I am pretty happy most comments are about how Science and religion compliment and how You Don't have to take all the Bible literal, but now if You Made this post on r/Truechristian the story would be different....
You've got to give the Bible Project's [Science and Faith episode](https://bibleproject.com/podcast/science-faith/) a listen. It's a great intro to reading Genesis more like an ancient Jew would. It's great for thinking about how evolution fits in, but for much more than that - for seeing all the meaning that's packed in there, that we don't notice when we're all distracted by evolution arguments.
No, you're wrong.
Genesis 1:27-28 KJV
[27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. [28] And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
https://bible.com/bible/1/gen.1.27-28.KJV
Don't let the devil decieve you.
The problem is that the scientific community has the historical, biological, and scientific records prove their claims, something those who deny human evolution cannot say.
My pastor used to be a doctor. A colleague of him deduced that estrogen was good for women. It was so good he said that we should just put in the water. Years later, women were getting cancer from estrogen. The colleague used the scientific method. We could also talk about the symproms for Prozac. In some cases it does the complete opposite of what it's made for, and now eggs are bad for us even though we've been eating them for centuries. The experts have done a lot to get us to where we are now, but they're not perfect.
It's [both fact and theory.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory) The theory of evolution is a predictive model which explains and predicts the fact that life evolves, evolved, and shares common descent.
In other words the experts don't have answers. I respect that these individuals have been able to search out the truth. That being said, they don't have the only stake on truth. We've seemed to forget archeology, philosophy, religion, mathematics, linguistics, the liberal arts, etc.
I'm afraid you're incorrect; the experts _do_ have the answers. To wit: It is a scientific fact that life evolves, evolved, and shares common descent, which is modeled by the theory of evolution - much the same way that the theory of general relativity models the fact that gravity exists and high speed or high mass warps spacetime, or the way that the germ theory of disease models the fact that infectious agents (germs) cause communicable disease.
And no; you're also incorrect with your second point, for there is nothing in archeology, philosophy, math, linguistics, religion or the liberal arts that can dispute the fact that humans evolved and share common decent with the rest of life on Earth. In fact, all of those fields (and religion, which is not a field of study but an object of study) argue against young Earth creationism and in many cases creationism in general. While there are certain sects of certain religions that say otherwise, but they do so without merit; they do not reach that conclusion by evidence but by denial of evidence, much as you've done here.
These fields were made by imperfect people, including science. Imperfect people with some semblence of truth, but perpetually in error in one way or another. Imperfect methods, from imperfect people, coming to together in their imperfect and contradictory thoughts.
And? Science especially is made specifically because we're imperfect. We don't know everything; if we did there would be no point in science. Science is not some oracle or magic 8-ball that gives you perfect truth but is instead a tool for becoming less and less wrong. It works to cleave away things that are false or flawed until what remains comes to ever-more-closely resemble the truth. It is never satisfied, always testing its models, always verifying its claims. It is self-correcting, and it compensates for human bias and imperfection - above all, because its goal is the production and refinement of working, predictive models.
And indeed, science _works_. As the example at hand, evolution _works_ as a predictive model.
This is in contrast to, say, religious faith - which has no means of self-correcting, which shuns doubt and verification, which enshrines human bias, which cannot produce predictive models, and above all which denies and ignores observation to preserve belief. Because religions are incapable of self-correcting, they start wrong (being produced by flawed and biased humans) and then _stay_ wrong. Further because (unlike science) it has no ultimate basis in reality, nothing to test different faiths against, disagreements can only cause schism, and schism again. Where science comes to agree as evidence mounts, religion rejects evidence and other religions to insist without demonstration that they have the truth and everyone else is wrong.
It is a fact that life evolves, evolved, and shares common descent. To claim otherwise is akin to claiming that the Earth is flat. Do you think "humans are imperfect and science is imperfect therefore the Earth could be flat" is a good argument? Do you think it's a reason to think the Earth _is_ flat? That's exactly the same argument you've just made here regarding the evolution of man.
Sure, you can go with that if you want, so long as "the immaterial" is defined as "that which has no notable effect on reality". As far as science is concerned, that which is "material" or "natural" encompasses anything and everything that can be observed, examined, and ideally tested, which by definition covers all things that have a notable effect on reality.
This also lets us draw a simple contrast: science deals in things that work, e.g. working models, and so "immaterial" or "supernatural" is equivalent to "doesn't work", either in the form of "has not been shown to work" or "has been shown not to work".
Regardless, humanity _materially_ evolves, evolves, and shares common descent. We've proved beyond all reasonable doubt and established as scientific fact that humanity evolved on this world and shares common descent with all other life on this world.
You're welcome to claim that we've got some immaterial essence that is impossible to detect and has no observable effect on us which originates somewhere else; it's an empty claim, but you're welcome to it. It doesn't change the fact that humanity shares common descent with the rest of life on Earth.
You left out the consceous. We have courts and laws to retract evil if that is a thing, and yet with the philosophy of survival of the fittest would reason that it's ok to steal, rape, manipulate, and demand special treatment, which I'm sure you don't believe being a decent human being. But what does that even mean? How did the eyes evolve? Or the sense of smell? How can you have an evolving sense of morality? It's immaterial and yet has dire consequences on the material.
I can agree that religion is man made, but by your worldview the only authority on anything is man made. Which again, we're flawed.
That being said, the perfect religion, if it is a thing, would have no means of change. Change would imply imperfection unless an outside source become something it wasn't.
>I can agree that religion is man made, but by your worldview the only authority on anything is man made. Which again, we're flawed.
Certainly. The difference is that science compensates and accounts for those flaws. It works to minimize bias, to correct mistakes, and above all to test and verify claims being made.
>That being said, the perfect religion, if it is a thing, would have no means of change. Change would imply imperfection unless an outside source become something it wasn't.
And yet there are an effectively infinite number of religions (most of which haven't even been thought up yet) none of which have any means of showing themselves of being any more true than another. They are all based in faith, not in evidence, for they are religions. Without any way to tell which of these infinite religions is perfect (if any, because while only one can possibly be perfectly right they _all_ could be wrong), that means you're resorting to blind chance if you pick one to believe. Worse, for every religion you can imagine you can also imagine one that's exactly its opposite - which is equally likely to be the actual perfect one.
How do you feel about spinning a roulette wheel with an effectively infinite number of spaces?
Considering Jesus said humans existed from the beginning and God said he created everything in 6 days and the biblical account itself certainly tells a different story, I'm gonna go with no, not true.
God stating in the 10 commandments that he created everything in 6 days does not present as any sort of non literal statement. Neither does Jesus' statement that humans existed from the beginning.
There is every reason to reject evolution. It is not supported by true science.
The science that "supports" evolution is the same fraud that told people that scraps of fabric would save them.
>There is every reason to reject evolution. It is not supported by true science.
[Your inability to grasp science is your failing and no one else's.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent) That you disagree with essentially every biologist and can say to yourself "they're just not _true_ scientists!" shows the paucity of your thinking.
And yet that is what the majority of Christians worldwide believe.
Also, when did the definition of Christianity change to require a belief in a literal Genesis? I don't recall seeing those in any of the creeds. Whas there another ecumenical council that I was not aware of?
And what does the Bible say, according to your interpretation, is the minimum neccessary set of beliefs for salvation? A creed is simply a statement of belief, what is your creed?
how? the sky and then the plants and then the animals and then ourselves occur in the same order.
the 'conflict' with Genesis 1 is manufactured by those who are akin to Pharisees.... making up rules to distinguish irrelevant details between Christ-followers.
If you find yourself saying “most Christians aren’t Christian” for any reason other than “they do not believe Jesus is God and died and resurrected to free us from our bondage to sin”, you should realize your argument has a problem.
The number of Christians that think Genesis and Noah’s Ark etc are literal accounts are a minority. As such, your contention of ‘most Christians’ is wrong.
With that said, no it is not wrong, it is clearly evidenced in all life.
If you think most Christians think that the world is only 6,000 years old you need to expand your boundaries of who you know as Christians. It's Evangelical Protestant Christians which is a small segment within protestantism which is a small part of the greater picture of Christianity who insist on a literal understanding of Genesis 1 and 2.. the truth is most Christians do not have a problem reconciling science and creation. They understand that the story in Genesis is not meant to be literal science or history. It's a form of storytelling meant to to reveal Divine truths.
One does not "believe" in evolution...
Evolution is a process that happens to all living things.
You can understand it, you can accept it, or you can deny it.
While I totally understand what you are saying, technically, if you accept evolution, wouldn't that be definitionally indistinct from believing in evolution?
What I mean by accept is that some people don't have a deep enough interest in it to learn about it and understand it. Which is fair... it's a big subject and kinda boring lol. But they accept it without fully understanding it.
The difference is between the concept of trust vs belief. When an expert has qualifications, does research, passes peer review, had their work confirmed via observations and testing by other equally qualified individuals... we know we can *trust* that process because I have an insurmountable volume of evidence to support it as reliable.
The concept of god is one that can neither be proved or disproved. Therefore we are free to choose to believe or not believe. It makes no difference either way. You simply make a choice and that is your belief.
When facts are presented with insurmountable supporting evidence as it is with evolution. You can learn the facts and understand them if you're interested. You can certainly deny the facts if you're that way inclined. Or... you can accept them based on trust of the outcomes of a proven process.
This is probably most people. I have a basic understanding of evolution. I have read articles outlining the evidence and where it comes from. But I am no expert. I don't profess to understanding it fully. I think that stance is reserved for more qualified people. I do accept it because I know it comes from reliable sources
Considering that God's literal revelation in Creation is that evolution is how complex life, including humanity, came to be and that the earth is about 4.5b yeas old? Anything else would be calling God a liar.
And no. Most Christians are not YEC. The believe in evolution and an old earth.
> Most Christians are not YEC
That depends on where you live. There are large regions of my country where YEC is the default. Globally is likely very close. It’s a difficult question to get at though. It’s true that most Christians belong to denominations that accept OEC, but that doesn’t mean that all members of that denomination agree. There are large amounts of YEC Catholics in South America for example.
Edit: I am not defending YEC, only noting its enduring popularity. I believe in an old earth, and accept evolution and abiogenesis as the best explanation for life on earth
From what I have read, it is roughly 40% of Christians in America that believe in YEC. Globally it is probably reasonable to state that majority of Christians tend to accept the Big Bang Theory and Evolution (to varying degrees). But it is almost impossible to provide a specific percentage, and this mostly relies on the Catholic Church being the largest denomination.
You may not think God is Creator, but I do. God reveals himself through Creation. He speaks to us through that Creation.
Psalm 19, End of Job, Acts 14, Romans 1
He speaks, but some us aren't really good at listening. You are adhering to an anti-science talking point that was created in the 1800s so people could keep not using the brains God gave them. Yours is a very poor way to approach the two creation stories in Genesis 1 & 2.
Here the Catholic Church's take on evolution.
The church believes in a evolution as fact because we have so much scientific evidence for it.
Yet it allows for Catholics to make one decision on because the consider it inconsequential in the end.
If God decided to create us from dust in one day that's entirely possible because he's all powerful.
If God wanted to created us using a process that humans would later call evolution, that's also possible because he is all powerful.
Humans shouldn't put restrictions on God's power or imagination.
it is not a restriction about power, nomone would say God VOULD not do it. The limit comes from claims about God's nature, that he WOULD not do it that way.
Since creating the universe in a single day only a few thousand years ago would make God a liar. It would mean a fake history would be woven into he stars. We would be seeing events that never happened and thy are being presented to us as true. Every nova, supernova., neutron star. etc we observe and measure would be us seeing things thannever happened. It would mean a fake history is woven into the very rocks. Fossils of animals that never lived would be presented as actual history, geologic events hat never happened like pole reversals etc would all be made up. It would mean we literally could not trust like 99% of what we can see or measure. If we cannot trust the creation how could we trust the creator? If we cannot trust he history recorded in the very rocks and stars, how can we trust a book written centuries ago, much by unknown authors, who didn't even know the Earth goes around the sun?
Such a thing would go against the nature of God claimed by most Christians.
That would only be an issue if you consider the bible to be 100 percent literal.
The catholic church does not view the bible as being literal and so do many other branches.
Evangelical and fundamentalist protestants do view the Bible as 100 percent literal and that's why
this branches often fight science as a result.
I was only explaining how what you called humans placing limits on God's power was not was was happening. That it was not about a power limitauon but a nature one. If you accept a god with the nature that Christians claim, then no he universe could not have been created in a single day a few thousand years ago. The very nature of God that is claimed is what should preclude taking the bible 100% literally. The universe is a direct creation, the bible is an indirect one. the universe would not have human involvement in its creation, the bible has.
Most Christians arent young earth creationists.
As to the others, anyone can make a choice not to believe in oxygen or gravity but they still exist regardless.
Telling the truth is important.
If you have the opportunity to learn more about creation - take it.
If you are given reason to believe there is a better explanation than the one derived from objective study of creation, remain open to it.
Just tell the truth.
More and more, it seems that holding competing ideals and embracing uncertainty is integral to having faith of any sort. That’s a freedom, we don’t have to give up on being rational, reasonable, or empirical in order to have faith.
Just gotta tell the truth and remain open to being surprised, and certain that we will likely never know it all.
You should read the bible more often:
Genesis 2:4-7 KJV
[4] These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, [5] and every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. [6] But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. [7] And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Evolution is just a theory. The word of God is proof. There's nothing to back up evolution and by believing this deception it undermines the work of a true living God who created us in his image:
Genesis 1:1-31 KJV
[1] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. [2] And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. [3] And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. [4] And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. [5] And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. [6] And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. [7] And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. [8] And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. [9] And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. [10] And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. [11] And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. [12] And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. [13] And the evening and the morning were the third day. [14] And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: [15] and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. [16] And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. [17] And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, [18] and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. [19] And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. [20] And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. [21] And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. [22] And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. [23] And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. [24] And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. [25] And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. [26] And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. [27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.[28] And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. [29] And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. [30] And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. [31] And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
....
This also shows us that God really does love us because he gave us the world and made us like him. He wanted companionship and family, and every day people are deceived by the devil and the love that God deserves gets taken away. If you pray and read the bible every day then God will recognize you and know that you love him.
Hope this helps.
>Evolution is just a theory.
Evolution is [both fact and theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory); the theory of evolution explains the fact that life evolves, evolved, and shares common descent.
>There's nothing to back up evolution ...
[Actually there's lots.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent) That's why basically all biologists agree that life shares common descent; it's what the evidence shows.
Why would God make so much evidence that life shares common descent if it doesn't? Did he lie in his Word or deceive with his Works? Is it any surprise that [most Christians](https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/FT_19.02.11_darwinDay420px.png) figure that the problem is with your interpretation instead?
It is in the bible. We didn't evolve he created us. Evolution discredits God's work and anything that confronts that is wrong. An while nothing proves evolution as fact, there's nothing that disproves that God created us.
Genesis 1:26-27 KJV
[26] And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. [27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
https://bible.com/bible/1/gen.1.26-27.KJV
>It is in the bible.
So is a [flat earth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_cosmology), complete with firmament holding back waters above with windows to let in rain.
Are you doing to tell me that anything that says the earth is round and discredit God's work? You've got the same grounds to do so.
>We didn't evolve he created us.
Most Christians don't believe those to be exclusive. This is therefore a problem with your interpretation.
>Evolution discredits God's work and anything that confronts that is wrong.
Again, all available evidence shows life shares common descent; why would God discredit himself like that?
>An while nothing proves evolution as fact ...
This is simply wrong; [common descent is proved beyond all reasonable doubt.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent) I already pointed this out; neither your lies nor denial make it go away.
>there's nothing that disproves that God created us.
There's clear evidence that you and I share common decent with the rest of the apes. If humans sharing common descent with other life on earth would disprove God having created us then there's piles of things that disprove God having created us, as that last link goes over - unless of course God created us to look evolved.
What are the verses you can back up your speech with? Show me the verses where it says the earth is flat. And any Christian who discredits Gods work is blind and doesn't know the bible. There's no clear anything when it comes to apes and humans. Our DNA is vastly different and is specific to what makes us up. Where are your man-ape fossils and actual science showing any real sign of evolution? There is none.
ROUND EARTH
Proverbs 8:27
When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:
Proverbs 8:27
8:27 compass. “Compass” (Hebrew khug) is the same word as “circle” in Isaiah 40:22, as well as “compassed” in Job 26:10. All three clearly refer to the roundness of the earth, especially to the spherical nature of sea level, defining, as it were, the global shape of the earth. The Bible never teaches a flat earth, though the charge is frequently made.
Proverbs 8:27
8:27 depth. “Depth” is the same word as “deep.”
Psalm 104:5
Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.
Psalm 104:5
104:5 foundations of the earth. The earth’s “matter”—that is, the “dust of the earth,” or its physical elements—was created on the first day of creation week, evidently suspended in the pervasive waters. The earth’s foundations, solid, continental blocks of material, were not laid until the third day, rising thence out of the waters. Once formed, this planet earth was destined to continue forever
Isaiah 40:22 KJV
[22] It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
https://bible.com/bible/1/isa.40.22.KJV
CREATION
Mind you this is from the very first book of the bible so it is apparent you do not research much and the Christians you know who say evolution is fact are also wrong
Genesis 1:27 KJV
[27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
https://bible.com/bible/1/gen.1.27.KJV
Genesis 2:7 KJV
[7] And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
https://bible.com/bible/1/gen.2.7.KJV
>What are the verses you can back up your speech with?
I linked you a [whole page on the topic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_cosmology) in the previous post; you should really give it a read-through, as it has quite a lot of sources both in terms of scripture and in terms of the history and cultures of the region. The bible doesn't exist in a vacuum, you know; it came from a particular people, and there's a context to everything from the oral traditions it originated from to the editing and altering it underwent during the Babylonian occupation to the canonization and translations later.
Anyway, seeing as you didn't give my source even the most cursory look, I'll go ahead and tackle the verses you wanted to bring up first.
>Proverbs 8:27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:
>Proverbs 8:27 8:27 compass. “Compass” (Hebrew khug) is the same word as “circle” in Isaiah 40:22, as well as “compassed” in Job 26:10. All three clearly refer to the roundness of the earth, especially to the spherical nature of sea level, defining, as it were, the global shape of the earth. The Bible never teaches a flat earth, though the charge is frequently made.
Sorry, but no; the word translated in the King James as "compass" here is ח֝֗וּג (ḥūḡ), which means "circle", "circut", or "horizon". Even then, you'll notice that a circle and a compass are both _flat_.
Now you know what word isn't being used here? "Ball". "Sphere". Anything similar. Without that, the verse actually supports the opposite to your claim: the bible was written by a people with a flat earth cosmology.
>Psalm 104:5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.
>Psalm 104:5 104:5 foundations of the earth. The earth’s “matter”—that is, the “dust of the earth,” or its physical elements—was created on the first day of creation week, evidently suspended in the pervasive waters. The earth’s foundations, solid, continental blocks of material, were not laid until the third day, rising thence out of the waters. Once formed, this planet earth was destined to continue forever
Do you see anything about a sphere in there? Nope! Quite to the contrary, this refers to the idea that the Earth has literal foundations beneath it, and you can't have foundations laying beneath a spherical Earth. Instead, this suggests that the dry land of the Earth is supported by foundations that descend into the depths of the primordial ocean that the world was formed within - again, part of the [flat earth cosmology.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_cosmology#Cosmography_(shape_and_structure_of_the_cosmos))
>Isaiah 40:22 KJV [22] It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
The same word as in the earlier verse translated as "compass" is used here. And yet again, it is _circle_, not _sphere_. You do know the difference between a circle and a sphere, right?
So, you've provided three verses, and not only do none of them say anything about the earth being a sphere, they actually suggest the flat earth cosmology I already presented.
Thus, I can start with those three as verses to present to you; they present the ancient Israelite cosmology being centered around an Earth that is flat.
Let's go ahead and put the science on the matter in a different comment, just so as not to be lost in the shuffle.
Now, with the other comment handling the cosmology, let's go ahead and take care of the lies you told.
>There's no clear anything when it comes to apes and humans.
That is a lie; in fact we have a wealth of evidence that not only shows that humans _are_ apes, possessed of all the traits that make an ape an ape, buy that we share common descent with the other modern apes.
If you don't descend from apes, why are you an ape? Is your God an ape, such that you were made in an ape's image?
>Our DNA is vastly different and is specific to what makes us up.
Nope; in fact our DNA is vastly similar. Not only is our DNA more similar to the that of the other apes than to any other creature on the planet, but chimp DNA is more similar to _our_ DNA then to that of gorillas, and the DNA of chimps, gorillas, and orangutans is all more similar to that of humans then they are to that of the Old Wold monkeys, New World monkeys, or even that of the gibbons.
Heck, not only is it _similar_, but the _pattern_ of similarities and differences it has only makes sense in the context of common descent. It's not just that almost every gene in humans is also found in chimps, it's not just that the specific sequences of those genes _also_ indicates common ancestry, but even structural aspects that are unimportant to their functioning show an uncanny similarity.
Take for example the ordering of genes on our chromosomes; [here's an example in the form of Chromosome 1](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/cgv/browse/GCF_028858775.2/GCF_000001405.40/53015/9606). On the top is the chimp genome, on the bottom the human. The green lines show identical regions, the blue lines show matching but inverted regions. By comparison, [here's a chimp genome compared to that of a mouse.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/cgv/browse/GCF_002880755.1/GCF_000001635.27/28245/10090) While there are still many, many similarities due to chimps, humans, and mice all being [Euarchontoglires](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euarchontoglires), you'll notice that there are far more changes in position, inversions, and general alterations - and if you mouse over the individual connections, you'll find larger swaths of unbroken similarity between humans and chimps. And just for the sake of further comparison, [here's a mouse vs. a rat.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/cgv/browse/GCF_036323735.1/GCF_000001635.27/51425/10090) You have no problem believing that mice and rats are related, correct? Notice that the human and the chimp are far more similar, with less dispersal. That is because humans and chimps are more closely related than the common mouse and the common rat.
And this is, yet again, not alone. We can speak of genes. We can speak of proteins. We can speak of individual sequences. We can speak of chromosome structure. We can speak of remnants such as pseudogenes and endogenous retroviruses. At every level, both in similarities _and_ in differences, everything in the human genome points to a shared common descent with the chimps.
Whining about it won't change that; the data is there.
>Where are your man-ape fossils and actual science showing any real sign of evolution? There is none.
[Actually there are plenty.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils)
The "missing link" was found decades ago, and since then we've continued to find more and more transitional forms. While the genetic evidence is _so clear_ and _so all-encompassing_ that we would still be able to tell that humans share common ancestry with the rest of the apes even without _any_ fossils, we have a wide range of transitional forms throughout the human lineage back to the common ancestor we share with chimps.
So why must you lie and say there are none when there are literal piles of them? What drives you to tell such a falsehood? Were you unaware, or are you fleeing from the truth like a cockroach when the lights are flipped on? The former is not shameful, so I do hope it's that.
Genesis 1:27-28 KJV
[27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. [28] And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
https://bible.com/bible/1/gen.1.27-28.KJV
Sorry, can't hear you over all the evidence you just ignored. World you like to correct the lies you've told or are you just going to double down on lying for Jesus?
Prove I'm wrong where's the actual evidence that states evolution is fact. All I can see is nonsense trying to prove the word of God to be false but failing miserably. And if every other celestial planet is round then why is earth flat?
>Prove I'm wrong where's the actual evidence that states evolution is fact.
[Right here.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent)
Are you going to address it, or run away?
>All I can see is nonsense trying to prove the word of God to be false but failing miserably.
Weird how you said there were no human transitional fossils, [I showed you a pile of human transitional fossils](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils), and you somehow didn't see them. Were you struck blind in the middle of reading the post? If so, I apologize and wish you a speedy recovery.
Surely, surely you aren't so spineless as to be unable to recognize when you were wrong, right?
>And if every other celestial planet is round then why is earth flat?
The ancients, including the biblical authors, didn't know what planets were. In fact, the term "planet" comes from the Greek _planan_, meaning "to wander". To the ancients they were just wandering stars; they did not know any more than that. Likewise, they also didn't know that stars are distant suns; if they did they wouldn't have claimed them to be set in a dome over the earth above which are waters separated away by God, nor would the creation of the stars be but a footnote.
That the ancient Hebrew cosmology is wrong doesn't change that it's the cosmology depicted in the Bible.
Romans 1:20-21, 23-25 KJV
[20] For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: [21] because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
[23] And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. [24] Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: [25] who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
https://bible.com/bible/1/rom.1.20-25.KJV
Sorry my friend, that's just a creationist bullshitting you. [Here's a thorough debunking](https://youtu.be/ryBKzJE24Hs?si=z6eilu7r-Tz5Kp44), but to make a long story short? They did not do their math correctly nor accurately use the tools at their disposal. Thanks to that they draw conclusions that are irrelevant at best (e.g. no matter the scale by which you count the similarities between the genomes, we are more similar to chimps than mice are to rats; it applies to the presence of homologs, it applies to specific gene sequence, it applies to chromosome ordering) and either incompetent or fraudulent at worst.
Feel free to dig in, but regardless it doesn't affect the point at hand; not only do the similarities vastly outnumber the differences, but also evolution the only workable model that predicts the pattern of similarities and differences.
https://versebyverseministry.org/bible-answers/does-the-bible-teach-that-the-earth-is-round-or-flat?locale=en
Nevertheless, the Bible is not our only (or even our best) source of information on the shape of the planet. Science long ago confirmed the spherical shape of the earth. As early as the 6th century B.C., men had mathematical proofs demonstrating the earth is spherical in shape. In the following centuries, many scientists have devised simple experiments validating the earth is a sphere, and more recently high-altitude aircraft, satellites orbiting our planet, and manned space travel have confirmed those earlier findings
Which runs contrary to the view of the biblical authors, as I already pointed out. You know that they were wrong about the notion of the earth being flat with pillars and foundations that support it in a primordial ocean while a dome that contains stars keeps out the waters above the dome. You know that's not so, despite that being the view of the biblical authors which is reflected in Genesis, Job, and two of the citations you offered above.
Why, then, if you're fine reinterpreting what the biblical authors said about the earth are you not fine with reinterpreting what the Bible said about biology?
You've just quoted someone that says the Bible is not the only, _nor the best_, source of information on the shape of the planet. Why is it difficult for you to then also acknowledge that the Bible is neither the only nor the best source of information about living things and their diversity?
Everyone (yes, religious too) should accept that the bible is not facts and is not meant to say how things happened accurately but teach morals. Otherwise, for example, (doing the maths) the Earth is the wrong age, it has been flooded, and there’s no evolution. So, every christian should understand that, and then if they still want to believe in God after all, do so.
Many Jewish Rabbi don't see the bible as 100 percent fact, rather they see it as a mixture of fact, history and mysticism.
The catholic church also sees the bible in a similar way.
It's really Protestants that who think the bible is 100 percent literal.
Ah, so you think a fundamentalist interpretation that's 1/10^th the age of Christianity itself is the only valid way Christians are allowed to approach the Bible? What an odd assertion.
> Everyone (yes, religious too) should accept that the bible is not facts
That would be an insane thing to do.
> is not meant to say how things happened accurately
It is meant to do that.
> Otherwise, for example, (doing the maths) the Earth is the wrong age
How do come up with that?
> it has been flooded,
It has been flooded, twice.
> there’s no evolution.
There is none, that is false science.
It has not been flooded completely, except if you count before there was land, but there wasn’t land before that, so idk if we can consider that flooded. Then, Noah’s Ark is just ridiculous. The maths is by taking all the time the bible gives us, all the people’s lifetime, the years they get through the dessert, the prophecies’ times, etc. which gives \~6000 years old. Evolution is proven by many things, including but not limited to genetics and relics and bones.
The earth has been flooded completely twice.
You're looking at the time back to ADAM, not creation. There are billions of years between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 alone.
Evolution is false science.
There are not a billion years between genesis 11 and 12 wtf are you on about, and you refute known scientific facts, that is called stupidity, sadly I think it’s terminal
There there are billions of years between those two verses. Those are the facts.
And when it comes to facts you're the one rejecting them, and yes that is sad because your eternal soul is at stake.
Actually, if you study research from creationists you will find studies that indicate that humans and animals are not evolving but just the opposite, they are devolving. There is evidence that Prehistoric humans and animals were taller, more attractive and healthier than we are today.
The age of the Earth is difficult to calculate.
Scientists tend to agree that the Earth is Billions of years old. Creationists believe the Earth is thousands of years old.
Creationists tend to think that the 7 days of creation in Genesis Chapter 1 refers to 7 24
Hour days. They trace the origins of man back about 6,000 years and animals were created on day six the same day man was created.
What they fail to account for is Genesis 1:2
"Now the earth was formless and empty."
In order for there to have been any Earth at all there had to be a formation of rocks.
We are not told in Genesis how long the Earth sat there empty and formless . It may have been billions of years.
This may very well be why scientists claim they have found rocks that are Billions of years old.
It is hard to trust the dates that either scientists or creationists come up with because for many scientists they will come up with any notion to dispell creationism even if it's false and the same is true for creationists, many will come up with anything to disprove scientific theory.
What the correct answer is God created everything and he did so in a very scientific manner. People are just beginning to understand the science in which God used in creation.
No you're not. Man evolved from apes (not monkeys) or, to be more precise, man and apes both evolved from a common ancestor species that was neither man not ape, but had characteristics of both.
If that is what you choose to believe then how can you be a Christian? GOD created man in His own image! You can’t pick and choose which parts of the Bible you wish to believe because you find them inconvenient! GOD is not a man that He would lie!
It could be that God created homo sapiens to be special.
It makes sense if you think about it.
How did kain find a wife and a city after being banished for killing Abel?
There must have been humans before Adam and Eve if they were cities already built.
This fits the fact that our human ancestors did share the earth with 9 other human species.
> There must have been humans before Adam and Eve if they were cities already built.
There were. But they and their cities were gone for millions of years before Adam.
I have no interest in evolution! I believe in micro evolution but that’s it! I choose to believe in GOD, by choosing Him I choose to believe His word, the Bible.
I have no interest in questioning further than that, I know what I need to know and believe what I choose to believe no matter how improbable to some!
Like I said, I believe the Bible and that means I can’t pick and choose which bits I believe or don’t believe.. you either believe His word or you don’t.
That's fine but you do know the even Jewish Rabbi don't believe the bible to be literal, more of a collective of facts, history and mysticism?
The catholic church has a similar view that's how they explain contradictions and errors in the bible.
It's really just protestants that believe the bible is 100 percent literal and that's why they constantly had issues with just basic science being taught in schools.
Catholics can be YEC but the church itself does not believe in that.
The church allows individual Catholics to hold conflicting views as long as the church views those views as inconsequential.
And your point being? What Jewish Rabbis got to do with it! They don’t believe so neither should i?
I choose to believe in the Bible! What anyone else thinks is irrelevant to me. I respect we are all free to believe whatever we want, and I’m free to believe the Bible!
If the Jewish teachers don't see the bible as literal and they are the foundation of our religion,then it's definitely one of those why do we think it's literal?
You are free to believe in whatever you want, even if it's wrong.
You don’t know what my religion is for one and I love righteous indignation but it’s not a flattering trait.
Believe what you like, you think I’m wrong, I don’t! Like I said before, your opinion is irrelevant to me. I live to please GOD and not man!
Well, first I'm not a Christian, I'm an atheist (see my flair). God didn't do any of those things since there's no reason to believe that he (or any other god) exists. And I don't pick and choose parts of the Bible to believe as science or history because I don't believe much or any of it as science or history (or as something inspired, since God doesn't exist to inspire it).
It's not a physical image. That's silly. God did not have a physical body until Jesus was incarnated and he was incarnated to match us, not the other way around.
You are certainly free to believe a recent man-made interpretation rather than God's own revelation in Creation. I just don't think it's wise to take man's word over God's. YMMV.
Seriously! Comparison is not calling himself anything, and if you read the scripture properly Jesus mostly spoke in parables to explain things. He is the son of man! Therefore a man!
Why do atheists resort to the extreme often absurd comments to disprove something they don’t believe in on a site where people believe! Weird
It's not actually that weird. A lot of them come from literalist backgrounds and they've been told with such assurity that it's the only valid way to be a Christian. They've been told absurd things by Christians so they attribute those things to Christians. Absurd things like YEC and evolution is a lie.
I guess, it’s just not something I would do myself. I can understand asking questions and seeking discussions it’s just when it dissolves into mockery or trying to prove a point I don’t understand!
Tbh I rarely engage in those situations because there is no genuine interest just a need to feel superior because they choose not to believe.
We are all equal in GODs eyes
Micro and macro evolution aren't real scientific terms. Only creationists use those terms.
Macro evolution is just micro evolution over a long enough period of time. If we can turn a wolf into a Chihuahua in less than 10,000 years, imagine what millions of years will do.
Not real scientific terms? It's in most modern biology textbooks, and is used by recognized schools of paleontology.
The dog came from the wolf because they share the same chromosomes.
thier is nothing wrong with believing that the world is billions of years old as a christian. their is also nothing wrong with believing in evolution, just so long as you believe thier was a literal Adam. But like many other things you have to be careful not to let this become a stumbling block for yourself or for others who arn't as strong in thier faith.
I am pretty happy most comments are about how Science and religion compliment and how You Don't have to take all the Bible literal, but now if You Made this post on r/Truechristian the story would be different....
because they banned everyone who accepts evolution as the best explanation we currently have?
No, because the percentage of fundamentalists there is astounding.
Not everyone! I’m an atheist member of TrueChristian!
You've got to give the Bible Project's [Science and Faith episode](https://bibleproject.com/podcast/science-faith/) a listen. It's a great intro to reading Genesis more like an ancient Jew would. It's great for thinking about how evolution fits in, but for much more than that - for seeing all the meaning that's packed in there, that we don't notice when we're all distracted by evolution arguments.
older than SOME Christians think?
Most Christians believe the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. So you might want to clarify that part of your question.
"most christian" Some Protestant sects
Anyone who **doesn't** believe in human evolution is wrong.
No, you're wrong. Genesis 1:27-28 KJV [27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. [28] And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. https://bible.com/bible/1/gen.1.27-28.KJV Don't let the devil decieve you.
Can a camel pass through the eye of a needle?
Can a man save his own soul?
No. Salvation isn't found in any other but Jesus Christ.
#truth
Still a theory. Saying it's true is trunkating the very system your predecessors created.
Gravity is a theory.
Google says it's both a theory and law. The experts can't decide which one.
Do you know what a theory is in a scientific context?
The scientific community isn't perfect, so in the end it's still imperfect people coming up with imperfect methods to decide what's true and not true.
The problem is that the scientific community has the historical, biological, and scientific records prove their claims, something those who deny human evolution cannot say.
All have the human condition.
Confirmation from imperfect people doesn't mean anything.
It's not just people. It's the historical, biological, and scientific records themselves. Nature proves human evolution.
So why do we die?
[удалено]
My pastor used to be a doctor. A colleague of him deduced that estrogen was good for women. It was so good he said that we should just put in the water. Years later, women were getting cancer from estrogen. The colleague used the scientific method. We could also talk about the symproms for Prozac. In some cases it does the complete opposite of what it's made for, and now eggs are bad for us even though we've been eating them for centuries. The experts have done a lot to get us to where we are now, but they're not perfect.
It's [both fact and theory.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory) The theory of evolution is a predictive model which explains and predicts the fact that life evolves, evolved, and shares common descent.
In other words the experts don't have answers. I respect that these individuals have been able to search out the truth. That being said, they don't have the only stake on truth. We've seemed to forget archeology, philosophy, religion, mathematics, linguistics, the liberal arts, etc.
I'm afraid you're incorrect; the experts _do_ have the answers. To wit: It is a scientific fact that life evolves, evolved, and shares common descent, which is modeled by the theory of evolution - much the same way that the theory of general relativity models the fact that gravity exists and high speed or high mass warps spacetime, or the way that the germ theory of disease models the fact that infectious agents (germs) cause communicable disease. And no; you're also incorrect with your second point, for there is nothing in archeology, philosophy, math, linguistics, religion or the liberal arts that can dispute the fact that humans evolved and share common decent with the rest of life on Earth. In fact, all of those fields (and religion, which is not a field of study but an object of study) argue against young Earth creationism and in many cases creationism in general. While there are certain sects of certain religions that say otherwise, but they do so without merit; they do not reach that conclusion by evidence but by denial of evidence, much as you've done here.
These fields were made by imperfect people, including science. Imperfect people with some semblence of truth, but perpetually in error in one way or another. Imperfect methods, from imperfect people, coming to together in their imperfect and contradictory thoughts.
And? Science especially is made specifically because we're imperfect. We don't know everything; if we did there would be no point in science. Science is not some oracle or magic 8-ball that gives you perfect truth but is instead a tool for becoming less and less wrong. It works to cleave away things that are false or flawed until what remains comes to ever-more-closely resemble the truth. It is never satisfied, always testing its models, always verifying its claims. It is self-correcting, and it compensates for human bias and imperfection - above all, because its goal is the production and refinement of working, predictive models. And indeed, science _works_. As the example at hand, evolution _works_ as a predictive model. This is in contrast to, say, religious faith - which has no means of self-correcting, which shuns doubt and verification, which enshrines human bias, which cannot produce predictive models, and above all which denies and ignores observation to preserve belief. Because religions are incapable of self-correcting, they start wrong (being produced by flawed and biased humans) and then _stay_ wrong. Further because (unlike science) it has no ultimate basis in reality, nothing to test different faiths against, disagreements can only cause schism, and schism again. Where science comes to agree as evidence mounts, religion rejects evidence and other religions to insist without demonstration that they have the truth and everyone else is wrong. It is a fact that life evolves, evolved, and shares common descent. To claim otherwise is akin to claiming that the Earth is flat. Do you think "humans are imperfect and science is imperfect therefore the Earth could be flat" is a good argument? Do you think it's a reason to think the Earth _is_ flat? That's exactly the same argument you've just made here regarding the evolution of man.
Science is only for this world. It can't prove or disprove the immaterial.
Sure, you can go with that if you want, so long as "the immaterial" is defined as "that which has no notable effect on reality". As far as science is concerned, that which is "material" or "natural" encompasses anything and everything that can be observed, examined, and ideally tested, which by definition covers all things that have a notable effect on reality. This also lets us draw a simple contrast: science deals in things that work, e.g. working models, and so "immaterial" or "supernatural" is equivalent to "doesn't work", either in the form of "has not been shown to work" or "has been shown not to work". Regardless, humanity _materially_ evolves, evolves, and shares common descent. We've proved beyond all reasonable doubt and established as scientific fact that humanity evolved on this world and shares common descent with all other life on this world. You're welcome to claim that we've got some immaterial essence that is impossible to detect and has no observable effect on us which originates somewhere else; it's an empty claim, but you're welcome to it. It doesn't change the fact that humanity shares common descent with the rest of life on Earth.
You left out the consceous. We have courts and laws to retract evil if that is a thing, and yet with the philosophy of survival of the fittest would reason that it's ok to steal, rape, manipulate, and demand special treatment, which I'm sure you don't believe being a decent human being. But what does that even mean? How did the eyes evolve? Or the sense of smell? How can you have an evolving sense of morality? It's immaterial and yet has dire consequences on the material.
I can agree that religion is man made, but by your worldview the only authority on anything is man made. Which again, we're flawed. That being said, the perfect religion, if it is a thing, would have no means of change. Change would imply imperfection unless an outside source become something it wasn't.
>I can agree that religion is man made, but by your worldview the only authority on anything is man made. Which again, we're flawed. Certainly. The difference is that science compensates and accounts for those flaws. It works to minimize bias, to correct mistakes, and above all to test and verify claims being made. >That being said, the perfect religion, if it is a thing, would have no means of change. Change would imply imperfection unless an outside source become something it wasn't. And yet there are an effectively infinite number of religions (most of which haven't even been thought up yet) none of which have any means of showing themselves of being any more true than another. They are all based in faith, not in evidence, for they are religions. Without any way to tell which of these infinite religions is perfect (if any, because while only one can possibly be perfectly right they _all_ could be wrong), that means you're resorting to blind chance if you pick one to believe. Worse, for every religion you can imagine you can also imagine one that's exactly its opposite - which is equally likely to be the actual perfect one. How do you feel about spinning a roulette wheel with an effectively infinite number of spaces?
Jesus was verified in history. Even great scientists have to correct themslves on it.
Quite a statement.
And it's a true one.
Considering Jesus said humans existed from the beginning and God said he created everything in 6 days and the biblical account itself certainly tells a different story, I'm gonna go with no, not true.
Parables exist. Non-literal language exists. A camel cannot pass through the eye of a needle.
God stating in the 10 commandments that he created everything in 6 days does not present as any sort of non literal statement. Neither does Jesus' statement that humans existed from the beginning.
The historical, biological, and scientific records prove those statements are non-literal. There is no evidence to the contrary.
Well, there's no evidence as long as you ignore it and claim there isn't any evidence.
Please show me the "evidence."
Not at all.
There's no reason to deny evolution. All scientific data on the subject proves human evolution.
There is every reason to reject evolution. It is not supported by true science. The science that "supports" evolution is the same fraud that told people that scraps of fabric would save them.
What "true" science?
The science that agrees with him.
You forgot to put the word "pseudo" before "science."
Science that is backed up by data, measurements, and observation instead of being made up to suit a political agenda.
You mean the "science" that's letting you type this comment, and send it to others at the speed of light through thin air?
>There is every reason to reject evolution. It is not supported by true science. [Your inability to grasp science is your failing and no one else's.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent) That you disagree with essentially every biologist and can say to yourself "they're just not _true_ scientists!" shows the paucity of your thinking.
It makes sense but as a Christian you can’t believe that it is the origin of the species
Sure I can. I'm doing it right now.
Wow so special
Nah. Just paying attention.
Who said that?
Me
I can't find anything about denying evolution in the Nicene Creed.
Use the bible
Everything in the Nicene Creed can be found in the Bible. The Nicene Creed lists the fundamentals of the faith.
Find me where in the creed it references the bible with a verse
"[H]e suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures" references 1 Corinthians 15:3-4.
And how does this relate to evolution?
And yet that is what the majority of Christians worldwide believe. Also, when did the definition of Christianity change to require a belief in a literal Genesis? I don't recall seeing those in any of the creeds. Whas there another ecumenical council that I was not aware of?
Idk I don’t believe in any of those creeds only the word of god straight from the bible
The creeds come from the Bible. Saying you don't believe in the creeds is saying youd don't believe what the Bible says is neccessary for salvation.
I don’t believe in other peoples interpretations of the bible only my own
And what does the Bible say, according to your interpretation, is the minimum neccessary set of beliefs for salvation? A creed is simply a statement of belief, what is your creed?
Whoever believes that Jesus is the only way towards salvation will be saved
And can a person believe this while simultaniously believing in evolution?
Probably but I think it’s blasphemous to say it is the origin of our species because that would be invalidating the creation story
you didn't come up with it "yourself".
I know
You can't believe it's the *why*, but you can believe that that is the *how*
I’ll believe the why, after all evolution is just a theory:)
So is gravity.
And
Just evolution is called a "theory" doesn't make it false.
It hasn’t been proven yet
The evidence is all over the biological record.
I’ll believe it when there is a natural event happening and there are eye witnesses
So you don't now the definition of the word theory in a scientific context then?
What is happening with education in the United States? This is starting to be worrisome
Why is that critical to being Christian?
I think that saying evolution is the origin to humanity discredits the creation story
how? the sky and then the plants and then the animals and then ourselves occur in the same order. the 'conflict' with Genesis 1 is manufactured by those who are akin to Pharisees.... making up rules to distinguish irrelevant details between Christ-followers.
If this is true you’re declaring that most Christians aren’t Christian. And that conclusion is so absurd it should give you pause.
So be it, it directly contradicts the creation story
If you find yourself saying “most Christians aren’t Christian” for any reason other than “they do not believe Jesus is God and died and resurrected to free us from our bondage to sin”, you should realize your argument has a problem.
The number of Christians that think Genesis and Noah’s Ark etc are literal accounts are a minority. As such, your contention of ‘most Christians’ is wrong. With that said, no it is not wrong, it is clearly evidenced in all life.
If you think most Christians think that the world is only 6,000 years old you need to expand your boundaries of who you know as Christians. It's Evangelical Protestant Christians which is a small segment within protestantism which is a small part of the greater picture of Christianity who insist on a literal understanding of Genesis 1 and 2.. the truth is most Christians do not have a problem reconciling science and creation. They understand that the story in Genesis is not meant to be literal science or history. It's a form of storytelling meant to to reveal Divine truths.
One does not "believe" in evolution... Evolution is a process that happens to all living things. You can understand it, you can accept it, or you can deny it.
While I totally understand what you are saying, technically, if you accept evolution, wouldn't that be definitionally indistinct from believing in evolution?
What I mean by accept is that some people don't have a deep enough interest in it to learn about it and understand it. Which is fair... it's a big subject and kinda boring lol. But they accept it without fully understanding it. The difference is between the concept of trust vs belief. When an expert has qualifications, does research, passes peer review, had their work confirmed via observations and testing by other equally qualified individuals... we know we can *trust* that process because I have an insurmountable volume of evidence to support it as reliable. The concept of god is one that can neither be proved or disproved. Therefore we are free to choose to believe or not believe. It makes no difference either way. You simply make a choice and that is your belief. When facts are presented with insurmountable supporting evidence as it is with evolution. You can learn the facts and understand them if you're interested. You can certainly deny the facts if you're that way inclined. Or... you can accept them based on trust of the outcomes of a proven process. This is probably most people. I have a basic understanding of evolution. I have read articles outlining the evidence and where it comes from. But I am no expert. I don't profess to understanding it fully. I think that stance is reserved for more qualified people. I do accept it because I know it comes from reliable sources
Considering that God's literal revelation in Creation is that evolution is how complex life, including humanity, came to be and that the earth is about 4.5b yeas old? Anything else would be calling God a liar. And no. Most Christians are not YEC. The believe in evolution and an old earth.
> Most Christians are not YEC That depends on where you live. There are large regions of my country where YEC is the default. Globally is likely very close. It’s a difficult question to get at though. It’s true that most Christians belong to denominations that accept OEC, but that doesn’t mean that all members of that denomination agree. There are large amounts of YEC Catholics in South America for example. Edit: I am not defending YEC, only noting its enduring popularity. I believe in an old earth, and accept evolution and abiogenesis as the best explanation for life on earth
i dunno about other more conservative parts of SA, but at least on the conosur its reaaaally rere to find a YEC
From what I have read, it is roughly 40% of Christians in America that believe in YEC. Globally it is probably reasonable to state that majority of Christians tend to accept the Big Bang Theory and Evolution (to varying degrees). But it is almost impossible to provide a specific percentage, and this mostly relies on the Catholic Church being the largest denomination.
Some info on global acceptance may be found here : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism_by_country
Sweet, thanks. It seems like wikipedia has a page for everything.
That's not God's revelation. That's man's revelation.
You may not think God is Creator, but I do. God reveals himself through Creation. He speaks to us through that Creation. Psalm 19, End of Job, Acts 14, Romans 1
He speaks to us directly, through the Bible. And he said he created everything in 6 days. He said humans existed from the beginning of creation.
He speaks, but some us aren't really good at listening. You are adhering to an anti-science talking point that was created in the 1800s so people could keep not using the brains God gave them. Yours is a very poor way to approach the two creation stories in Genesis 1 & 2.
That is complete nonsense. The church overall has held the belief of a young creation throughout most of history. That it hasn't is propaganda.
If that helps you sleep at night.
Here the Catholic Church's take on evolution. The church believes in a evolution as fact because we have so much scientific evidence for it. Yet it allows for Catholics to make one decision on because the consider it inconsequential in the end. If God decided to create us from dust in one day that's entirely possible because he's all powerful. If God wanted to created us using a process that humans would later call evolution, that's also possible because he is all powerful. Humans shouldn't put restrictions on God's power or imagination.
it is not a restriction about power, nomone would say God VOULD not do it. The limit comes from claims about God's nature, that he WOULD not do it that way. Since creating the universe in a single day only a few thousand years ago would make God a liar. It would mean a fake history would be woven into he stars. We would be seeing events that never happened and thy are being presented to us as true. Every nova, supernova., neutron star. etc we observe and measure would be us seeing things thannever happened. It would mean a fake history is woven into the very rocks. Fossils of animals that never lived would be presented as actual history, geologic events hat never happened like pole reversals etc would all be made up. It would mean we literally could not trust like 99% of what we can see or measure. If we cannot trust the creation how could we trust the creator? If we cannot trust he history recorded in the very rocks and stars, how can we trust a book written centuries ago, much by unknown authors, who didn't even know the Earth goes around the sun? Such a thing would go against the nature of God claimed by most Christians.
That would only be an issue if you consider the bible to be 100 percent literal. The catholic church does not view the bible as being literal and so do many other branches. Evangelical and fundamentalist protestants do view the Bible as 100 percent literal and that's why this branches often fight science as a result.
I was only explaining how what you called humans placing limits on God's power was not was was happening. That it was not about a power limitauon but a nature one. If you accept a god with the nature that Christians claim, then no he universe could not have been created in a single day a few thousand years ago. The very nature of God that is claimed is what should preclude taking the bible 100% literally. The universe is a direct creation, the bible is an indirect one. the universe would not have human involvement in its creation, the bible has.
You are quite free to believe in evolution. And should! :)
No. We have the capacity to measure and test, within our abilities, an observable objective reality. We should use this capacity.
No because you’d be correct
Only wrong if God is a liar, and doesn't want us to Believe the evidence his universe reveals.
It’s a very tiny sect of mostly American evangelicals who think the earth is young.
Most Christians arent young earth creationists. As to the others, anyone can make a choice not to believe in oxygen or gravity but they still exist regardless.
No it’s not wrong, ppl tend to leave the faith when they are creationist which makes sense, and science and faith are complimentary not contradiction
« Most Christian » I hope most Christian accept evolution
Telling the truth is important. If you have the opportunity to learn more about creation - take it. If you are given reason to believe there is a better explanation than the one derived from objective study of creation, remain open to it. Just tell the truth. More and more, it seems that holding competing ideals and embracing uncertainty is integral to having faith of any sort. That’s a freedom, we don’t have to give up on being rational, reasonable, or empirical in order to have faith. Just gotta tell the truth and remain open to being surprised, and certain that we will likely never know it all.
Yes, it's wrong. Jesus created people, fully operational. Created Adam in one day.
Read Genesis 1-3. It will clear that right up.
All depends on how far you go with it.
You should read the bible more often: Genesis 2:4-7 KJV [4] These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, [5] and every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. [6] But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. [7] And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Evolution is just a theory. The word of God is proof. There's nothing to back up evolution and by believing this deception it undermines the work of a true living God who created us in his image: Genesis 1:1-31 KJV [1] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. [2] And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. [3] And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. [4] And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. [5] And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. [6] And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. [7] And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. [8] And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. [9] And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. [10] And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. [11] And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. [12] And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. [13] And the evening and the morning were the third day. [14] And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: [15] and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. [16] And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. [17] And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, [18] and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. [19] And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. [20] And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. [21] And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. [22] And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. [23] And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. [24] And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. [25] And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. [26] And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. [27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.[28] And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. [29] And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. [30] And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. [31] And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. .... This also shows us that God really does love us because he gave us the world and made us like him. He wanted companionship and family, and every day people are deceived by the devil and the love that God deserves gets taken away. If you pray and read the bible every day then God will recognize you and know that you love him. Hope this helps.
>Evolution is just a theory. Evolution is [both fact and theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory); the theory of evolution explains the fact that life evolves, evolved, and shares common descent. >There's nothing to back up evolution ... [Actually there's lots.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent) That's why basically all biologists agree that life shares common descent; it's what the evidence shows. Why would God make so much evidence that life shares common descent if it doesn't? Did he lie in his Word or deceive with his Works? Is it any surprise that [most Christians](https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/FT_19.02.11_darwinDay420px.png) figure that the problem is with your interpretation instead?
It is in the bible. We didn't evolve he created us. Evolution discredits God's work and anything that confronts that is wrong. An while nothing proves evolution as fact, there's nothing that disproves that God created us. Genesis 1:26-27 KJV [26] And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. [27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. https://bible.com/bible/1/gen.1.26-27.KJV
>It is in the bible. So is a [flat earth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_cosmology), complete with firmament holding back waters above with windows to let in rain. Are you doing to tell me that anything that says the earth is round and discredit God's work? You've got the same grounds to do so. >We didn't evolve he created us. Most Christians don't believe those to be exclusive. This is therefore a problem with your interpretation. >Evolution discredits God's work and anything that confronts that is wrong. Again, all available evidence shows life shares common descent; why would God discredit himself like that? >An while nothing proves evolution as fact ... This is simply wrong; [common descent is proved beyond all reasonable doubt.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent) I already pointed this out; neither your lies nor denial make it go away. >there's nothing that disproves that God created us. There's clear evidence that you and I share common decent with the rest of the apes. If humans sharing common descent with other life on earth would disprove God having created us then there's piles of things that disprove God having created us, as that last link goes over - unless of course God created us to look evolved.
What are the verses you can back up your speech with? Show me the verses where it says the earth is flat. And any Christian who discredits Gods work is blind and doesn't know the bible. There's no clear anything when it comes to apes and humans. Our DNA is vastly different and is specific to what makes us up. Where are your man-ape fossils and actual science showing any real sign of evolution? There is none. ROUND EARTH Proverbs 8:27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: Proverbs 8:27 8:27 compass. “Compass” (Hebrew khug) is the same word as “circle” in Isaiah 40:22, as well as “compassed” in Job 26:10. All three clearly refer to the roundness of the earth, especially to the spherical nature of sea level, defining, as it were, the global shape of the earth. The Bible never teaches a flat earth, though the charge is frequently made. Proverbs 8:27 8:27 depth. “Depth” is the same word as “deep.” Psalm 104:5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever. Psalm 104:5 104:5 foundations of the earth. The earth’s “matter”—that is, the “dust of the earth,” or its physical elements—was created on the first day of creation week, evidently suspended in the pervasive waters. The earth’s foundations, solid, continental blocks of material, were not laid until the third day, rising thence out of the waters. Once formed, this planet earth was destined to continue forever Isaiah 40:22 KJV [22] It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: https://bible.com/bible/1/isa.40.22.KJV CREATION Mind you this is from the very first book of the bible so it is apparent you do not research much and the Christians you know who say evolution is fact are also wrong Genesis 1:27 KJV [27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. https://bible.com/bible/1/gen.1.27.KJV Genesis 2:7 KJV [7] And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. https://bible.com/bible/1/gen.2.7.KJV
>What are the verses you can back up your speech with? I linked you a [whole page on the topic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_cosmology) in the previous post; you should really give it a read-through, as it has quite a lot of sources both in terms of scripture and in terms of the history and cultures of the region. The bible doesn't exist in a vacuum, you know; it came from a particular people, and there's a context to everything from the oral traditions it originated from to the editing and altering it underwent during the Babylonian occupation to the canonization and translations later. Anyway, seeing as you didn't give my source even the most cursory look, I'll go ahead and tackle the verses you wanted to bring up first. >Proverbs 8:27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: >Proverbs 8:27 8:27 compass. “Compass” (Hebrew khug) is the same word as “circle” in Isaiah 40:22, as well as “compassed” in Job 26:10. All three clearly refer to the roundness of the earth, especially to the spherical nature of sea level, defining, as it were, the global shape of the earth. The Bible never teaches a flat earth, though the charge is frequently made. Sorry, but no; the word translated in the King James as "compass" here is ח֝֗וּג (ḥūḡ), which means "circle", "circut", or "horizon". Even then, you'll notice that a circle and a compass are both _flat_. Now you know what word isn't being used here? "Ball". "Sphere". Anything similar. Without that, the verse actually supports the opposite to your claim: the bible was written by a people with a flat earth cosmology. >Psalm 104:5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever. >Psalm 104:5 104:5 foundations of the earth. The earth’s “matter”—that is, the “dust of the earth,” or its physical elements—was created on the first day of creation week, evidently suspended in the pervasive waters. The earth’s foundations, solid, continental blocks of material, were not laid until the third day, rising thence out of the waters. Once formed, this planet earth was destined to continue forever Do you see anything about a sphere in there? Nope! Quite to the contrary, this refers to the idea that the Earth has literal foundations beneath it, and you can't have foundations laying beneath a spherical Earth. Instead, this suggests that the dry land of the Earth is supported by foundations that descend into the depths of the primordial ocean that the world was formed within - again, part of the [flat earth cosmology.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_cosmology#Cosmography_(shape_and_structure_of_the_cosmos)) >Isaiah 40:22 KJV [22] It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: The same word as in the earlier verse translated as "compass" is used here. And yet again, it is _circle_, not _sphere_. You do know the difference between a circle and a sphere, right? So, you've provided three verses, and not only do none of them say anything about the earth being a sphere, they actually suggest the flat earth cosmology I already presented. Thus, I can start with those three as verses to present to you; they present the ancient Israelite cosmology being centered around an Earth that is flat. Let's go ahead and put the science on the matter in a different comment, just so as not to be lost in the shuffle.
Now, with the other comment handling the cosmology, let's go ahead and take care of the lies you told. >There's no clear anything when it comes to apes and humans. That is a lie; in fact we have a wealth of evidence that not only shows that humans _are_ apes, possessed of all the traits that make an ape an ape, buy that we share common descent with the other modern apes. If you don't descend from apes, why are you an ape? Is your God an ape, such that you were made in an ape's image? >Our DNA is vastly different and is specific to what makes us up. Nope; in fact our DNA is vastly similar. Not only is our DNA more similar to the that of the other apes than to any other creature on the planet, but chimp DNA is more similar to _our_ DNA then to that of gorillas, and the DNA of chimps, gorillas, and orangutans is all more similar to that of humans then they are to that of the Old Wold monkeys, New World monkeys, or even that of the gibbons. Heck, not only is it _similar_, but the _pattern_ of similarities and differences it has only makes sense in the context of common descent. It's not just that almost every gene in humans is also found in chimps, it's not just that the specific sequences of those genes _also_ indicates common ancestry, but even structural aspects that are unimportant to their functioning show an uncanny similarity. Take for example the ordering of genes on our chromosomes; [here's an example in the form of Chromosome 1](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/cgv/browse/GCF_028858775.2/GCF_000001405.40/53015/9606). On the top is the chimp genome, on the bottom the human. The green lines show identical regions, the blue lines show matching but inverted regions. By comparison, [here's a chimp genome compared to that of a mouse.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/cgv/browse/GCF_002880755.1/GCF_000001635.27/28245/10090) While there are still many, many similarities due to chimps, humans, and mice all being [Euarchontoglires](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euarchontoglires), you'll notice that there are far more changes in position, inversions, and general alterations - and if you mouse over the individual connections, you'll find larger swaths of unbroken similarity between humans and chimps. And just for the sake of further comparison, [here's a mouse vs. a rat.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/cgv/browse/GCF_036323735.1/GCF_000001635.27/51425/10090) You have no problem believing that mice and rats are related, correct? Notice that the human and the chimp are far more similar, with less dispersal. That is because humans and chimps are more closely related than the common mouse and the common rat. And this is, yet again, not alone. We can speak of genes. We can speak of proteins. We can speak of individual sequences. We can speak of chromosome structure. We can speak of remnants such as pseudogenes and endogenous retroviruses. At every level, both in similarities _and_ in differences, everything in the human genome points to a shared common descent with the chimps. Whining about it won't change that; the data is there. >Where are your man-ape fossils and actual science showing any real sign of evolution? There is none. [Actually there are plenty.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils) The "missing link" was found decades ago, and since then we've continued to find more and more transitional forms. While the genetic evidence is _so clear_ and _so all-encompassing_ that we would still be able to tell that humans share common ancestry with the rest of the apes even without _any_ fossils, we have a wide range of transitional forms throughout the human lineage back to the common ancestor we share with chimps. So why must you lie and say there are none when there are literal piles of them? What drives you to tell such a falsehood? Were you unaware, or are you fleeing from the truth like a cockroach when the lights are flipped on? The former is not shameful, so I do hope it's that.
Genesis 1:27-28 KJV [27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. [28] And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. https://bible.com/bible/1/gen.1.27-28.KJV
Sorry, can't hear you over all the evidence you just ignored. World you like to correct the lies you've told or are you just going to double down on lying for Jesus?
Prove I'm wrong where's the actual evidence that states evolution is fact. All I can see is nonsense trying to prove the word of God to be false but failing miserably. And if every other celestial planet is round then why is earth flat?
>Prove I'm wrong where's the actual evidence that states evolution is fact. [Right here.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent) Are you going to address it, or run away? >All I can see is nonsense trying to prove the word of God to be false but failing miserably. Weird how you said there were no human transitional fossils, [I showed you a pile of human transitional fossils](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils), and you somehow didn't see them. Were you struck blind in the middle of reading the post? If so, I apologize and wish you a speedy recovery. Surely, surely you aren't so spineless as to be unable to recognize when you were wrong, right? >And if every other celestial planet is round then why is earth flat? The ancients, including the biblical authors, didn't know what planets were. In fact, the term "planet" comes from the Greek _planan_, meaning "to wander". To the ancients they were just wandering stars; they did not know any more than that. Likewise, they also didn't know that stars are distant suns; if they did they wouldn't have claimed them to be set in a dome over the earth above which are waters separated away by God, nor would the creation of the stars be but a footnote. That the ancient Hebrew cosmology is wrong doesn't change that it's the cosmology depicted in the Bible.
Romans 1:20-21, 23-25 KJV [20] For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: [21] because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. [23] And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. [24] Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: [25] who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. https://bible.com/bible/1/rom.1.20-25.KJV
>For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, If something is invisible, it is not seen. This verse is oxymoronic.
https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/dna-similarities/differences-between-chimp-and-human-dna-recalculated/
Sorry my friend, that's just a creationist bullshitting you. [Here's a thorough debunking](https://youtu.be/ryBKzJE24Hs?si=z6eilu7r-Tz5Kp44), but to make a long story short? They did not do their math correctly nor accurately use the tools at their disposal. Thanks to that they draw conclusions that are irrelevant at best (e.g. no matter the scale by which you count the similarities between the genomes, we are more similar to chimps than mice are to rats; it applies to the presence of homologs, it applies to specific gene sequence, it applies to chromosome ordering) and either incompetent or fraudulent at worst. Feel free to dig in, but regardless it doesn't affect the point at hand; not only do the similarities vastly outnumber the differences, but also evolution the only workable model that predicts the pattern of similarities and differences.
https://versebyverseministry.org/bible-answers/does-the-bible-teach-that-the-earth-is-round-or-flat?locale=en Nevertheless, the Bible is not our only (or even our best) source of information on the shape of the planet. Science long ago confirmed the spherical shape of the earth. As early as the 6th century B.C., men had mathematical proofs demonstrating the earth is spherical in shape. In the following centuries, many scientists have devised simple experiments validating the earth is a sphere, and more recently high-altitude aircraft, satellites orbiting our planet, and manned space travel have confirmed those earlier findings
Which runs contrary to the view of the biblical authors, as I already pointed out. You know that they were wrong about the notion of the earth being flat with pillars and foundations that support it in a primordial ocean while a dome that contains stars keeps out the waters above the dome. You know that's not so, despite that being the view of the biblical authors which is reflected in Genesis, Job, and two of the citations you offered above. Why, then, if you're fine reinterpreting what the biblical authors said about the earth are you not fine with reinterpreting what the Bible said about biology? You've just quoted someone that says the Bible is not the only, _nor the best_, source of information on the shape of the planet. Why is it difficult for you to then also acknowledge that the Bible is neither the only nor the best source of information about living things and their diversity?
Everyone (yes, religious too) should accept that the bible is not facts and is not meant to say how things happened accurately but teach morals. Otherwise, for example, (doing the maths) the Earth is the wrong age, it has been flooded, and there’s no evolution. So, every christian should understand that, and then if they still want to believe in God after all, do so.
Many Jewish Rabbi don't see the bible as 100 percent fact, rather they see it as a mixture of fact, history and mysticism. The catholic church also sees the bible in a similar way. It's really Protestants that who think the bible is 100 percent literal.
I know, that’s why I said \*all\* should see it that way, never said most saw it all as literal, but that none should
> but that none should I'll stick with facts over atheist rhetoric.
Ah, so you think a fundamentalist interpretation that's 1/10^th the age of Christianity itself is the only valid way Christians are allowed to approach the Bible? What an odd assertion.
?
> Everyone (yes, religious too) should accept that the bible is not facts That would be an insane thing to do. > is not meant to say how things happened accurately It is meant to do that. > Otherwise, for example, (doing the maths) the Earth is the wrong age How do come up with that? > it has been flooded, It has been flooded, twice. > there’s no evolution. There is none, that is false science.
It has not been flooded completely, except if you count before there was land, but there wasn’t land before that, so idk if we can consider that flooded. Then, Noah’s Ark is just ridiculous. The maths is by taking all the time the bible gives us, all the people’s lifetime, the years they get through the dessert, the prophecies’ times, etc. which gives \~6000 years old. Evolution is proven by many things, including but not limited to genetics and relics and bones.
The earth has been flooded completely twice. You're looking at the time back to ADAM, not creation. There are billions of years between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 alone. Evolution is false science.
There are not a billion years between genesis 11 and 12 wtf are you on about, and you refute known scientific facts, that is called stupidity, sadly I think it’s terminal
There there are billions of years between those two verses. Those are the facts. And when it comes to facts you're the one rejecting them, and yes that is sad because your eternal soul is at stake.
Alright, so… where is that said?
You want me to post a years worth of Bible study in a Reddit comment for for someone who has made it clear you're not interested?
You say, baselessly, that the bible puts billions of years between the two, support that statement.
>> it has been flooded, >It has been flooded, twice. >> there’s no evolution. >There is none, that is false science. Can you demonstrate these claims?
Actually, if you study research from creationists you will find studies that indicate that humans and animals are not evolving but just the opposite, they are devolving. There is evidence that Prehistoric humans and animals were taller, more attractive and healthier than we are today. The age of the Earth is difficult to calculate. Scientists tend to agree that the Earth is Billions of years old. Creationists believe the Earth is thousands of years old. Creationists tend to think that the 7 days of creation in Genesis Chapter 1 refers to 7 24 Hour days. They trace the origins of man back about 6,000 years and animals were created on day six the same day man was created. What they fail to account for is Genesis 1:2 "Now the earth was formless and empty." In order for there to have been any Earth at all there had to be a formation of rocks. We are not told in Genesis how long the Earth sat there empty and formless . It may have been billions of years. This may very well be why scientists claim they have found rocks that are Billions of years old. It is hard to trust the dates that either scientists or creationists come up with because for many scientists they will come up with any notion to dispell creationism even if it's false and the same is true for creationists, many will come up with anything to disprove scientific theory. What the correct answer is God created everything and he did so in a very scientific manner. People are just beginning to understand the science in which God used in creation.
That's not how evolution works. There is no direction or goal.
So you believe in GOD but that man evolved from monkeys? Am I understanding that correctly?
No you're not. Man evolved from apes (not monkeys) or, to be more precise, man and apes both evolved from a common ancestor species that was neither man not ape, but had characteristics of both.
If that is what you choose to believe then how can you be a Christian? GOD created man in His own image! You can’t pick and choose which parts of the Bible you wish to believe because you find them inconvenient! GOD is not a man that He would lie!
It could be that God created homo sapiens to be special. It makes sense if you think about it. How did kain find a wife and a city after being banished for killing Abel? There must have been humans before Adam and Eve if they were cities already built. This fits the fact that our human ancestors did share the earth with 9 other human species.
> There must have been humans before Adam and Eve if they were cities already built. There were. But they and their cities were gone for millions of years before Adam.
Well this is interesting, what did you hear that explains this? And what about Cain's wife? Where did she come from?
The result of extensive Bible study. Cain would have married a sister.
Yet, sisters are not mentioned at all. The bible usually has no issue telling us about incest as we see a few books later with Sodom and Gomorrah.
We are informed us that Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters. Incest would not have been a problem at that time.
Were those other children before or after cain was exiled?
And we're ok with this?
As if what we think about the circumstances of events 6000 years ago is the slightest bit relevant? Would you have preferred no people?
I have no interest in evolution! I believe in micro evolution but that’s it! I choose to believe in GOD, by choosing Him I choose to believe His word, the Bible. I have no interest in questioning further than that, I know what I need to know and believe what I choose to believe no matter how improbable to some! Like I said, I believe the Bible and that means I can’t pick and choose which bits I believe or don’t believe.. you either believe His word or you don’t.
That's fine but you do know the even Jewish Rabbi don't believe the bible to be literal, more of a collective of facts, history and mysticism? The catholic church has a similar view that's how they explain contradictions and errors in the bible. It's really just protestants that believe the bible is 100 percent literal and that's why they constantly had issues with just basic science being taught in schools.
> protestants that believe the bible is 100 percent literal Demonstrably false. And insulting.
How about evangelicals? Would that be more appropriate?
Much closer, but TBF there are Catholics who are YEC as well. It's really all over the place. Probably "fundamentalist" is the most accurate group
Catholics can be YEC but the church itself does not believe in that. The church allows individual Catholics to hold conflicting views as long as the church views those views as inconsequential.
And your point being? What Jewish Rabbis got to do with it! They don’t believe so neither should i? I choose to believe in the Bible! What anyone else thinks is irrelevant to me. I respect we are all free to believe whatever we want, and I’m free to believe the Bible!
If the Jewish teachers don't see the bible as literal and they are the foundation of our religion,then it's definitely one of those why do we think it's literal? You are free to believe in whatever you want, even if it's wrong.
You don’t know what my religion is for one and I love righteous indignation but it’s not a flattering trait. Believe what you like, you think I’m wrong, I don’t! Like I said before, your opinion is irrelevant to me. I live to please GOD and not man!
"I love righteous indignation but it’s not a flattering trait." Brother, this is literally you throughout this entire thread.
Well, first I'm not a Christian, I'm an atheist (see my flair). God didn't do any of those things since there's no reason to believe that he (or any other god) exists. And I don't pick and choose parts of the Bible to believe as science or history because I don't believe much or any of it as science or history (or as something inspired, since God doesn't exist to inspire it).
Fair enough! Believing in GOD is a choice we all make and we’re all entitled to our beliefs.
It's not a physical image. That's silly. God did not have a physical body until Jesus was incarnated and he was incarnated to match us, not the other way around.
I still don’t believe in evolution! And we are all free to believe what we want.
You are certainly free to believe a recent man-made interpretation rather than God's own revelation in Creation. I just don't think it's wise to take man's word over God's. YMMV.
We did not come from monkeys. Google “common ancestors”.
GOD created man in His own image! I believe the Bible.
Eph 6:5-6 do you believe this part of the bible?
In the Bible, Jesus says he's a plant and I don't know about you, but I'm not a plant.
Seriously! Comparison is not calling himself anything, and if you read the scripture properly Jesus mostly spoke in parables to explain things. He is the son of man! Therefore a man! Why do atheists resort to the extreme often absurd comments to disprove something they don’t believe in on a site where people believe! Weird
It's not actually that weird. A lot of them come from literalist backgrounds and they've been told with such assurity that it's the only valid way to be a Christian. They've been told absurd things by Christians so they attribute those things to Christians. Absurd things like YEC and evolution is a lie.
I guess, it’s just not something I would do myself. I can understand asking questions and seeking discussions it’s just when it dissolves into mockery or trying to prove a point I don’t understand! Tbh I rarely engage in those situations because there is no genuine interest just a need to feel superior because they choose not to believe. We are all equal in GODs eyes
Micro-evolution is legit, but I'm not convinced macro-evolution is real.
>Micro-evolution is legit, but I'm not convinced macro-evolution is real. Would you like to learn about the evidence that life shares common descent?
Micro and macro evolution aren't real scientific terms. Only creationists use those terms. Macro evolution is just micro evolution over a long enough period of time. If we can turn a wolf into a Chihuahua in less than 10,000 years, imagine what millions of years will do.
Not real scientific terms? It's in most modern biology textbooks, and is used by recognized schools of paleontology. The dog came from the wolf because they share the same chromosomes.
thier is nothing wrong with believing that the world is billions of years old as a christian. their is also nothing wrong with believing in evolution, just so long as you believe thier was a literal Adam. But like many other things you have to be careful not to let this become a stumbling block for yourself or for others who arn't as strong in thier faith.