if the theory of evolution can cast doubt on a few chapters of bible then wat u have say on the other chapters

Answer 1

What doubt of what few chapters?
they are true
how mant versions of evolution are there?

Answer 2

I think that the other parts of the Bible should be able to stand on their own merits, since they were all written by different people at different times in history. If scientific findings contradict one part of the Bible, that doesn't mean the rest is false, if evidence supports the other parts. Unfortunately for those who follow the Bible, evidence does not support many of the claims made throughout the book, like the story of Noah and the flood, or the Exodus.

Answer 3

There is no reason to believe any of it, unless independent corroboration can be found. There isn't much. Evolution (now a proven fact) is only a minor factor in the overall list of biblical errors.

Answer 4

--THE THEORY of evolution cannot even provide proof for itself, how can it disprove something that has proved reliable for over 3500 years of its writing:

--THE THEORY of E. contains no logic, and without logic, you have no reason to prove or disprove anything:
*** g00 6/8 p. 31 Is Evolution Logical? ***

--TODAY, the theory of evolution is said to be a fact by those who promote it. Yet, how logical are the assertions that they so often make? ***Consider the following.
--Silk produced by spiders is one of the strongest materials known. According to New Scientist, “each fibre can stretch by 40 per cent of its length and absorb a hundred times as much energy as steel without breaking.” How is this extraordinary silk made? A viscous liquid, a protein, passes through minute tubes in the spider’s body, and the liquid is changed to a solid thread by a rearrangement of its protein molecules, explains Encyclopædia Britannica.
--New Scientist concludes: “The spider has evolved techniques way beyond those of even the most skilful chemist.” Is it conceivable that the spider has evolved a manufacturing technique so complex that man has yet to understand it?
--An article in The Wall Street Journal, by Phillip E. Johnson, a University of California law professor, notes that the evidence for evolution is lacking but that its supporters still often ridicule those who question it. The article comments: “Evolution theory is having serious trouble with the evidence—but its proponents don’t want an honest debate that might undermine their world view.”
--Another example showing the lack of logic in evolutionary thinking has to do with plants. Scientists researching in Morocco have unearthed 150 fossils of archaeopteris, “the closest relative so far discovered of the first seed plants, ancestor of most of today’s trees,” says The Daily Telegraph of London. The newspaper’s science editor declares that this plant “helped to shape the modern world by inventing leaves and branches.” “To invent” is “to devise by thinking.” Is it logical to credit a plant with the ability to think and to invent?
--Solomon, one of the wisest of men, advises us to ‘guard our thinking ability,’ to think for ourselves. The need to do so has never been greater.—Proverbs 5:2.
=============
--YOU WILL not only find yourself at odds with the Bible & its biographers but of noteworthy individuals who trusted implicitly in the Scriptures, Such as:
--Sir Isaac Newton, Charles Dickens, Abraham Lincoln!
*** jd chap. 1 p. 5 par. 3 Jehovah’s Messages for Then and Now ***
--English author Charles Dickens noted about the Bible: “It is the best book that ever was or will be known in the world . . . because it teaches you the best lessons by which any human creature . . . can possibly be guided.”

*** si p. 338 par. 7 Study Number 10—The Bible—Authentic and True ***
--7 Writing in The Union Bible Companion, S. Austin Allibone says: “Sir Isaac Newton . . . was also eminent as a critic of ancient writings, and examined with great care the Holy Scriptures. What is his verdict on this point? ‘I find,’ says he, ‘more sure marks of authenticity in the New Testament than in any profane [secular] history whatever.’ Dr. Johnson says that we have more evidence that Jesus Christ died on Calvary, as stated in the Gospels, than we have that Julius Caesar died in the Capitol. We have, indeed, far more. Ask anyone who professes to doubt the truth of the Gospel history what reason he has for believing that Caesar died in the Capitol, or that the Emperor Charlemagne was crowned Emperor of the West by Pope Leo III. in 800 . . . How do you know that such a man as Charles I. ever lived, and was beheaded, and that Oliver Cromwell became ruler in his stead? . . . Sir Isaac Newton is credited with the discovery of the law of gravitation . . . We believe all the assertions just made respecting these men; and that because we have historical evidence of their truth. . . . If, on the production of such proof as this, any still refuse to believe, we abandon them as stupidly perverse or hopelessly ignorant. What shall we say, then, of those who, notwithstanding the abundant evidence now produced of the authenticity of the Holy Scriptures, profess themselves unconvinced? . . . Surely we have reason to conclude that it is the heart rather than the head which is at fault;—that they do not wish to believe that which humbles their pride, and will force them to lead different lives"