Is the Bible as credible as Darwin's theoretical books?

  • But Kind Of No...

    The Bible is not reliable as Darwin's books, but MORE credible. Darwin, being a human makes mistakes and could have made mistakes in his books. However, the Bible is God - inspired and has no flaws except several spelling and grammatical errors because the Bible's human authors were generally un - educated.

  • Not the same reason as the other guy but...

    We all know that "Darwin's" evolution is somewhat obsolete.
    We don't really use Darwin's evolution, but rather we use it as a base. \
    sure he has the basics, and that helped us understand the trend, but thats it. His book isnt an atlast to the forest or mountain we couldn't see before. But rather a hint towards it.

    Same with the Bible, its not an end all be all book. No one really religious and smart, historically only read the Bible of Christianity, they've read thousands of different texts, science, literature, to come up with their own social philosophy. For military, industry, politics, you name it. Its only a book that leads to the better picture, just like Darwin's books.

  • The bible is ilogical

    If the bible was as credible as darwins books then we would have some weird stuff going on. First of the bible contains lots of stories that can't logically be true first off the is Moses and the at now a lot of animals weren't near Moses so how could he collect animals such as buffalo which are in Northern America? More importantly how could the animals not have eaten each other? There would have been predators next to prey and you expect the animals to just ignore them. I could talk about how unlikely and even ilogical that many stories in the bible and that shows many signs of it being less credible than Darwins books. I will say this however the bible had some nice messages...

  • The Bible is not supportable.

    Darwin's theoretical books were based on some observations. Such as the finches on the Galapagos Islands. The Bible on the other hand, no one knows who wrote it, it doesn't make sense theoretically, in any way. The Bible is about as accurate as the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

  • Evolution isn't theoretical

    It really isn't theoretical due to the fact it is proven as much as gravity and quantum theory. Also the bible really has no liable fact in in it that can easily be proven by other sources it also is a rip off of other local myths in the area. Now granted there are some facts but most have nothing to due with science. That pretty much wraps it up and shows that it really can't be supported.

  • They are completely different

    The Bible is a religious text. Darwin's books are entirely scientific.
    The authors of several of the books of the Bible are unknown, and essentially there is not much evidence that the whole book isn't just a story, or a fictionalised version of events.
    (Apparently I need six more words...)

    Posted by: CCE
  • Not even comparable

    Darwin's works propose a specific hypothesis to explain the phenomena of life's changing structure over time. This hypothesis is remarkably well supported, and predicts phenomena that were are discovering today. We have no evidence to contradict evolution. The Bible proposes a vague hypothesis to explain all of existence that is both untestable and doesn't predict anything. It also contradicts basically all of science.

  • Of course not

    The Bible, the supposed "perfect word of God", has been lost in translation and until 325 AD (Council of Nicaea), there wasn't even any agreement about what the "true Bible" was. And let's not forget that like all "divine" pieces of literature, it has absolutely nothing to verify its supposed "godly" origins-- it was a bunch of writings by a bunch of ancient people.

    Darwin's books, namely the Voyage of the Beagle and Origins of Species, are much more factually based and have, for the most part, been supported by the scientific evidence.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.