So on page 1 of the Bible, I found a HUGE contradiction between Christianity and evolution. Theistic evolutionists claim they aren't contradictory and are fully compatible.

Evolution states life began in the water, moved to land, and mammals moved back to water to become whales. And dinosaurs evolved into birds. So for the whale, it came after fish and after life on land. For the bird, it also came after fish and after life on land.

Page 1 of the Bible states on the fourth day whales and birds were created. Then on the fifth day land animals (creeping things, cattle, ect) were created.

This is a massive contradiction, no?

When I was a theistic evolutionist I didnt believe the Bible was literally true. I doubt that's an uncommon position.

I think you've uncovered a contradiction between modern, scientific theory and biblical literalism, which is hardly a surprise.

I think it's a bit different to think that the Bible's overall Genesis story can be symbolic for evolution. This is not super ridiculous, because each of the 7 days can easily represent millions or billions of years.

But it is a bit ridiculous to think that when the Bible says "first birds were created then land animals", it's really an allegory for what really happened "land animals first, then birds".

In other words, I think it's possible the 7-day creation is an allegory for billions of years of evolution, but I don't think it's possible to say A causes B is an allegory for B causes A.

What I meant is that I dont think there's anyone who think "Evolution tells us how species evolved and the Bible is literally true." Therefore, any contradiction between those views isnt particularly germane.

I'm sure there are people who construct outlandish reconciliations of the two. But the nature of biblical interpretation is that 'theistic evolutionist' is just too broad a category - you're not really going to be able to capture everyone in that class with some simple description of how they reconcile their religious views with their scientific ones. I didnt take the bible to be saying anything about the order in which different species arose on earth, for example. Combing through the bible and treating it as statements of fact then 'deducing' contradictions always seemed to me to be as fruitful as deriving contradictions from Shakespeare's sonnets. (How can a person be more temperate than a summer's day? Makes no sense!)

Of course it doesn't make any sense, but these people already believe something that doesn't make any sense..

When you have an invalid premise, you can prove anything.

Watch these people make stuff as they go along, and watch how they think they are actually clever in doing so.

The sun is green, therefore I am god.

Yeah, your argument is perhaps successful against a certain kind of theistic evolutionist (the one that interprets Genesis "days" as meaning a very long time), but I don't know that most theistic evolutionists actually accept this interpretation of Genesis. My sense (which could be wrong) is that is actually mostly accepted by inerrantists trying to square evolution and the Bible, but for those Christians or other theists that aren't inerrantists, there isn't a real problem here.

As everyone is saying, you should first find someone who holds the views you talk about, then say that this person is wrong, not that some broad category in which they fit is wrong.

Ok, the Catholic Church holds this view.

Ok, great. So make a post stating that the Catholic Church is wrong, not one saying that theistic evolutionists are wrong.

Any support for this? Cause it doesn't sound like the Catholic Church I grew up in.

For Christianity, theistic evolution is a contradiction. That's even the selling point; that it contradicts the bible. The nice way of putting it is to say that the bible is allegorical.

However, it is a bloody big stretch to say that a written account about a 7-day creation event, where amongst other a woman is made by the rib of a man, is an allegory for "a change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations" (wikiquote).

I'm willing to agree that the creation stories in Genesis don't make sense as allegorical interpretations of the actual evolutionary history of humanity. However, I think it is mostly inerrantists who would make such an implausible claim. Other Christian evolutionists will view them as making some other point that has nothing to do with the actual way in which humans and the other creatures on earth came to be--maybe that humans are in some important sense "made in God's image," or that the natural state of the universe is good, or simply as a way of communicating God's concern for all of the universe.

You are at a huge disadvantage whenever you resort to bible literalism to take on someone who believes in theistic evolution.

The spirit is higher than the letter. Theistic evolutionary positions aren't limited to the letter that a lot of creationists limit themselves to.

That's all I got to say on this.

FWIW I think OP has the genesis creation days wrong. Its the fifth day not the fourth.

^^ Thank god for that.

there are a ton of contradictions throughout the bible. (check out skeptic's annotated bible).

hell, the first commandment is itself contradictory and, in fact, impossible to obey.

"I am the lord your god, worship no other gods but me."

first off, he is commanding us to worship him, and therefore we must follow his command and worship him. however, if we are to truly believe in god and worship him, we must be doing it out of our own free will - we must be choosing to worship him because we want to, not because he told us to. therefore, logically speaking, no one can even obey the first commandment properly since you cannot worship god because he told you to and at the exact same time worship god by your own choosing.

I love to read articles where creationist argue that theistic evolutionists are wrong...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti.../v11/n1/gospel

the arguments are...

Jesus claimed that Noah and the flood happened..(contradicts scientific knowledge from many fields of science)
Jesus claimed that at the beginning GOD created man and female...(contradicts evolution)
etc.. etc...

I hate to agree with creationists, but in these examples they are right... theistic evolution is a bunch of nonsense unless one decides to really close their eyes to the bible or create some silly excuses for many of the passages in it...

This doesn't make sense. You can certainly obey a commandment (from God or otherwise) of your own free will if free will exists. In fact, if free will exists, then you obeying anything is always an act of free will.

I don't understand you. Of course a Christian/Jewish theistic evolutionist doesn't read the Bible literally (which apparently means to "create some silly excuses for many of the passages in it"??). Was this really ever in question?

And I don't understand your question.

Not if the command is to worship God. Worship includes loving God which is not a choice imo.

God wants to buy your love with threats...

actually, it does make sense. it is a logical inconsistency.

You're saying it's impossible to obey a command by your own free will?

If you put a gun to a woman's head and commanded her to love you, do you think she could really love you? (assuming she didn't already of course)

If you say to her while you have a gun to her head, "tell me you love me or I'll blow your head clean off!"

And she replies " I love you"

Do you think that love is real??

I don't see what relevance the gun has. I don't think people can love on command, but then I don't think the presence or absence of a threat behind the command is relevant to that.