Who voted 'no' in there? The bible says that god sent humans to earth, which were Adam and Eva, and not that they were monkeys before and evolved. So it denies the Bible.
In my opinion the theory of evolution basically calls God a liar. I think this because Genesis 2:20 says: King James Bible And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field and Genesis 2:2 says: King James Bible And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. These scriptures indicated to me that this is a done deal that there is nothing new under the sun Ecclesiastes 1:9 King James Version (KJV) The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun..
More accurately, evolution contradicts a collection of ancient writings, which in your opinion represent "the word of God."
What makes you believe modern man is more advanced than ancient man? There are many ancient wonders that modern man can not duplicate nor explain.
Says who, Steel? Those ancient wonders are not well-documented. There are only a few, like the Damascus steel and so forth. I'll take cell phones, cars and chemotherapy over a cool sword any day of the week.
It is just special pleading to the highest degree to assert that we today do not have a much richer idea of how the universe works than any previous generations. Did the ancient Greeks have Schrodinger's equation? Could any generations but our recent generations solve Fermat's last theorem?
the Theory of evolution sez nothing about the existence of the Bible. However Darwin was a deeply Christian man so he believed in the existence of the Bible and that the Bible had evolved.
But it denies the things that stand in the bible, indirectly.
I was being snarky.
the question "Does the theory of evolution deny the Bible" is too ridiculous for me.
That depends on whether you consider the Bible a living text or absolute law.
Or, just one of many attempts by ancient people to explain things they didn't understand.
Like science?
If you look at the Bible as solely a historical document, then sure, evolution and the Bible don't mix.
But it's not meant to be read that way. The point of Genesis isn't "Here's these historical facts," in the same way that the story about Mr. Rogers getting his car stolen, only to have it returned by regretful thieves, isn't a literal truth. The purpose of Genesis is to tell us truth, not facts, and they can be different things.
For example, the phrase, "Bob would give you the shirt off his back," doesn't mean Bob's going to walk around shirtless anytime someone asks for it, but it's still "true" in that it tells us the true character of Bob.
That whole "It's not literal" thing doesn't just contradict those who insist otherwise but the very clear anthropology and religion work that shows that, yes, the Jews really did believe that story. Genesis 1 is not a dumb account, actually: it was based on the best of Babylonian astronomy. There was a point in time where people really did believe that there was a firmament and that the world was in water: it actually explains rains and the seeming barrier of the sky and all sorts of things. We can even see this in Josephus, whose history of the world begins with Biblical creation and who includes Hercules in his myths. While people did think of sacred and natural history as being somewhat distinct, they didn't perfectly keep them compartmentalized.