-18 votes

Did Darwin Kill God?

I don't want to promote that neocon-running-for-office's thread about evolution anymore.

Here is a wonderful documentary, Did Darwin Kill God?, on how evolution and God can and should coexist.

Did Darwin Kill God? Part 1:

Did Darwin Kill God? Part2:

Did Darwin Kill God? Part 3:

Did Darwin Kill God? Part 4:

Part 5:

Part 6 isn't worth watching.

You cannot argue that evolution occurs. It can be created in a laboratory, in our very own DNA mutation, and through observation of nature. Evolution does not equal atheism and it is a false dichotomy.

This issue is not black and white. It is gray. Both sides on the extreme should watch this series and realize the either-or fallacy.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


is cute . I like it for the city.

Please reread the analogy. A

Please reread the analogy. A motorcycle is a form of a vehicle just like speciation is a form of evolution.

Columbus, Ohio

A gas hose

is a vehicle also.

I'm not knocking you but like so much other B.S., it's all in terminology.

like what does, IS mean.

Ok. Don't debate idea of the

Ok. Don't debate idea of the analogy just debate the definition of IS. Thanks.

Columbus, Ohio

If there is no afterlife

then how would it matter if God exists? Although I think there is an afterlife I won't know for sure till I experience it. There are allegedly those who have strong recollections of a prior life and an intervening afterlife (see author and hypnotherapist Michael Newton) but my own recollections are wispy at best and could very likely be fantasy.

The point is, I don't know and I suspect neither do you. All we can do is decide and believe one way or the other -- or not. Personally I don't feel a need to believe, only to remain open.

New Hampshire and Ecuador.

Just to let you know

TODAY,----------- You can KNOW there is an afterlife.
I have told this before, so.


Darwin only suggests a method by which the hand of God might act. Many believe the "seven days" of creation were equal to our present Earth week but there are many day lengths throughout the solar system and the universe. The Bible doesn't define the day so was it an Earth day, a galactic day, a divine day or what? Supposing God's day was 100-million years, he could have taken his time and used evolution.

More damaging to, and yet supportive of, a belief in the Biblical story of creation is that Genesis was related in vastly more detail in earlier texts by Babylonians and before them the Sumerians. Essentially the Bible's first book appears to be a condensed re-write of the older accounts, only with a monotheistic interpretation. In the earlier accounts the creator of man was an Anunnaki goddess, one of many "gods" that arrived here from the much-older planet, Nibiru, about 450,000 years ago, found they needed a slave race and, after much trial and error, succeeded in producing "in their own image and likeness" the race of Adamu via combining their own DNA with that of the indigenous so-called early man.

Taken as history rather than fanciful myth, the original version would explain humankind's marked gene differences from other higher primates: We have 46 chromosomes while apes have 48; our 2nd chromosome is a fused version of the apes' 2nd and 3rd; and on nine of our chromosomes a gene sequence has been reversed, as if it was snipped out, flopped over, and re-inserted where it had been. Other than that the genomes of modern man and chimpanzees are 97% the same.

Now the Sumerian account, although casting doubt on the "divine revelation" of the Biblical prophets and their monotheistic attribution of the deeds of a bunch of technologically advanced space aliens that look like us, should not be held as evidence against the notion of a Lord of all Creation. In fact, just as God might conceivably work through Darwin's evolution, he might also work through "His children," the visiting Anunnaki.

Modern man now combines the DNA of widely different organisms to produce useful microbes, plants, and animals that never existed before. This rapidly exploding science frontier, though fraught with potential for bio-catastrophe and global domination, may soon place us on a bioengineering par with the supposed Anunnaki "creators," allowing us to write our own chapter in the Book of Genesis. Assuming the existence elsewhere of intelligent life millions of years older than our own, why would we expect them not to have an equal or greater command of science?

New Hampshire and Ecuador.

Follow up

And as a follow up to the statement, "Darwin only suggests a method by which the hand of God might act."

More complete nonsense. In Genesis 1:31, after completing the creation of the world, including all plant, animal and human life, we read, "God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good."

Did you know dinosaurs had cancer and arthritis? The fossil record shows all kinds of death, disease, cancer, etc. The "theistic evolutionist" puts all of that prior to the creation of man, so that means millions of years of suffering, disease, struggling, pain, bloodshed, war, ignorance, poverty, mutilation, anguish, rape, misery, torment, violence, and death got us to the point where God said everything was "very good." Animals – and people - (what's the difference, anyway, if you believe in evolution?) ripping each other apart over millions of years? Yes, "very good." Sorry, that's not my definition of very good, and I don't think it's God's, either.

As someone else once said, "The perfectly good god couldn't come up with anything better than a ghastly procedure which involves the torture and death of billions of creatures to keep the few remaining alive so they can reproduce and hunt down, torture and kill more billions, this horrendous process continuing for billions of years."

otoh, the account in Genesis, read as it was meant to be, does tell us of a good God who created a perfect world which we have marred by sin. And the same loving God provided us a way out of the mess we created. We are celebrating that in less than a week: Immanuel, God with us – when God became a man. He then died in our place to pay for our sins and He now offers us His eternal life. Get with the program :-)

No King but Jesus, no President but Ron Paul

If the beasts and the fishes and the birds of the air

were all created before God created Man and they were all at peace with one another until Adam and Eve sinned by deciding to have a fruit snack from the forbidden tree, they must have been near dead from hunger, especially the carnivores. The Bible doesn't inform us about how they weathered this period of "perfection" following the creation. Maybe they didn't need food while showered with God's pleasure but as soon as the man-things irked their Lord and Master, "Whamo!" They were beset with ravenous blood lust and began to slaughter each other by the billions. It's just one of those mysteries we have to accept if we take the Bible literally.

I say IF because I'm not partial to blind belief. Better to be open to the truth than closed to all but one story. (I think atheists, those who BELIEVE there is no God, are also closed to all but one story.)

New Hampshire and Ecuador.

Hardly indeed

There is no question about the length of a day. A day in the Bible (in almost all cases and made clear by the context) is what we all believe a day to be: approximately 24 hours. That is certainly the "day" used in the Genesis account of the six day creation. And there are no divine days - God is outside of time, and made that clear in more than one place in scripture.

Additionally, for those that are always looking to cast doubt on the authority and veracity of God's word, it's not surprising they pull out the old nonsense about the Genesis account being culled from Sumerian or Babylonian myths. A miniscule amount of research shows otherwise.

E.g., you can look at either of these for starters:



No King but Jesus, no President but Ron Paul

Early Egyptians, and early Chinese too I think,

figured the year as 360 days. Why the difference? Certainly there was an abundance of data about the sun's swing from north to south in yearly cycles. Those ancient civilizations all had royal astronomers or astronomer/priests using meticulously laid-out observatories to plot the sun, moon, planets, and constellations. They would hardly have rounded down in sloppy fashion.

The answer may lie in ancient water clocks that measured time by slowly dripping water. Their day was apparently longer than ours. Was there some change, such as the near approach of another heavenly body, that sped up the Earth's rotation (read Immanuel Velikovsky). Or did it move Earth out into a slightly wider and slower orbit around the sun?

The important point is that the length of an Earth day may not be immutable. My guess is the Lord of all Creation did not wear a wrist-watch, nor did he decree that the days should be divided into 24 equal parts of a certain length. There was no atomic clock ticking, at least none that we could recognize.

Let's do a decimal guessing game: Was the day of Genesis
1.001 times longer that today's days?
1.01 times longer that today's days?
1.1 times longer that today's days?
1.00 times as long as today's days?
10.01 times longer that today's days?
100.1 times longer that today's days?
1001 times longer that today's days?
10010 times longer that today's days?
100100 times longer that today's days?

See, if you can agree it may not have been exactly 24 of our modern-era hours, if such a rigid interpretation of Genesis is not warranted, then you have to admit you don't really know what the length of the day in Genesis was, and that, if it changed at all, it may have been radically longer or shorter at the time of the Biblical creation.

If a passage in Genesis had said "and this day equals all future days on Earth in length," then you might have a basis for belief that the Genesis day equals the modern day. But the Bible does not define the day so any such belief is "extra-Biblical" in my view.

New Hampshire and Ecuador.

How long is a day?

McClarinJ: See, if you can agree it may not have been exactly 24 of our modern-era hours, if such a rigid interpretation of Genesis is not warranted, then you have to admit you don't really know what the length of the day in Genesis was, and that, if it changed at all, it may have been radically longer or shorter at the time of the Biblical creation.

Radically? No. As I said, approximately.

Any six-year-old off the street, after having Genesis read to them for the first time, would tell you it means day. (Remember what Jesus said about being like a child?) The word has been translated for thousands of years as 'day' - ever since the text has been translated into other languages. Can anyone tell me of any translation, in any language, at any point in history, where it was translated to mean anything other than day? Like an "undetermined period of time?" Is there a Bible or Old Testament translation anywhere in the world in any language at any point in time that you can show me where the word yom is translated as anything but that language's word for a solar day? I basically repeated the same question, but I want to emphasize that point. There aren't any. Translators throughout history in all languages have recognized from the language, grammar, writing style and context that day means day and have translated it as such.

If a passage in Genesis had said "and this day equals all future days on Earth in length," then you might have a basis for belief that the Genesis day equals the modern day. But the Bible does not define the day so any such belief is "extra-Biblical" in my view.

And your view is wrong, because the Bible does exactly that in Exodus 20. God made it as clear as He could when He used the same word with the same meaning: "Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you."


"For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy."

That is why we have a seven-day week. All of our other calendar measurements of time come from the sun, earth and moon. A day is one revolution of the earth on its axis. A month is one orbit of the moon around the earth. A year is one orbit of the earth around the sun. But why is a week seven days instead of three or nine or twelve and a half? Because it is an acknowledgment of God's creation in Genesis. We are not to work for six million years and then rest for one million years. A day is a day is a day. Speaking of which, to not make this post a mile long, I'll write up a separate one with that title - A day is a day is a day, that exposes the nonsense that the days of Genesis are not solar days.

No King but Jesus, no President but Ron Paul

Well, I can't write in Hebrew here

but the transliteration of the word used in the original version of the Old Testament is yom, commonly translated as "day," but sometimes meaning "phase."

When cases are argued in courts there is often an attempt to decipher "original intent" by examining what the framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights where discussing as they crafted the document and its amendments. We should probably do the same with the Bible. Beyond learning Ancient Hebrew for examining the original Old Testament before translators got hold of it, we should seek prior written accounts of the events written of in Genesis and other books of the Bible. These events were not mysterious secrets revealed only in the Bible. Other earlier civilizations had made note of the Great Flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and other developments, including those of the "sixth day" and the banishment of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden.

Like the "Federalist Papers" compared to America's Constitution and amendments, the pre-Biblical accounts were much longer and more detailed than those condensed and edited to form the Book of Genesis. We should not be afraid to examine them as we explore for accurate interpretation. In the Sumerian account of creation, rewritten some 4,000 years BC or earlier, after the Great Flood, the creation of the "Adamu" took a long, long time -- many years, decades at least, perhaps centuries or longer. It was an endeavor fraught with mishaps, freakish beings, before perfection was ever achieved. Also, it was not accomplished by the Lord of all Creation but by one of his "children," an older, more advanced intelligent species that made man "in their image and likeness" by means of genetic engineering just as we are beginning to do.

Of course we don't need to believe the ancient Sumerians. The summarized and edited accounts in the Bible are more familiar and thus more comforting to believe if believe we must.

The alien Anunnaki "gods" of the Sumerian humans measured years on their planet as 3,600 Earth years, the period it took them to arrive at the same point in their long elliptical orbit. They may not have measured days at all since they spent the vast portion of their time too distant from the sun to make a day/night difference. Fortunately, according to the ancient accounts, their planet was amply heated internally, probably by radioactive decay, providing an ample power source for their survival.

Upon sending an expeditionary force to Earth some 450,000 years ago they used a mixture of time units, including the "great year" of the precession of the Earth's axis. They were aware of ten planets in our solar system, three of which (Uranus, Neptune, Pluto) we've only re-discovered in relatively recent times while the last is predicted by astronomers based on orbital perturbations of the outer planets and a few comets.

The civilization built over hundreds of millennia by the Anunnaki was all but erased by the Great Flood, supposedly caused by the precipitous calving of a million cubic miles of antarctic ice into the ocean at the end of the last ice age. Only one of their structures with multi-hundred-ton stone blocks was claimed to have survived the massive inundation.

Much that we are familiar with has been handed down unchanged from the Sumerians: our 360-degree circle, our 24-hour day, our 12-month calendar, our 60-second minute and 60-minute hour, our constellations. Even some words have changed only slightly from ancient Sumeria, traceable from modern English back through the intervening civilizations and languages. Basque, Hungarian, and Finnish are said to have especially strong affinities to the ancient language, indicating the spread of the Anunnaki into parts of Europe before they mysteriously departed or went into hiding.

New Hampshire and Ecuador.

No reputable theologian ever suggests taking Genesis literally

Only protestant hacks who have never stopped to think about the human hands that wrote the books from rememberance of an oral tradition. The Bible is not a good science or history book and was never intended to be either.


It is accurate historically, thanks to archaeology. The question is weather the first 10 chapters is accurate historically. If the rest of it has proven accurate (what we have thus verified) then why not consider the rest accurate?

Yes Moses did record the oral history but others in other cultures have recorded similar histories of origin.


A great book on the above.


This is a true story

Faith in God, the God of their Ancestors

In 1795, on a mission to smooth the way for the Empire, British diplomats encountered the Karen tribe, a humble people eager for these visitors to lead them. Don Richardson's book, “Eternity in their Hearts,” describes the meeting: “This is most interesting,” the guide said. “These tribesmen think you may be a certain 'white brother' whom they as a people have been expecting from time immemorial!”

“How curious,” replied the foreign diplomat. “Ask them what this 'white brother' is supposed to do when he arrives.”

The guide replied, “He's supposed to bring them a book just like one their forefathers lost long ago.” They are asking with bated breath, “Hasn't he brought it?”

“Ho! Ho!” the English man guffawed. “And who, pray tells, is the author of whose book has power to charm illiterate folk like these?” The guide explained, “They say the author is Y'wa - the supreme God.”

Mike there is much to learn that you have not even considiered yet.
Abundent evidence is around. If you only swim in one pond you will never learn of the diversity of opinion that thrives out side your world.

Patriot News
Stand up For your Civil Rights

So many wrong ideas

A lot of mistakes in that statement. The Bible is the history book of the universe, and was intended as EXACTLY that. And when it touches on science, which it does repeatedly, it is authoritative.

And contrary to Mr. Lawson's statement above, Jesus told us in John 17:17, "Your word is truth." And in 2 Timothy 3:16,17 we are told, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." "Science" is constantly in a state of flux as various theories and "truths" are replaced as we learn more about God's creation. On the other hand, "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever." Isaiah 40:8

No King but Jesus, no President but Ron Paul

I understand what you're saying

I disagree though. Obviously God created all things visible and invisible, but to try to say the way it's written is the exact way it happened is not possible. What about when they talk about the sky rolling up like a scroll, do you believe the moon and stars are on a flat plane in the sky or that the Earth is flat? It's in the Bible.
God's word may be unchanging, but his creation evolves, at least the part that's not humans.

What about when . . .

"they talk about the sky rolling up like a scroll"

"like a scroll" . . . is not saying it is a scroll. They used metaphors like we do.

When it says God will gather us like a chicken under his wings . . . it does not mean God has feathers.

He may have gills if he is one and the same Aqua Buddha who Rand worships. ; ^ )

Patriot News
Stand up For your Civil Rights

My point exactly

They really believed in a flat earth and sky though.
Here's my big big question for all Catholics and Protestants: Why are you not Orthodox? Did Jesus' church not "work"? I think it's just lack of exposure.
Realize that the Bible is part of church tradition and hasn't been part of Christianity from the beginning. If Christianity was a religion of a book, Jesus would have been an author and not a travelling minister.

John 1

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God

14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. 15John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.

You may actually want to read the Bible before you start talking about it.

Why are you not Orthodox?

I was born Russian Orthodox.

Dude, I read the Bible.

"Did Jesus' church not "work"?"

The Orthodox/Roman Catholic church was never Christ's church.

Religion is a lose. Tradition is a bad game of telephone.

"If Christianity was a religion of a book, Jesus would have been an author and not a travelling minister."


Jhn 1:1 ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the WORD WAS GOD.

Jhn 1:14 ¶ And the WORD WAS MADE FLESH, and dwelt among us

Jhn 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Patriot News
Stand up For your Civil Rights

Without the church, where would the Bible have come from?

Why were the Epistles included if church, doctrine and tradition don't matter?

2 Thes 2-15: Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

or what about John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

The Roman Catholic church is schismatic and heretical. Not to be lumped with Orthodoxy. Evangelicals are MUCH closer to Orthodox than Roman Catholics have ever been.

Evangelicals are MUCH closer to Orthodox than Roman Catholics ha

"Evangelicals are MUCH closer to Orthodox than Roman Catholics have ever been."

Yes this is true. But would you hold tradition over the scripture? This was the mistake of the Pharacees. I do not wish to bash your style of worship, only to say, that the Word is "my" final authority on faith and practice.

Mat 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men.
Mar 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men.
Col 2:22 Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?
1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
Hbr 13:9 Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For [it is] a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied

Here is more

Mat 15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition3862 of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
Mat 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition3862?

And honour not his father or his mother, [he shall be free]. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition3862.

And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition3862.

Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition3862 of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Patriot News
Stand up For your Civil Rights

Jesus passed on a tradition

Communion. He said to do it in rememberance of him. So there are Holy Traditions (capital T) and there are traditions(lowercase t) of man. Scripture is part of Holy Tradition, the very most important part and the final answer in all matters of faith, but it's just as important as other parts of Holy Tradition such as communion and prayer. Even meeting together with others to worship is part of Holy Tradition.

I hope you're not taking offense to any of this because I'm just very glad to be having this discussion with someone knowledgable on the Bible. Gimme all you got! :)

Ok Mike yes Jesus passed on a Tradition.

I see two clearly laid out "Traditions"

Baptism and Communion.

Baptisms were nothing new to Jews. They were based on ritualistic washings. "John the Immerser or baptist" was not a altogether new thing.

His Baptism was one to repentance. This is not the same as Adult Baptism that is practiced by Christian protestants today. John's Baptism was one that is more like a evangelists alter call where he calls all those who wish to demonstrate repentance and a readiness to receive the messiah Jesus by publicly walking to the front of the arena.

In John's case those who wished to demonstrate repentance and a readiness to receive the coming messiah would come forward and be dipped in water.

The Christian Baptism is something altogether new.

Communion is a new tradition. While it was based on Passover it was ordered to be done regularly but not specified how often.

Some practice it weekly, My church we do it monthly, Some fellowships did it after having completed a study through an entire book of the Bible. Plowing through Matthew at a chapter a week would mean a 7 month interval. But more important then frequency is efficacy and meaning.

Sacrament v. ordnance

Sacrament means Grace and or power to be saved is given through the act. This is both the Catholic and Orthodox positions.

Ordnance a religious ritual of special significance but not one that provides efficacy for salvation. But many argue its benefits from Martin Luther's "real presence" a view that Christ's presence resides in the bread and wine To Zwingly (my position) that it was all symbolic and no real benefit is gained other then presence of mind.

I personally do not believe either tradition is "needed" for salvation but for a believer to demonstrate faith and obeidence should be practiced.

Honestly, Though I am a man of Faith, I am not big on religion or tradition.

I understand others like to practice various rituals and don't hold it against them, while I don't believe its needed, I figure if they like the religious feel and it causes them to draw or feel closer to God then it can't hurt.

Patriot News
Stand up For your Civil Rights


Bible is not science book but when it speaks of science it is correct.

Patriot News
Stand up For your Civil Rights

There is no science in the

There is no science in the bible. Only observation tinted with mystical lenses.


And the king spake unto Ashpenaz the master of his eunuchs, that he should bring [certain] of the children of Israel, and of the king's seed, and of the princes;

Dan 1:4 Children in whom [was] no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding . . .
science, . . .

and such as [had] ability in them to stand in the king's palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans.

Patriot News
Stand up For your Civil Rights

There is no need to delete this post

We can agree to disagree.

I think the fact that we debate such things with out to much emotion or name calling is good.

These are political issues after all. These are not the most pressing issues but for some very important.

If we follow the tone of these debates from the DP's inception we would find the tone of these to be much more muted then in the past.

We realize we have educated people on both sides of this debate. I think that someone who may stumble across this post would realize this to be a truly free speech zone.

Yes this is a Ron Paul site but its not so much about the man as it is about the principals that drive the man.

I have "evolved" in my thinking through many such off topic debates and have even changed positions "ie The War" because of them.

Gold v. Silver v. Paper is another debate where people have changed views.

We should never be ashamed to disagree and never be afraid of diversity of opinion on such topics.

If respect rules the day then debate is instructive.

Patriot News
Stand up For your Civil Rights