the Earth likely changed over millennia and that a day in the mind of God could be completely different compared to a day in the eyes of man. A day could also represent a cycle of the Earth's creation so in that sense one day in God's eyes could have been the entire span of time that the dinosaurs and ancient species ruled.
The other major argument is over man, specifically Adam, being created in God's image however evolution and the previous explanation of time and the cycles could show that evolution would be plausible as Adam could have started out in one form and eventually developed in an instant into human as God structured him over time which could be the entire timespan needed for the biological evolutionary process to happen so that you would have the first man and then the first woman.

I feel like people take the Bible too literally when metaphysical concepts about time and perception of events can accurately describe the dawn of mankind in a scientifically justifiable way.