It should.  In the case of YECs, it should serve to demonstrate they are 100% wrong.  In the case of those who think they can have some evolution with their jesus:  Where exactly on the evolutionary timeline did sin and the need for salvation arise?  With Homo sapiens?  Homo erectus?  The Australopithecines?  The tree shrews?  

Are Neanderthals saved by jesus?  What if we evolve into a new species? 

In the end, the only way to keep faith-based beliefs alongside scientific theory is to ignore their incompatibility.

This is a good point, and I think what really made me start questioning Christianity and religion to begin with.

I asked questions such as, "Since the Bible is the only way of knowing about this Jesus, and you can't go to heaven if you don't accept him as your savior, what happens to people that have never heard of him?  People such as those who live in distant 3rd world countries... the Abariginies in the outback, small tribes in Africa?  And what about infants that die suddenly?  Children that never got a "chance" to go to church?  There are bound to be many that have never heard about him, due to one situation or another.  So, what, they get shortchanged because they didn't have the opportunity to read or learn of the Bible... this book, written by man?

The answer I always received to this question from the "believers" was that they were "exempt" from this little rule of accepting Jesus; as complete ignorance to Jesus, made it OK, and they would be pardoned and let into heaven, regardless of the "sins" they may have committed.  Those believers (who believe that homo sapiens and Neanderthals were around) say the same thing applied to them.

Well.  By that logic, couldn't you just guarantee everyone's entrance into heaven, if you just stopped spreading the word of Jesus?  If everyone became ignorant to Christianity, then everyone would be pardoned, right and saved, right?

It's a very good point to bring up, but I'm sure the diehard YEC's have some sort of sidestepping answer for it... of course, by using the Bible as their reference.

I've heard this idea before, but it was in the form of a story. I can't remember it exactly, but IIRC it goes that when missionaries first took Christianity far north to the Inuits, a missionary was trying to explain the benefits that come with being a saved Christian. He explained that those that accept Jesus as their lord and savior get rewarded in heaven, but those that reject him burn in hell. Curious, the Inuit asks what happens to all the people that have never heard of this deal and so can't make a decision on the matter. The missionary explains that they can't be held accountable, and so they obviously get to heaven. The Inuit replies, "Then why did you tell me?"

I wish I could remember it exactly as I heard it, but it was something I heard way back in grade school, and it was one of the things that first got me thinking about Christianity objectively.

It would be interesting if I could feign sincere ignorance about Christianity in an attempt to pull that one off.

I don't think that's a very accurate statement in the least...

For theists to accept evolution, they would have to change their beliefs on where life came from, and how it got to be what it is today.  In a sense, evolution is science's version"creationism".

So, to say that evolution has nothing to do with the disagreements between atheists and theists, is ignoring the biggest disagreement of them all.

It's all about presentation.  Before I sat down and actually read a book (or two) about it, I thought "evolution" was only about the origins of life.  Didn't really think about how humans shed their body hair as the Earth warmed as a part of human evolution or how, thanks to better brain functions, how we evolved transportation from walking to horse to automobiles. 

Where life came from vs. what life is doing now that it's here are two totally different subjects.  I'm not exactly sure they should both be lumped into the same header of "evolution," although I can see why they would be.  I understand the principles behind evolution but I cannot say I agree with all of them.

I don't disagree that scorpions evolved from needing to be twice the size of a man and needing gills to what they are today.  Life does that.  Where I disagree is how the scorpion came to be, where it came from.  Now that, if I'm not mistaken, is where science becomes based more so on probabilities than fact. 

Evolution is not rejected by the bible or by having faith in God.  It just rejects one small subheader of it.

Reflect, for a moment, on the fact that 200 years ago, the theory that explains the changes in scorpions would have been equally ill-supported as the various scientific theories about the origins of life are today. If you lived then, instead of now, you would point at the weakness of those theories and say they left room for belief in God's involvement. Today, with those theories as ironclad as they are now, you are forced to move the bar back a few billion years and claim that there's an opening for God there.

What we see in history are certain scientific theories succeeding and others failing. We have no way of knowing, today, which will succeed and fail in the long run. But what we do not see is the scientific process itself failing. The march of discovery goes on and every day we, as a species, know more and more about the universe. Based on everything we have seen to date, it seems very probable that scientists are somehow, someday, going to turn up compelling evidence about the origins of life.

Now contrast the history of religious theories about the universe. All we see there is steady erosion and revision of the same ancient fairy tales that have been told for thousands of years. No new information has been added, no learning or progress achieved at all. Every claim that was testable by science has been destroyed by it. There is simply no rational reason to believe that it is probable that the few claims that have not yet been tested will stand while the other, uniformly, have fallen. The gross inaccuracies of the various religious myths should lead us to believe that there was a serious systemic problem with the way they were created which, of course, there was, since they are works of imaginative fiction, not scientific research.

It is fine to want to be open minded and not come down on one side or another when it comes to the questions that can't be answered yet. But doing so also requires turning a blind eye to the very different track records of the two sources of knowledge. I think the only rational conclusion can be that scientists appear to be on the right track, while theists are simply retreating from error to error.

I understand why you are still trying to lump the origins of life to evolution over the bible but I'm sorry they are not equal.  Now I'm sure you can probably recite to me evolution definitions, maybe even a ton of "facts" according to other non-Creationists and make up a wonderful presentation that would make the discovery channel proud.  And I guarantee you that not only would I find it interesting, I might actually learn more about the origins of life according to evolution.  But to say that evolution rejects what the bible speaks of by calling it fallacious is simply untrue.  I think you might have a few things misunderstood or misquoted to you...

a. the bible never actually says how old the Earth is.  I've heard the theories and they are generally spoken by people who might actually say they've figured out when the world will end too.  I'm not sure how that nullifies creation or how creation nullifies evolution with the exception of the origin.

b. wrong about what exactly?  The age of the Earth?  The original Hebrew of the word day, "yom", in context on how it was used in both Genesis and Exodus, both refer to a "day" as a period referred to as "there was evening and there was morning."  That means it was one 24 hour day as we know it.  There are tons of theories out there that say something about one day is equivalent to some period of time but that's all they are, theories.  Science as we know it shows that the period of evening to morning is a 24 hour day.  There is no mention of how many years ago, how many generations ago, nor how many "ages" ago this was.  The bible says absolutely nothing about how old the Earth is.  If there is any mistake here, it's about the failure to interpret by the original language.

As I said before, "evolution" and "creation" can and do co-exist.  The only thing that is different is how it all began.

Razorphreak -

I'll assume then, that you subscribe to the "Old Earth Creationist" idea?

Not being a Bible scholar myself, I was curious as to where Young Earth Creationists got the idea that the Earth was so young (6,000 to 10,000 years old).  They base this belief on  the logical implication that "Yom" referred to a 24 hour period - and if God created the earth in 6 days, the Earth must be young.

But I was not surprised to learn that there is arguable evidence to suggest that the usage of "Yom" by Moses, may have been intended to mean "ages" - or thousands of years - which could allow for a much older Earth... but probably still not as old as science has estimated it.

I realize that many theological scholars debate this very issue to no end, but I found the following article to be an interesting read about this matter:

www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/8449/days.html

At any rate, I can see how, based on the Old Earth Creation idea, how one can manage to allow evolution and Christianity to co-exist -- to a degree.  The reason I say "to a degree", is because the age of the Earth is not the only matter of disagreement between the two teachings. 

Assuming for a moment that god exists, and he created everything, were Adam and Eve actually the first primitive forms of mankind, Australopithecus?  If not, is Australopithecus just some other "ape" that god created?  Were they Neanderthals?  The Bible makes no mention of these early forms of man, yet there can be little debate about our relation to them.

I'm not familiar with that term.  What is the "Old Earth Creationist idea?"

The only impression I've got is somehow they've related to one day in Genesis to be one "age" of some sort.  Each age being a millenia or something like that.  And through some sort of funky calculation, whamo, you've got the age of the Earth.  I mean, even some believers will not accept that these things could have been done in one days time.

There are several meanings as to what the word "yom" means.  However, in context, as found in several other passages meaning one 24 hour day in Genesis and Exodus, "yom" is used exactly the same way it is in Genesis 1.  You cannot change the context to suit your (not meaning yours per say) theory.  The context is clear as to the meaning.

I'm not too crazy about this question you are asking.  The reason I'm not is because we would not be debating the origins of man, we are opening a pandoras box as to what creation actually is.  All I can give you is an opinion as I am no expert as to what the origins of man are, I only can say some of the things I've read online. 

Anyway, were Adam and Eve possibly Australopithecus?  Maybe.  Or could they have been Homo habilis?  Maybe.  All I can say is in accordance with my faith and my faith follows the path of Genesis calling Adam and Eve the first people, the first humans.  The debate I think, if we were to follow "human evolution," would probably be about if Australopithecus was actually a human relative.  I personally have doubts considering the mistakes that science has shown before when it comes to extinct species (e.g. how T-Rex walked).

Of course.  It may lead you to realize how incompatible your creationist beliefs are with scientific theory

Australopithecines were our evolutionary forbears.  Genetic research has yielded evidence of possible mating between early humans and Neanderthals.  So yes, it is certainly about the origins of man. 

Is your biblical acuity such that you can insightfully parse the meaning of "day" (yom) in genesis, but are simply stymied on the meaning of "man" in the same book?

Well science admits of falsifiability, so current theory can certainly be revised by new evidence, or reappraisal of existing evidence.  Correct if me if I'm wrong, but you do not seem open to the genesis account being mistaken or falsifiable.

Above, you admonished "You cannot change the context to suit your (not meaning yours per say) theory."   Permit me to admonish:  You cannot change (or ignore) the scientific evidence to suit your creationist belief (meaning yours, per se).

Huh?  What does one have to do with the other?

"Only a Sith would deal in absolutes..."

The Genesis account being mistaken of false?  Hmmm.  Interesting question coming from someone who trusts the scientific side of it.  "Because it walks like a man and looks like a man, it must be an original man" kinda argument.

The Genesis account of how life began isn't about being proven true or not, it's about trusting that it is how God said it began (which I suppose is almost the same as having faith that it begin according to Darwin).

I'm not sure I follow.  Because the bible does not say that when God created man which genus he decided to create man under, one big misunderstanding is that God created man as we are today.  Man still had to evolve just as animals have evolved over time so where God started it up isn't trying to change scientific evidence.  There is no time line in the bible ya know.