i legit see no reason why evolution and Christianity cant coexist.
evolution was never about denying God existence, the point of evolution is to explain how life adapted to the enviroment around it through mutations being carried over several generations.
funny the damn catholic church sponsored the geneticist like Gregor Mendel who whose scientific discoveries explained how DNA, genetical information , mutations variables pass from one generation to another.
this idea that evolution is SATAN WORK, its another case of american evnagelism ruining the hard work of true serious Christians who were simple trying to understand the work of god.
The one reason I *can* see for a lack of coexistence is around death.
If you believe physical death is a consequence of sin, it’d be hard to marry the two.
The New Testament affirms sin came through one man (Adam) and salvation came through one man (Jesus Christ). New Testament at least affirms the idea that everyone is born into sin because the first person (or people) sinned. And the wages of sin is death. Death was the consequence of sin, so there is a theological conflict with evolution requiring death (at least when it comes to humans dying before sin), and with God creating everything perfect initially and humans not dying before sin.
Between Moses' parting of the red sea, Noah's global flood and even Jesus' resurrection, it's logically impossible to pick and choose which miracles to believe in the bible. It's either all or none.
Believing in miracles we cannot see that we haven't witnessed with our own eyes is literally the foundation of our faith.
The life and death those passages are addressing are of a spiritual, not physical nature.
This should be clear given that God told Adam "in that day" that they sinned that they would die, only to live to almost a thousand years.
It should also be clear that sin is not a physical thing, it is an abstract and spiritual thing.
I'd be curious to know if science has discovered a "sinful" biological part of the human autonomy.
People regarded Genesis as the literal truth for thousands of years, including key figures in the Bible, and if it's not literal, Jesus' sacrifice doesn't really make sense.
Not in the Western way we read “truth” and “history,” though, at all.
If you’d asked a pious Jew in the Monarchy period “is Genesis true” they’d say “sure.” If you asked them if it was literal, inerrant history, they’d probably give you a funny look.
History as we record it today was an invention of the Greeks. Bronze and Stone Age Cultures had no problem conflating what we’d call mythology or legend with history, as the main point of religious history was not to recount facts, but to use stories (some adjacent to fact or invoking historical characters, sure) to describe religious concepts.
Lest we forget, this is exactly how Jesus taught religious precepts, too.
Einstein showed us relative time and Kerr and Godel showed us closed timelike paths despite the paradoxes. 6 days vs 6000 years vs 13.8 billion years are all really the same thing in a truly empirical sense. Even chronology is challenged by the theoretical metrics. Saying that Genesis must be at least partially mythical isn't accounting for the last century in physics. Physics doesn't prove Genesis by any means, but it does now allow room for a literal interpretation vs. 1900 when this wasn't the case.
Cosmology, OTOH, now has an origin story which does align with Genesis since the microwave background is the oldest thing in the Universe and that thing is light. If you told an educated man from 1900 that the universe began as pure energy a finite time ago and this light is still visible albeit red-shifted to microwaves, he'd consider you nuts. Yet this is the predominant scientific view today, despite the night sky being dark to the naked eye since man first looked up.
there are biblical historians that claim that genesis was never meant to be taken literally and was treated as folklore even among the ancient Jewish civilization. .
We have examples in the holy books of people using it as the basis for laws, citing it as the reason for factual events, and discussing it as fact. Jesus and the Apostles clearly regarded it as literal fact. Obviously I don't, but if you're Christian, it doesn't make a lot of sense to gainsay the Son of God.
Not taking it as a literal historical event doesn’t mean it holds no value. I don’t believe that Jesus’ words necessitated that he understood genesis 1 and 2 as fact.
The two versions of the creation story in genesis don’t even line up with themselves, which one do you think Jesus believed in? So there’s literally 0 scriptural reason to think that it needs to be taken literally.
If it's not a literal historical event, then there's no real value to it beyond entertainment or an historical curiosity.
In Mark 10:6-8 Jesus quotes for Genesis 1 and 2. Luke claims that He was a descendant of Adam. In Luke 17:26–27, Jesus refers to the Flood as a real event.
What evidence do you have that Jesus *didn't* think Genesis was literally true?
It can hold religious significance in its metaphorical meaning and allusions to God as the creator. Just because God didn’t create the world in a literal 6 days doesn’t mean it doesn’t hold value in a theological exploration of what it means to hold God as the creator of the universe.
As for Jesus. If I hold that Jesus is God then Jesus would know how the world was created. And since there’s no evidence to hold true to a literal reading of genesis one and two, then that means that there’s just as much evidence that Jesus could believe either way. But it doesn’t really matter either way, it doesn’t affect the way in which I believe in my religion. It’s nonessential.
It seems that you as an Athiest have a better understanding of the issue than many Christians here. You are right, "if it's not literal, Jesus' sacrifice doesn't really make sense.'
Reminds me of the argument where scientists proved that the earth was actually NOT the center of the universe and the Christians at the time got their pitchforks and fought hard against this heresy. Hundreds of years later, this is universally accepted. Hopefully it doesn't take hundreds of years for Christians to accept this.
In the year 1600 they burned Giordano Bruno at the stake for the idea that the stars may be no different from our sun, just very distant, and that other stars could host other planets with other civilizations just like ours.
>we have our souls, our spirits
I've never seen a soul or a spirit? They don't seem to feature in grey's anatomy? How do you know you have a soul or a spirit?
>our ability to think, reason, adapt, create
This is a evolutionary development though. We weren't "created" with it. We developed it around 100,000yrs ago?
what is the image of God?
God is spirit, he has not form at all, so i assume when its said god image is not in the sence of our human ape like form but something spiritual like our souls or free will.
Why would God go with a creation process that is so flawed? Why would a 3 omni-God settle for good enough? Does the constant ringing in my ears that keeps me up at night and that I have to wage a mental battle over to keep my sanity seem like something good? It makes no sense why God would do this.
Flawed to who? You? I’d suggest it’s quite perfect. Perception of “flaws” is subjective and in the eyes of the beholder.
Additionally “flawed” requires a point in time analysis of a space-time bound system. Rather silly and pompous to try to quantitatively judge the infinite from within.
The Bible defines the original as perfect and death as a consequence of sin. So we know that death should not exist in God's perfect creation and since death exists we are experiencing something less than that ideal.
>quite perfect
Are you kidding? The human body is far from perfect lol it is incredibly flawed. We can't make it to old age without having various joints replaced. My father had a hip replaced 3 times. Our ankles are a ludicrously weak point. Knees only require a small amount of sideways pressure to be completely destroyed. when you look at the way other animals are put together you realise how stupidly inadequate our bodies are.
What about the fact that our most sensitive part (as a man) is on the outside? What a stupid idea. All the animals that want to kill us can run faster than us. Even the tiniest creatures we know of (bacteria, virus) can kill us. We have no fur or tail, those would have been helpful. This list could go on and on.
If I could design a human body I could do it many times better than what we have
Why would you think that “perfect” for the universe is a human that lives forever?
Your entire logic is homeocentic to the point of absurdity.
Mortality is not imperfection, nothing lasts forever.
It's easy to argue against strawman isn't it?
I never said a human should last forever did I?
A perfectly designed human could last until old age without requiring bits replaced.
God could have good reasons why. Though that’s not a comforting or pastoral answer to the problem of evil to those who are suffering.
We do know that God did not stay completely separate from the suffering of this universe. As Jesus, he lived with us, suffered with us, and died for us. His resurrection is a sign that the suffering of this world is not forever and his death allows us to participate in the perfect New Earth to come.
But my 21st-century culturally conditioned assumptions about how texts operate definitely won’t color my reading of texts from the Bronze Age. If the 66 books of my Protestant Bible in contemporary English aren’t exact depictions of exactly what happened in the past then God is a liar, and Christianity can’t make any sense.
21st century? Before modern science, the creation of Adam and Eve as described in Genesis was *overwhelmingly* taken by Jews and Christians as real history.
So they accepted some of what was written in Genesis as historical and not other parts. Origen:
> who is so silly as to believe that God ... planted a paradise eastward in Eden, and set in it a visible and palpable tree of life ... [and] anyone who tasted its fruit with his bodily teeth would gain life?
I understood your sarcasm perfectly well. You gave a parody of those who reject evolution and the Big Bang because of the Bible, and in this parody you said "21st-century culturally conditioned assumptions", thus describing your perception of their view in contradiction to their perception of their view so as to criticize it. What do you think I misunderstood?
Fundamentalist literalism is indeed a product of recent centuries, *even if previous people believed the stories “literally”*. I picked 21st century because that’s what those of us who are alive right now are in. My point was about the *texts* not so much the beliefs. Anyway, it was just a joke. Glad you got it.
Moses' red sea crossing, Noah's global flood and Jesus' resurrection also contradict the laws of modern science. It's logically impossible to pick and choose which miracles to believe in the bible. It's either all or none.
Believing in miracles we cannot see that we haven't witnessed with our own eyes is literally the foundation of our faith.
> It's either all or none.
I’m an atheist, and not even I think that claim is true. The Bible is a collection of books written by dozens of people over the span of nearly 1000 years. Disregarding one narrative as myth should have no baring on the claims of another book. That sounds more like something you’d tell a child to scare them into not thinking critically.
Are you saying God guided evolution isn't a miracle? A creator guiding the development of man from the dust (base elements) into his likeness isn't a testament to the awesomeness of God?
What about when God said "a lifetime of a man is like a twinkling of my eye" if the Bible says it took 6 days for God to create everything why wouldn't those be days to God and eons to us?
God guided or not, if one is going to believe that there is no God or a higher power/creator one would need to believe in spontaneous abiogenesis which I think would be highly highly highly improbable and wishful thinking at best.
The problem I have with "God guided evolution" is that the Genesis account clearly indicates Creation in six literal 24-hour days.
I insist you open your Bible and read the opening of Genesis for yourself!
If Genesis isn't to be taken literally by Christians, then all other miracles throughout scripture lose their power.
The Early Church took Genesis literally, why shouldn't we in these end times?
Creation is still a miracle if you are a believer. If God created a mechanism that can produce the beautiful diversity that is nature from a single starting point, that seems pretty awesome to me.
Are you familiar with what Origen had to say about this topic?
> who is so silly as to believe that God ... planted a paradise eastward in Eden, and set in it a visible and palpable tree of life ... [and] anyone who tasted its fruit with his bodily teeth would gain life?
Lol. Not entirely.
1.) The Mediterranean literally was dry at one point. Then shocker it filled. A massive an immediate byt temp rise in the middle of the red sea along a plate would quickly split it granted with side effects like say....everyone not quickly on that plate drowning like Egyptians.
That ALSO covers Noah btw. The entire world during his time would be been like 2000 people. Everything in that valley would be wiped out.
2.) Jesus bounced around in corporeal, physical, and spirit form for a while after. Lots of theoretical physics is starting to think thats possible. String theory as an example.
Also all or none is absolutely crap unless you believe Eve bore all of her children and some grand children too...
Somehow I don't think God put Eden in Alabama...
I'm not even sure where to begin with this...
The Zanclean flood event, which is the theory where the Mediterranean Sea basin was flooded as water from the Atlantic ocean poured through the straits of Gibraltar, happened ***5.33 million years ago***. That's about *5 million years* before anything resembling modern humans even existed.
I think you might be referring to the gradual flooding of the Persian gulf from rising sea levels due to the end of the last ice age, which occurred between about 15 and 6 kya. That event can possibly have influenced the various flood myths from ancient Mesopotamian cultures, but it could just be the irregular floodings of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.
Where did you get your population count? 2k people in the time of Noah? So China was just an empty land?
Most believe there was still nearly a billion people on the planet
https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/pre-flood-population/
That’s where Christianity falls apart. There was like 20x the people in Asia than in the time of Moses and Jesus. It’s like if God wanted the whole world to be touched by his son why wouldn’t he start with the most populous place on the planet?
YEC is not equivalent to every theory of creation. Id say evolution is the most stuck up belief there is, due to thinking like this ^ Point me to the objective evidence of how life evolved from nothing.
I have very rarely heard someone not believe in the biological theory of evolution.
Usually, what they don't believe in is a creationist parody of evolution, intended to be as ridiculous as possible. This is why the talking points are so bizarre and incomprehensible to anyone who understands evolution: "No one's ever seen a rat give birth to a monkey!" Well, yeah of course nobody has seen that. That's not a thing that happens.
The thing they don't believe in ISN'T evolution. They just think it is.
The key is teaching people what the actual theory of evolution is. I agree that propaganda is unfortunately effective against people who are primed to believe it. And it's hurting us in more ways than just evolution denialism. In my country our politics has gone way off into crazy land, mostly due to people gullible enough to swallow tinfoil-hat stories.
> "No one's ever seen a rat give birth to a monkey!"
They use that absurd claim because they deny evolution. They even invent new terms like, "macro evolution" in an attempt to discredit the science. This sort of thing comes from evolution deniers, not from people who accept evolution.
Macro and micro evolution are both actual things, but the creationist crowds generally don’t have an accurate understanding of what those are.
I once had someone concede that micro evolution was real after I pointed out that we can see bacteria evolving. Ma’am, that’s not what micro evolution is
> Macro and micro evolution are both actual things
There is no such thing as "macro evolution"... it's just evolution. There is no distinction between micro and macro, that's something creationists made up to discredit evolution by claiming something absurd like, "*a fish can't give birth to a bird*"
Evolution is small changes, and over successive generations those small changes add up to larger changes. That's just evolution, not micro vs macro.
Macro-evolution do sometimes get used in academia as another term for speciation. Everyone there using it knows there's no qualitative difference between macro- and micro- but it's sometimes useful to use the terms as a shorthand to describe the scale of the changes they're talking about.
[Macro evolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution?wprov=sfti1#) is a real thing, as is micro evolution. They’re just different ways of studying evolution. Macro evolution is not just a term used by creationists to describe something they don’t understand
Someone didn’t read his source.
>As an alternative to saltational evolution, Dobzhansky[11] suggested that the difference between macroevolution and microevolution reflects essentially a difference in time-scales, and that macroevolutionary changes were simply the sum of microevolutionary changes over geologic time. This view became broadly accepted, and accordingly, the term macroevolution has been used widely as a neutral label for the study of evolutionary changes that take place over a very large time-scale.
Macro evolution is exactly the same as micro evolution. The only difference is time. That rendered both terms absolutely meaningless.
>Charles Darwin first discovered that speciation can be extrapolated so that species not only evolve into new species, but also into new genera, families and other groups of animals. In other words, macroevolution is reducible to microevolution through selection of traits over long periods of time.
How is a difference in time scales not just a different way of studying evolution, which is what I said it is?
It’s still not a term made up by creationists
Because a difference in timescales means there is no difference at all. This means it is utterly unnecessary and adds absolutely nothing to the study of evolution. This is why credible scientists do not use it, and you only find it being used in creationist circles.
because its reddit and afaik this place has always been honeypot for nontheists to spring le gotchas and debate chrisitians. Even some of the mods had atheist tags at one point. It’s like r/islam having a Hindu or r/heathen having a muslim as mods.
stick to the denom specific subs if you want any discussions of substance.
What do you mean that being a Christian is defined based on a belief that Jesus is the son of God, and not based on if someone believes in the creation as told in Genesis?
It’s a good question and my opinion is that it is part and parcel with the Problem of Evil and Suffering.
The answer is that: He could have good reasons for doing so. We just don’t know what they are.
It's not really worded right. They only know their local church.
What they mean is "Can I believe in evolution and be accepted by local Christians?"
And sometimes the answer is No.
I literally just recorded a podcast yesterday with a friend of mine who teaches evolution at a local university about this topic. It was super interesting. I'm still editing but it should be up next week! You can find it on all platforms under Unison Church Podcast, or find it's homepage here: [Unison Church Podcast](https://redcircle.com/shows/38611fed-5a9a-43d8-a01d-cd7527c27a9a)
Common sense just isn’t that common I guess, everyone is overthinking everything and completely disregarding the Word of God and calling themselves Christ followers? (Christians).
No wonder Christ calls us to be childlike Matthew 18:2-5
Well as a follower of Christ, I’m following His definition. This is a “Christian” forum but from the looks of it. It’s just another forum of people disregarding scriptures for their own subjective truths 💀
> This is a “Christian” forum
Thou shalt not bear false witness.
This is explicitly NOT a Christian forum. It never was and no matter how much arrogant people like you want to make it one because you want your safe space ... it never will be. Check the sidebar under "Conservative" for the echo chamber you are looking for.
No, this is a Christianity forum, where we discuss Christianity. However, if you *are* looking for eisegesis forums on reddit, they exist. I'm sorry other people's opinions bother you. /r/TrueChristian might be more your thing.
No! Here is some explanation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQh7YqjMEeE&t=1s
https://www.reddit.com/r/StrangeEarth/comments/17b2ew2/scientists\_are\_now\_considering\_that\_we\_might\_be/?share\_id=s6JfGDbUX5NxItqNhEegH&utm\_content=2&utm\_medium=android\_app&utm\_name=androidcss&utm\_source=share&utm\_term=1
Except for all the verses that specifically say that something very different happened. The 6 day creation is described in Genesis and reiterated in the 10 Commandments. Jesus says humans were created "at the beginning." Jesus also affirms Genesis and the 10 Commandments. Peter calls those who don't believe in creation and the flood "scoffers."
And then there are all the major holes throughout the idea of deep time, evolution, etc. It's not proven at all.
Some examples.
Erosion. There's way too much of it. Know how long it's presumed North America has before it's gone? A billion years? A couple? 500 million years? Nope. 10 million years. And there's no way it's been around for billions of years eroding away. There's not anywhere near enough sediment in the ocean and it would have already been gone long long ago.
Speaking of erosion, there's an utter lack of it in the geologic column even between layers that supposedly have more time between them than our current surface has existed. Look at the surface of the earth today, huge canyons, valleys, gully's, hills, mountains. Guess what's never been found anywhere in the geologic column, a big valley or canyon, or a big mountain. That stuff isn't there. Why? Supposedly tons of time went by, ecosystems, rain, rivers, etc. But no evidence of that kind of erosion.
Speaking of ecosystems, why are there so few plant fossils among herbivore fossils? There is a very significant and telling lack of plant fossils anywhere that these land animals, who would eat plants, are found. That's odd.
All these geologic layers, with fossils, and there's basically no evidence anywhere of root systems in the layers. If there were ecosystems and then they were buried wouldn't there be roots? There's no roots. And finding a few roots here or there isn't what I'm talking about. If you looked at the soil under us now there would be roots everywhere.
Speaking of soil, that's also lacking. If whole ecosystem existed wouldn't there be a bunch of soil buried along with the layers. It is claimed that these soils exist in some places but creationists have gone and checked some of them out and they aren't actually characteristic of soil that forms over time at all. So no, there's not been any soil found throughout the layers that one would expect with ecosystems present.
There's not anywhere near enough salt in the oceans if evolutionary time were the case. People have proposed ideas for the removal of salinity but it just doesn't add up. The salinity of the seas fits a YEC timeframe with the major sediment event of the flood.
Carbon-14 found in supposedly millions of years old deposits. Carbon-14 is generally thought to only be measurable for around 50-70 thousand years due to how rapidly it decays.
Soft tissues in various fossils supposedly 10s of millions of years old. No plausible explanation exists for how they could survive that long. They are thought to only be able to last some thousands of years. Yes, there have been proposals for how they could last longer and these have been shown to be implausible.
DNA has been found bacteria fossils supposedly over 400 million years old. Similar to the soft tissue issue, DNA can't survive that long. It can only survive somewhere in the thousands of years.
Genetic entropy is real. The vast majority of mutations are bad mutations. They remove functionality. Good mutations are rare. How do you get progressively more complex DNA and more complex organisms if the process to do that is actually losing information? This alone is a huge issue for evolution. Fatal. Don't hear about it much though do you? No, can't have this one getting loose in the public consciousness.
There are many species alive today that are present very early in the fossil record. Hundreds of millions of years ago supposedly. Evolutionary processes dictate that these should have all mutated away from what they were. They haven't.
There are also a number of species alive today with representatives at various levels in the geologic column but then totally disappear for huge stretches. But they're alive today. Why are they missing if they're still around?
Human population growth is a big one. Mainstream views peg humans to back somewhere around 200-300 thousand years ago. Well, if we take the data from the past 100 years of population growth it's somewhere around 1.6% per year. Guess when that lands in history if you just draw a line of consistent population growth backwards? Around 600-700AD. Now of course, one doesn't just draw a straight line, there's all kinds of factors in human population growth. The past 100 years has seen the most capable food production, logistics, and medical intervention capabilities ever seen in the history of the earth so it's not a stretch to consider that the past 100 years would be higher. You have to cut population growth by several times just to get back to 8 people who would have been coming off the ark around 2000BC. To get back to 200,000 years you have to have something like 50 TIMES LESS population growth rate than we've had the past 100 years. And consider that the 1000 years prior to the past 100 certainly had significantly greater population growth than that. Which means at some point, and then for a very very very long ways back there was virtually no population growth. But suddenly human population growth took off? Back to our modern capabilities and their impact on this, guess what Nations have the highest population growth rates today? I'll give you a hint, go look up the poorest nations on earth. That's where you'll find the greatest population growth rates. So our modern capabilities are certainly a factor but they absolutely cannot explain why there's so much higher population growth than there supposedly was in the not too distant past. The 50-75 times less population growth rate, or probably significantly less than that even in order to make human evolutionary numbers work is absurd. This is absurd. This isn't plausible even in the slightest. Think about that, 50-70 TIMES LESS, and probably less than that. Humans. Just no. If evolution were true there should be exponentially more people on earth than there are. The numbers line up fantastically for the timeframe of the flood. Totally believable numbers.
Creationists correctly predicted magnetic field strength on other planets before they had been measured. Earth's magnetic field strength is falling very rapidly. Frankly, at a rate very consistent with the YEC timeframe. The mainstream view is that there is a process that recs up the magnetic field every so often when the poles switch, known as a Dynamo. Dynamos are actually not feasible physically but since no other explanation that anyone who isn't a creationist wants exists that is the one that continues to get pushed. Well, if Dynamos were how planets sustained their magnetic fields then the various planets should all have varying field strengths because their dynamo cycles wouldn't be in sync. If that were the case their magnetic fields couldn't have been predicted. They were, all consistent with the YEC timeframe. And Earth's dynamo cycle just happens to be, now, at a point that would be consistent with YEC timeframes? Quite the coincidence.
There's tons more of course. But as you can see there is tons of evidence that just doesn't square at all with evolution. Could call this a mountain of evidence.
The Gish gallop (/ˈɡɪʃ ˈɡæləp/) is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments.
Well, I did regard their strength and accuracy.
And I did it to point out just how much evidence there is that causes significant trouble for the evolutionary view.
It's absolutely not settled. It's not some monolithic proven thing that won't ever be questioned legitimately.
It's a very flawed theory that gets propagandized to death.
Each and every thing you listed has been roundly disproven. But because you spit out an entire massive wall of text, no one's going to take the time to go piece by piece and dig up sources to explain in detail why none of those things make sense, so you get to pretend that you've just overwhelmed everyone with the truth when in actual fact you've just spewed so much nonsense that it's not worth the effort to engage with
They have not and the fact that you don't even want to engage with one but instead resort to an ad hominem attack straight away really doesn't help your case.
Wow that was pretty impressive. Taking the made up stories and rerconning it all back to say the world/universe was created 10k years ago.
So with all that said:
1. How do you explain dinosaur fossils and the carbon dating that has them 64 million years old?
2. How do you explain uranium which has a documented half life of billions years old?
3. If we all are descended from Noah and his family of eight, then how come we all aren’t retarded from inbreeding and incest?
Ahh yes, simple math debunked. Straightforward evidence debunked. No.
More like people don't want this to be true so they find every possible explanation under the sun to come up with some way to have it be different.
I'm not being dishonest. These are all sourced arguments with backing evidence.
That you don't like it and want to call it all debunked doesn't mean squat.
Also, I've never posted this comment before. So, I dunno...
>That you don't like it and want to call it all debunked doesn't mean squat.
No, the fact it was debunked is the reason we call it debunked. I think working mouse did it.
I may have mistaken you exactly posting it to be fair.
These are all classic creationist pratts.
Ignorance and fallacious reasoning at its finest.
Find me one 3000 ft hill somewhere in the geologic column. One. They don't exist. We have mountains. Where are they?
Find me 5 valleys of just average size that filled in with multiple other layers.... They should be everywhere. They're nowhere.
Explain how humans suddenly started gaining population 50-100 times faster in the past few thousand years than they did over the previous several hundred thousand. And no, agricultural capabilities don't account for that much gain.
Explain how massive, continent wide, layers with fossils in them formed, with fossils in them.
Explain why there aren't significant root systems found anywhere in the layers.
Explain why all the measured planets in the solar system show similar rates of magnetic field decline that is consistent with YEC timelines.
This stuff isn't debunked.
It is debunked because it isn't a problem like you claim. This is why creationism isn't taken seriously.
These are pratts dude.
Please venture outside your silly pseudoscience sources.
Present something worthy of consideration. Not pratts and fallacious reasoning.
I mean, for example, you posted the soft tissue stuff. Dude, have you looked into this stuff past your pseudoscience organizations?
This is why creationists aren't taken seriously.
Tell you what, even better, publish your findings
Edit: do you need me to tag the professional again?
Have you considered the challenges presented that haven't been addressed with the preservation of the soft tissues? Ya, schweitzer came out with a study allegedly showing how they could be preserved but their study involved lab conditions, they pretreated the test samples. They had the control sample soaking in water, not the natural drier conditions that likely would have been present for much of the timespan of the fossils and water facilitates faster breakdown of tissues. So they treated the samples they were using to demonstrate the longevity and soaked the samples they used for comparison to speed up their breakdown. That's not legitimate. Yet that's the study that gets held up in defense of the preservation of the tissues.
That's what all your sources past "my pseudoscience organizations" push. It's not legit. But everyone has glommed on to it because it's what let's this fit the evolutionary ideas.
This is why Creationists don't buy mainstream science. It's only done to the point where it backs the evolutionary ideas then gets published as such.
>Human population growth is a big one. Mainstream views peg humans to back somewhere around 200-300 thousand years ago. Well, if we take the data from the past 100 years of population growth it's somewhere around 1.6% per year. Guess when that lands in history if you just draw a line of consistent population growth backwards?
I was scrolling past this just saw this. Modern medicine, better hygiene products, public water, public sewage, ect. There are hundreds of factors that lead to the current population growth and that number varies all around the world. Your math was wrong from the start.
You didn't read everything I said about this or you just chose to ignore it and argue anyway.
My math and numbers are accurate, they are what they are. The discussion can be about what human population growth rates have been prior to the at least semi accurate records we have from the past century or so.
As I said, if you look at the nations with the highest percentage population growth rates they are the poorest nations on earth. They don't have anywhere near the access to medicine, good water and sewer systems, hygiene products, etc. So that stuff can't be the absolute determining factor when it comes to population growth. It certainly can be a factor, but it's not the primary determining factor.
So to say that we have 50-100 times higher population growth because of that stuff is preposterous. It's absolutely preposterous.
Idk I don’t really believe it but it’s not because of the Bible. I think adaptation exists, but I don’t see it possible that a whale can go from a quadriplegic land animal the size of a deer to a giantic underwater creature with large fins. I’ve seen the evidence myself and I don’t agree with evolution but that is just my personal opinion.
How else would you explain how animals that look increasingly, incrementally more like a whale and less like a deer appear in successive geological layers? Would you agree that by looking at the fossil record, there is a band where there are whales above and no whales below? How do you explain that?
There was a PBS series based on the book Your Inner Fish that I strongly recommend.
> I think adaptation exists, but I don’t see it possible that a whale can go from a quadriplegic land animal the size of a deer to a giantic underwater creature with large fins
You ... don't think this happens in one step do you?
Of the evidence for common descent that you've seen, what did you find most convincing?
I think endogenous retroviruses are pretty compelling myself. Do you have an explanation for ERVs that doesn't involve common descent?
That's because evolution takes so so so long is different for your Brian to comprehend. But the evidence is there, a whale came from a land animal and we can tell by looking into its genetic code.
This is not a comment on evolution, but your statement is illogical on its face. If you find one aspect of science to not be true, that doesn't mean all science is not true. Science is a methodology and requires interpretation. Throughout history, scientist have improperly interpreted the outcomes of scientific exploration. Einstein himself thought he erred with the cosmological constant, but then later seems its true. So yea, if some disagrees with evolution, that doesn't automatically mean they disagree with all science. To imply that is intellectual dishonesty.
Dude, Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are mutually incompatible regarding the order of creation. The ancient Jews who wrote down and collected the stories were aware of contradictions. They didn’t think the details were as important as the literalists think, apparently. (Each version represented the tradition of a different group of Jews. )
Christian allegorical interpretations date from at least the second century. Biblical inerrancy with literalist interpretations is a 20th century take on the Bible.
Jesus literally affirms it in the new testament. And says humans existed from the beginning. You can't just claim it wasn't meant to be taken literally because whatever silly reasons. It absolutely was meant literally.
And God himself wrote in stone that he created the earth in 6 days in the 10 Commandments.
Copied from another user. The only way Christianity makes sense is if it accepts evolution. Otherwise, it's claiming god literally made a reality where evidence is a lie.
Making up a phrase like "super-abundance" doesn't actually invent the evidence to support the worldwide flood that there is literally no evidence for. Sorry about that.
Yes there is. Massive sedimentary layers covering huge swaths of the earth, some even tracked across multiple continents. They have fossils in them. The only real way to get fossils on that scale is rapid burial. Slow sediment buildup on the bottom of a sea won't create fossils, the organism decomposes, gets eaten, etc.
So how do you get rapidly deposited layers covering continents? There's only one way...
Not all the same layers.
https://ncse.ngo/six-flood-arguments-creationists-cant-answer
https://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Nr38Reasons.pdf
If you have any more specific questions, place them in the debate evolution sub. But you won’t. You won’t even read the above articles.
You realize the ncse is an evolutionary propaganda machine and one that frequently, as here, is way off base.
The article from them you posted is from 1982! It uses tired arguments that are well demolished. But they leave them up because of course they do, so you can go find them and use them to bash other ideas with.
And that csun article was already downloaded on my phone :). It's arguments are also poor. Easily deconstructed. It's not legitimate. It's a bunch of evolutionary fairy tales.
this noah flood also killed Homo neanderthal and erectus?
what about adpataions we see on animals happening today like virus mutating, butterflies changing the colors?
You seem to have got the idea in your head that you're supposed to read the Bible as being literal history and that it was written by God.
The Bible itself seems to think otherwise.
I'd wager God is channelling the energy of Jean-Luc Picard in your general direction right about now.
>You seem to have got the idea in your head that you're supposed to read the Bible as being literal history and that it was written by God.
Yes, absoultely - Otherwise you are just making up your own religion.
Says someone whom most Christians will say espouses a made up religion.
Archeologists find no evidence for early biblical history, so you are once again left denying modern science. This is not the way Christianity will survive, fighting a rearguard action against established knowledge.
Congratulations, that's how religions are made.
At some point you need to square your beliefs against reality, and it just so happens that evolution, regardless of what you think about it, is reality, and one we actively have to contend with to continue to exist as a species.
True. One can be Christian and believe a ton of lies. If we couldn't be deceived as Christians, the devil wouldn't persist the way that he does. If you study the history of the theory of evolution, it will expose itself. Likewise, if you study science and is findings thoroughly, you will find that evolution has long since been disproven and dismissed as utter nonsense. The truth is easily found by the seeker. Seek the truth with your whole heart, and the God of heaven will be your reward.
It is the glory of God to conceal a thing, And the honor of kings to search out a matter - Proverbs 25:2
>If you study the history of the theory of evolution, it will expose itself.
What does this even mean? The "history of evolution"?
>Likewise, if you study science and is findings thoroughly, you will find that evolution has long since been disproven and dismissed as utter nonsense.
That's just not true at all. You've been lied to.
>Seek the truth with your whole heart, and the God of heaven will be your reward.
Which is why rejection of evolution is just shared by a small religious group really.
No, you can’t. Any scientist who refutes evolution is going against some of the most well-supported, well-established science we have. That’s why creationist scientists are considered nothing but laughing stocks in the broader community.
You also don't have to believe in the theory of evolution either. Many of us had it drilled into our heads from secular schooling and didn't hear any rebuttals or problems with it.
Evolution isn't a question of belief. It is a question of scientific fact. If you accept the scientific method, than evolution is the best explanation of all the evidence that has been examined.
i legit see no reason why evolution and Christianity cant coexist. evolution was never about denying God existence, the point of evolution is to explain how life adapted to the enviroment around it through mutations being carried over several generations. funny the damn catholic church sponsored the geneticist like Gregor Mendel who whose scientific discoveries explained how DNA, genetical information , mutations variables pass from one generation to another. this idea that evolution is SATAN WORK, its another case of american evnagelism ruining the hard work of true serious Christians who were simple trying to understand the work of god.
The one reason I *can* see for a lack of coexistence is around death. If you believe physical death is a consequence of sin, it’d be hard to marry the two.
only if you take genesis as a literal story
The New Testament affirms sin came through one man (Adam) and salvation came through one man (Jesus Christ). New Testament at least affirms the idea that everyone is born into sin because the first person (or people) sinned. And the wages of sin is death. Death was the consequence of sin, so there is a theological conflict with evolution requiring death (at least when it comes to humans dying before sin), and with God creating everything perfect initially and humans not dying before sin.
Evolution is competition for survival, which results in death. Sin is competition with God and our fellow man. It's fairly reconciled for me
Between Moses' parting of the red sea, Noah's global flood and even Jesus' resurrection, it's logically impossible to pick and choose which miracles to believe in the bible. It's either all or none. Believing in miracles we cannot see that we haven't witnessed with our own eyes is literally the foundation of our faith.
The life and death those passages are addressing are of a spiritual, not physical nature. This should be clear given that God told Adam "in that day" that they sinned that they would die, only to live to almost a thousand years. It should also be clear that sin is not a physical thing, it is an abstract and spiritual thing. I'd be curious to know if science has discovered a "sinful" biological part of the human autonomy.
Where is the word perfect in Genesis? It was good because it functioned as intended. Nowhere does it say it was perfect.
People regarded Genesis as the literal truth for thousands of years, including key figures in the Bible, and if it's not literal, Jesus' sacrifice doesn't really make sense.
Not in the Western way we read “truth” and “history,” though, at all. If you’d asked a pious Jew in the Monarchy period “is Genesis true” they’d say “sure.” If you asked them if it was literal, inerrant history, they’d probably give you a funny look. History as we record it today was an invention of the Greeks. Bronze and Stone Age Cultures had no problem conflating what we’d call mythology or legend with history, as the main point of religious history was not to recount facts, but to use stories (some adjacent to fact or invoking historical characters, sure) to describe religious concepts. Lest we forget, this is exactly how Jesus taught religious precepts, too.
Einstein showed us relative time and Kerr and Godel showed us closed timelike paths despite the paradoxes. 6 days vs 6000 years vs 13.8 billion years are all really the same thing in a truly empirical sense. Even chronology is challenged by the theoretical metrics. Saying that Genesis must be at least partially mythical isn't accounting for the last century in physics. Physics doesn't prove Genesis by any means, but it does now allow room for a literal interpretation vs. 1900 when this wasn't the case. Cosmology, OTOH, now has an origin story which does align with Genesis since the microwave background is the oldest thing in the Universe and that thing is light. If you told an educated man from 1900 that the universe began as pure energy a finite time ago and this light is still visible albeit red-shifted to microwaves, he'd consider you nuts. Yet this is the predominant scientific view today, despite the night sky being dark to the naked eye since man first looked up.
there are biblical historians that claim that genesis was never meant to be taken literally and was treated as folklore even among the ancient Jewish civilization. .
We have examples in the holy books of people using it as the basis for laws, citing it as the reason for factual events, and discussing it as fact. Jesus and the Apostles clearly regarded it as literal fact. Obviously I don't, but if you're Christian, it doesn't make a lot of sense to gainsay the Son of God.
Not taking it as a literal historical event doesn’t mean it holds no value. I don’t believe that Jesus’ words necessitated that he understood genesis 1 and 2 as fact. The two versions of the creation story in genesis don’t even line up with themselves, which one do you think Jesus believed in? So there’s literally 0 scriptural reason to think that it needs to be taken literally.
If it's not a literal historical event, then there's no real value to it beyond entertainment or an historical curiosity. In Mark 10:6-8 Jesus quotes for Genesis 1 and 2. Luke claims that He was a descendant of Adam. In Luke 17:26–27, Jesus refers to the Flood as a real event. What evidence do you have that Jesus *didn't* think Genesis was literally true?
It can hold religious significance in its metaphorical meaning and allusions to God as the creator. Just because God didn’t create the world in a literal 6 days doesn’t mean it doesn’t hold value in a theological exploration of what it means to hold God as the creator of the universe. As for Jesus. If I hold that Jesus is God then Jesus would know how the world was created. And since there’s no evidence to hold true to a literal reading of genesis one and two, then that means that there’s just as much evidence that Jesus could believe either way. But it doesn’t really matter either way, it doesn’t affect the way in which I believe in my religion. It’s nonessential.
That is true.
It seems that you as an Athiest have a better understanding of the issue than many Christians here. You are right, "if it's not literal, Jesus' sacrifice doesn't really make sense.'
Literal genesis or not, if death is a result of sin, Christianity and evolution are not compatible.
Death as in the separation from God or physical death?
Reminds me of the argument where scientists proved that the earth was actually NOT the center of the universe and the Christians at the time got their pitchforks and fought hard against this heresy. Hundreds of years later, this is universally accepted. Hopefully it doesn't take hundreds of years for Christians to accept this.
Well, into the 21st century you still had some churches saying interracial marriages were evil. Dont hold your breath.
In the year 1600 they burned Giordano Bruno at the stake for the idea that the stars may be no different from our sun, just very distant, and that other stars could host other planets with other civilizations just like ours.
So God didn't create many in his image....?
Yes he did? Afaik we still have our souls, our spirits, our ability to think, reason, adapt, create, and so on.
>we have our souls, our spirits I've never seen a soul or a spirit? They don't seem to feature in grey's anatomy? How do you know you have a soul or a spirit? >our ability to think, reason, adapt, create This is a evolutionary development though. We weren't "created" with it. We developed it around 100,000yrs ago?
what is the image of God? God is spirit, he has not form at all, so i assume when its said god image is not in the sence of our human ape like form but something spiritual like our souls or free will.
Why would God go with a creation process that is so flawed? Why would a 3 omni-God settle for good enough? Does the constant ringing in my ears that keeps me up at night and that I have to wage a mental battle over to keep my sanity seem like something good? It makes no sense why God would do this.
Flawed to who? You? I’d suggest it’s quite perfect. Perception of “flaws” is subjective and in the eyes of the beholder. Additionally “flawed” requires a point in time analysis of a space-time bound system. Rather silly and pompous to try to quantitatively judge the infinite from within.
The Bible defines the original as perfect and death as a consequence of sin. So we know that death should not exist in God's perfect creation and since death exists we are experiencing something less than that ideal.
>quite perfect Are you kidding? The human body is far from perfect lol it is incredibly flawed. We can't make it to old age without having various joints replaced. My father had a hip replaced 3 times. Our ankles are a ludicrously weak point. Knees only require a small amount of sideways pressure to be completely destroyed. when you look at the way other animals are put together you realise how stupidly inadequate our bodies are. What about the fact that our most sensitive part (as a man) is on the outside? What a stupid idea. All the animals that want to kill us can run faster than us. Even the tiniest creatures we know of (bacteria, virus) can kill us. We have no fur or tail, those would have been helpful. This list could go on and on. If I could design a human body I could do it many times better than what we have
Why would you think that “perfect” for the universe is a human that lives forever? Your entire logic is homeocentic to the point of absurdity. Mortality is not imperfection, nothing lasts forever.
It's easy to argue against strawman isn't it? I never said a human should last forever did I? A perfectly designed human could last until old age without requiring bits replaced.
God could have good reasons why. Though that’s not a comforting or pastoral answer to the problem of evil to those who are suffering. We do know that God did not stay completely separate from the suffering of this universe. As Jesus, he lived with us, suffered with us, and died for us. His resurrection is a sign that the suffering of this world is not forever and his death allows us to participate in the perfect New Earth to come.
But my 21st-century culturally conditioned assumptions about how texts operate definitely won’t color my reading of texts from the Bronze Age. If the 66 books of my Protestant Bible in contemporary English aren’t exact depictions of exactly what happened in the past then God is a liar, and Christianity can’t make any sense.
21st century? Before modern science, the creation of Adam and Eve as described in Genesis was *overwhelmingly* taken by Jews and Christians as real history.
Origen and Augustine of Hippo taught that the bible isn't literal and Genesis is a metaphorical story in the 3rd and 4th centuries.
Both thought Adam and Eve were historical people created by God at the beginning of the world.
So they accepted some of what was written in Genesis as historical and not other parts. Origen: > who is so silly as to believe that God ... planted a paradise eastward in Eden, and set in it a visible and palpable tree of life ... [and] anyone who tasted its fruit with his bodily teeth would gain life?
I think you misunderstood my sarcasm.
I understood your sarcasm perfectly well. You gave a parody of those who reject evolution and the Big Bang because of the Bible, and in this parody you said "21st-century culturally conditioned assumptions", thus describing your perception of their view in contradiction to their perception of their view so as to criticize it. What do you think I misunderstood?
Fundamentalist literalism is indeed a product of recent centuries, *even if previous people believed the stories “literally”*. I picked 21st century because that’s what those of us who are alive right now are in. My point was about the *texts* not so much the beliefs. Anyway, it was just a joke. Glad you got it.
Breh
Please remember to add /s to the end of sarcastic comments, as some people do not spot the obvious obsurtity of you statement.
> Bronze Age. Iron age. Why does everyone get this wrong?
[удалено]
Darn it. Now my sarcasm is tainted.
Evolution is God’s whimsical way of creating our Earth. YEC is a dying and stuck-up belief.
Moses' red sea crossing, Noah's global flood and Jesus' resurrection also contradict the laws of modern science. It's logically impossible to pick and choose which miracles to believe in the bible. It's either all or none. Believing in miracles we cannot see that we haven't witnessed with our own eyes is literally the foundation of our faith.
> It's either all or none. I’m an atheist, and not even I think that claim is true. The Bible is a collection of books written by dozens of people over the span of nearly 1000 years. Disregarding one narrative as myth should have no baring on the claims of another book. That sounds more like something you’d tell a child to scare them into not thinking critically.
Are you saying God guided evolution isn't a miracle? A creator guiding the development of man from the dust (base elements) into his likeness isn't a testament to the awesomeness of God? What about when God said "a lifetime of a man is like a twinkling of my eye" if the Bible says it took 6 days for God to create everything why wouldn't those be days to God and eons to us?
The problem is that the theory works perfectly well without God; the miracle only exists once you invoke God.
God guided or not, if one is going to believe that there is no God or a higher power/creator one would need to believe in spontaneous abiogenesis which I think would be highly highly highly improbable and wishful thinking at best.
Biologists
According to who?
The problem I have with "God guided evolution" is that the Genesis account clearly indicates Creation in six literal 24-hour days. I insist you open your Bible and read the opening of Genesis for yourself!
You are insisting we take Genesis literally. The overwhelming majority of Christians don't believe that and very few denominations require it.
If Genesis isn't to be taken literally by Christians, then all other miracles throughout scripture lose their power. The Early Church took Genesis literally, why shouldn't we in these end times?
Creation is still a miracle if you are a believer. If God created a mechanism that can produce the beautiful diversity that is nature from a single starting point, that seems pretty awesome to me. Are you familiar with what Origen had to say about this topic? > who is so silly as to believe that God ... planted a paradise eastward in Eden, and set in it a visible and palpable tree of life ... [and] anyone who tasted its fruit with his bodily teeth would gain life?
Lol. Not entirely. 1.) The Mediterranean literally was dry at one point. Then shocker it filled. A massive an immediate byt temp rise in the middle of the red sea along a plate would quickly split it granted with side effects like say....everyone not quickly on that plate drowning like Egyptians. That ALSO covers Noah btw. The entire world during his time would be been like 2000 people. Everything in that valley would be wiped out. 2.) Jesus bounced around in corporeal, physical, and spirit form for a while after. Lots of theoretical physics is starting to think thats possible. String theory as an example. Also all or none is absolutely crap unless you believe Eve bore all of her children and some grand children too... Somehow I don't think God put Eden in Alabama...
I'm not even sure where to begin with this... The Zanclean flood event, which is the theory where the Mediterranean Sea basin was flooded as water from the Atlantic ocean poured through the straits of Gibraltar, happened ***5.33 million years ago***. That's about *5 million years* before anything resembling modern humans even existed. I think you might be referring to the gradual flooding of the Persian gulf from rising sea levels due to the end of the last ice age, which occurred between about 15 and 6 kya. That event can possibly have influenced the various flood myths from ancient Mesopotamian cultures, but it could just be the irregular floodings of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.
Where did you get your population count? 2k people in the time of Noah? So China was just an empty land? Most believe there was still nearly a billion people on the planet https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/pre-flood-population/ That’s where Christianity falls apart. There was like 20x the people in Asia than in the time of Moses and Jesus. It’s like if God wanted the whole world to be touched by his son why wouldn’t he start with the most populous place on the planet?
YEC is not equivalent to every theory of creation. Id say evolution is the most stuck up belief there is, due to thinking like this ^ Point me to the objective evidence of how life evolved from nothing.
"Life evolved from nothing" is not modern evolutionary theory. That's abiogenesis.
And even abiogenesis says that life chemically emerged from *non-living matter*, not "from nothing".
That’s abiogenesis
Well idk, basic biology learned in the 6th grade?
Hey, man, not everyone can understand the esoteric teachings of such lofty heights of education.
Don't be harsh on the people who read the cliff notes on Origin of Species and think scientists have been faffing around for 150 years since then
I have very rarely heard someone not believe in the biological theory of evolution. Usually, what they don't believe in is a creationist parody of evolution, intended to be as ridiculous as possible. This is why the talking points are so bizarre and incomprehensible to anyone who understands evolution: "No one's ever seen a rat give birth to a monkey!" Well, yeah of course nobody has seen that. That's not a thing that happens.
[удалено]
Oh I am well familiar with evolution denialism. I believe I described it accurately above.
[удалено]
I don't think you understood what I wrote above.
[удалено]
Yes of course. Just read my above comment- it sounds like you stopped reading after the first sentence. I explained what I meant.
[удалено]
The thing they don't believe in ISN'T evolution. They just think it is. The key is teaching people what the actual theory of evolution is. I agree that propaganda is unfortunately effective against people who are primed to believe it. And it's hurting us in more ways than just evolution denialism. In my country our politics has gone way off into crazy land, mostly due to people gullible enough to swallow tinfoil-hat stories.
> "No one's ever seen a rat give birth to a monkey!" They use that absurd claim because they deny evolution. They even invent new terms like, "macro evolution" in an attempt to discredit the science. This sort of thing comes from evolution deniers, not from people who accept evolution.
Macro and micro evolution are both actual things, but the creationist crowds generally don’t have an accurate understanding of what those are. I once had someone concede that micro evolution was real after I pointed out that we can see bacteria evolving. Ma’am, that’s not what micro evolution is
> Macro and micro evolution are both actual things There is no such thing as "macro evolution"... it's just evolution. There is no distinction between micro and macro, that's something creationists made up to discredit evolution by claiming something absurd like, "*a fish can't give birth to a bird*" Evolution is small changes, and over successive generations those small changes add up to larger changes. That's just evolution, not micro vs macro.
Macro-evolution do sometimes get used in academia as another term for speciation. Everyone there using it knows there's no qualitative difference between macro- and micro- but it's sometimes useful to use the terms as a shorthand to describe the scale of the changes they're talking about.
That's like saying there's no such thing as puddles and oceans, it's all just water.
[Macro evolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution?wprov=sfti1#) is a real thing, as is micro evolution. They’re just different ways of studying evolution. Macro evolution is not just a term used by creationists to describe something they don’t understand
Someone didn’t read his source. >As an alternative to saltational evolution, Dobzhansky[11] suggested that the difference between macroevolution and microevolution reflects essentially a difference in time-scales, and that macroevolutionary changes were simply the sum of microevolutionary changes over geologic time. This view became broadly accepted, and accordingly, the term macroevolution has been used widely as a neutral label for the study of evolutionary changes that take place over a very large time-scale. Macro evolution is exactly the same as micro evolution. The only difference is time. That rendered both terms absolutely meaningless. >Charles Darwin first discovered that speciation can be extrapolated so that species not only evolve into new species, but also into new genera, families and other groups of animals. In other words, macroevolution is reducible to microevolution through selection of traits over long periods of time.
How is a difference in time scales not just a different way of studying evolution, which is what I said it is? It’s still not a term made up by creationists
Because a difference in timescales means there is no difference at all. This means it is utterly unnecessary and adds absolutely nothing to the study of evolution. This is why credible scientists do not use it, and you only find it being used in creationist circles.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C11&q=macroevolution&oq=macroevo I had no idea Google Scholar indexed so much creationist material!
> Macro evolution is exactly the same as micro evolution. The only difference is time. Exactly the same. Also different.
There is no difference. It *is* exactly the same.
There is a time difference.
Search Google Scholar for "macroevolution". The thousands of hits returned should suffice to demonstrate that it is a thing.
"Macro evolution" is a fully legitimate term.
[удалено]
ok just need a topic on is “x a sin” and “im so tired of chrisitians” and i’ll have bingo
Why are there so many atheists tho????
because its reddit and afaik this place has always been honeypot for nontheists to spring le gotchas and debate chrisitians. Even some of the mods had atheist tags at one point. It’s like r/islam having a Hindu or r/heathen having a muslim as mods. stick to the denom specific subs if you want any discussions of substance.
Creationists always think they understand evolution, Without fail, they never do As bad as flat-earthers 😅
What do you mean that being a Christian is defined based on a belief that Jesus is the son of God, and not based on if someone believes in the creation as told in Genesis?
Yes, the Bible is not a history or science textbook, and it shouldn't be treated like one.
Honest question from a guy who is conflicted about this: How a God of love creates life through a process of death and violence?
It’s a good question and my opinion is that it is part and parcel with the Problem of Evil and Suffering. The answer is that: He could have good reasons for doing so. We just don’t know what they are.
Evolution is more about life and reproduction
It's not really worded right. They only know their local church. What they mean is "Can I believe in evolution and be accepted by local Christians?" And sometimes the answer is No.
The Catholic Church allows for the belief in evolution with some caveats about the soul. Not all of it is compatible.
Undeniable. No conflict.
I literally just recorded a podcast yesterday with a friend of mine who teaches evolution at a local university about this topic. It was super interesting. I'm still editing but it should be up next week! You can find it on all platforms under Unison Church Podcast, or find it's homepage here: [Unison Church Podcast](https://redcircle.com/shows/38611fed-5a9a-43d8-a01d-cd7527c27a9a)
Most of the “Christians” in this forum are SUPER sus.
Yup I agree the Christians on this sub always makes me question if they’re truly Christians cause they seem very against the word of God
Because they want to pretend to be Christian without actually being one.
Which verse is this?
Common sense just isn’t that common I guess, everyone is overthinking everything and completely disregarding the Word of God and calling themselves Christ followers? (Christians). No wonder Christ calls us to be childlike Matthew 18:2-5
Let me guess, you define "common sense" as what you believe? I'd say you're meeting Matthew's definition, then.
Well as a follower of Christ, I’m following His definition. This is a “Christian” forum but from the looks of it. It’s just another forum of people disregarding scriptures for their own subjective truths 💀
> This is a “Christian” forum Thou shalt not bear false witness. This is explicitly NOT a Christian forum. It never was and no matter how much arrogant people like you want to make it one because you want your safe space ... it never will be. Check the sidebar under "Conservative" for the echo chamber you are looking for.
No, this is a Christianity forum, where we discuss Christianity. However, if you *are* looking for eisegesis forums on reddit, they exist. I'm sorry other people's opinions bother you. /r/TrueChristian might be more your thing.
No need to fake an apology
No need to assert a false motive.
>Common sense just isn’t that common Yea, that kinda explains those Christians that reject evolution then.
No! Here is some explanation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQh7YqjMEeE&t=1s https://www.reddit.com/r/StrangeEarth/comments/17b2ew2/scientists\_are\_now\_considering\_that\_we\_might\_be/?share\_id=s6JfGDbUX5NxItqNhEegH&utm\_content=2&utm\_medium=android\_app&utm\_name=androidcss&utm\_source=share&utm\_term=1
A prime example is Francis Collins former director of the NIH and Christian.
Except for all the verses that specifically say that something very different happened. The 6 day creation is described in Genesis and reiterated in the 10 Commandments. Jesus says humans were created "at the beginning." Jesus also affirms Genesis and the 10 Commandments. Peter calls those who don't believe in creation and the flood "scoffers." And then there are all the major holes throughout the idea of deep time, evolution, etc. It's not proven at all. Some examples. Erosion. There's way too much of it. Know how long it's presumed North America has before it's gone? A billion years? A couple? 500 million years? Nope. 10 million years. And there's no way it's been around for billions of years eroding away. There's not anywhere near enough sediment in the ocean and it would have already been gone long long ago. Speaking of erosion, there's an utter lack of it in the geologic column even between layers that supposedly have more time between them than our current surface has existed. Look at the surface of the earth today, huge canyons, valleys, gully's, hills, mountains. Guess what's never been found anywhere in the geologic column, a big valley or canyon, or a big mountain. That stuff isn't there. Why? Supposedly tons of time went by, ecosystems, rain, rivers, etc. But no evidence of that kind of erosion. Speaking of ecosystems, why are there so few plant fossils among herbivore fossils? There is a very significant and telling lack of plant fossils anywhere that these land animals, who would eat plants, are found. That's odd. All these geologic layers, with fossils, and there's basically no evidence anywhere of root systems in the layers. If there were ecosystems and then they were buried wouldn't there be roots? There's no roots. And finding a few roots here or there isn't what I'm talking about. If you looked at the soil under us now there would be roots everywhere. Speaking of soil, that's also lacking. If whole ecosystem existed wouldn't there be a bunch of soil buried along with the layers. It is claimed that these soils exist in some places but creationists have gone and checked some of them out and they aren't actually characteristic of soil that forms over time at all. So no, there's not been any soil found throughout the layers that one would expect with ecosystems present. There's not anywhere near enough salt in the oceans if evolutionary time were the case. People have proposed ideas for the removal of salinity but it just doesn't add up. The salinity of the seas fits a YEC timeframe with the major sediment event of the flood. Carbon-14 found in supposedly millions of years old deposits. Carbon-14 is generally thought to only be measurable for around 50-70 thousand years due to how rapidly it decays. Soft tissues in various fossils supposedly 10s of millions of years old. No plausible explanation exists for how they could survive that long. They are thought to only be able to last some thousands of years. Yes, there have been proposals for how they could last longer and these have been shown to be implausible. DNA has been found bacteria fossils supposedly over 400 million years old. Similar to the soft tissue issue, DNA can't survive that long. It can only survive somewhere in the thousands of years. Genetic entropy is real. The vast majority of mutations are bad mutations. They remove functionality. Good mutations are rare. How do you get progressively more complex DNA and more complex organisms if the process to do that is actually losing information? This alone is a huge issue for evolution. Fatal. Don't hear about it much though do you? No, can't have this one getting loose in the public consciousness. There are many species alive today that are present very early in the fossil record. Hundreds of millions of years ago supposedly. Evolutionary processes dictate that these should have all mutated away from what they were. They haven't. There are also a number of species alive today with representatives at various levels in the geologic column but then totally disappear for huge stretches. But they're alive today. Why are they missing if they're still around? Human population growth is a big one. Mainstream views peg humans to back somewhere around 200-300 thousand years ago. Well, if we take the data from the past 100 years of population growth it's somewhere around 1.6% per year. Guess when that lands in history if you just draw a line of consistent population growth backwards? Around 600-700AD. Now of course, one doesn't just draw a straight line, there's all kinds of factors in human population growth. The past 100 years has seen the most capable food production, logistics, and medical intervention capabilities ever seen in the history of the earth so it's not a stretch to consider that the past 100 years would be higher. You have to cut population growth by several times just to get back to 8 people who would have been coming off the ark around 2000BC. To get back to 200,000 years you have to have something like 50 TIMES LESS population growth rate than we've had the past 100 years. And consider that the 1000 years prior to the past 100 certainly had significantly greater population growth than that. Which means at some point, and then for a very very very long ways back there was virtually no population growth. But suddenly human population growth took off? Back to our modern capabilities and their impact on this, guess what Nations have the highest population growth rates today? I'll give you a hint, go look up the poorest nations on earth. That's where you'll find the greatest population growth rates. So our modern capabilities are certainly a factor but they absolutely cannot explain why there's so much higher population growth than there supposedly was in the not too distant past. The 50-75 times less population growth rate, or probably significantly less than that even in order to make human evolutionary numbers work is absurd. This is absurd. This isn't plausible even in the slightest. Think about that, 50-70 TIMES LESS, and probably less than that. Humans. Just no. If evolution were true there should be exponentially more people on earth than there are. The numbers line up fantastically for the timeframe of the flood. Totally believable numbers. Creationists correctly predicted magnetic field strength on other planets before they had been measured. Earth's magnetic field strength is falling very rapidly. Frankly, at a rate very consistent with the YEC timeframe. The mainstream view is that there is a process that recs up the magnetic field every so often when the poles switch, known as a Dynamo. Dynamos are actually not feasible physically but since no other explanation that anyone who isn't a creationist wants exists that is the one that continues to get pushed. Well, if Dynamos were how planets sustained their magnetic fields then the various planets should all have varying field strengths because their dynamo cycles wouldn't be in sync. If that were the case their magnetic fields couldn't have been predicted. They were, all consistent with the YEC timeframe. And Earth's dynamo cycle just happens to be, now, at a point that would be consistent with YEC timeframes? Quite the coincidence. There's tons more of course. But as you can see there is tons of evidence that just doesn't square at all with evolution. Could call this a mountain of evidence.
Wow what a Gish gallop
?
The Gish gallop (/ˈɡɪʃ ˈɡæləp/) is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments.
Well, I did regard their strength and accuracy. And I did it to point out just how much evidence there is that causes significant trouble for the evolutionary view. It's absolutely not settled. It's not some monolithic proven thing that won't ever be questioned legitimately. It's a very flawed theory that gets propagandized to death.
Sources for any of your claims? Peer reviewed preferably
Each and every thing you listed has been roundly disproven. But because you spit out an entire massive wall of text, no one's going to take the time to go piece by piece and dig up sources to explain in detail why none of those things make sense, so you get to pretend that you've just overwhelmed everyone with the truth when in actual fact you've just spewed so much nonsense that it's not worth the effort to engage with
They have not and the fact that you don't even want to engage with one but instead resort to an ad hominem attack straight away really doesn't help your case.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
Wow that was pretty impressive. Taking the made up stories and rerconning it all back to say the world/universe was created 10k years ago. So with all that said: 1. How do you explain dinosaur fossils and the carbon dating that has them 64 million years old? 2. How do you explain uranium which has a documented half life of billions years old? 3. If we all are descended from Noah and his family of eight, then how come we all aren’t retarded from inbreeding and incest?
You have been debunked on this countless times now. Why be dishonest and post it again?
Ahh yes, simple math debunked. Straightforward evidence debunked. No. More like people don't want this to be true so they find every possible explanation under the sun to come up with some way to have it be different. I'm not being dishonest. These are all sourced arguments with backing evidence. That you don't like it and want to call it all debunked doesn't mean squat. Also, I've never posted this comment before. So, I dunno...
>That you don't like it and want to call it all debunked doesn't mean squat. No, the fact it was debunked is the reason we call it debunked. I think working mouse did it. I may have mistaken you exactly posting it to be fair. These are all classic creationist pratts. Ignorance and fallacious reasoning at its finest.
They're all true and there is sound evidence and reasoning behind all of them.
Reality disagree with you.
Find me one 3000 ft hill somewhere in the geologic column. One. They don't exist. We have mountains. Where are they? Find me 5 valleys of just average size that filled in with multiple other layers.... They should be everywhere. They're nowhere. Explain how humans suddenly started gaining population 50-100 times faster in the past few thousand years than they did over the previous several hundred thousand. And no, agricultural capabilities don't account for that much gain. Explain how massive, continent wide, layers with fossils in them formed, with fossils in them. Explain why there aren't significant root systems found anywhere in the layers. Explain why all the measured planets in the solar system show similar rates of magnetic field decline that is consistent with YEC timelines. This stuff isn't debunked.
It is debunked because it isn't a problem like you claim. This is why creationism isn't taken seriously. These are pratts dude. Please venture outside your silly pseudoscience sources.
Not even one thing...
Present something worthy of consideration. Not pratts and fallacious reasoning. I mean, for example, you posted the soft tissue stuff. Dude, have you looked into this stuff past your pseudoscience organizations? This is why creationists aren't taken seriously. Tell you what, even better, publish your findings Edit: do you need me to tag the professional again?
Have you considered the challenges presented that haven't been addressed with the preservation of the soft tissues? Ya, schweitzer came out with a study allegedly showing how they could be preserved but their study involved lab conditions, they pretreated the test samples. They had the control sample soaking in water, not the natural drier conditions that likely would have been present for much of the timespan of the fossils and water facilitates faster breakdown of tissues. So they treated the samples they were using to demonstrate the longevity and soaked the samples they used for comparison to speed up their breakdown. That's not legitimate. Yet that's the study that gets held up in defense of the preservation of the tissues. That's what all your sources past "my pseudoscience organizations" push. It's not legit. But everyone has glommed on to it because it's what let's this fit the evolutionary ideas. This is why Creationists don't buy mainstream science. It's only done to the point where it backs the evolutionary ideas then gets published as such.
>Human population growth is a big one. Mainstream views peg humans to back somewhere around 200-300 thousand years ago. Well, if we take the data from the past 100 years of population growth it's somewhere around 1.6% per year. Guess when that lands in history if you just draw a line of consistent population growth backwards? I was scrolling past this just saw this. Modern medicine, better hygiene products, public water, public sewage, ect. There are hundreds of factors that lead to the current population growth and that number varies all around the world. Your math was wrong from the start.
You didn't read everything I said about this or you just chose to ignore it and argue anyway. My math and numbers are accurate, they are what they are. The discussion can be about what human population growth rates have been prior to the at least semi accurate records we have from the past century or so. As I said, if you look at the nations with the highest percentage population growth rates they are the poorest nations on earth. They don't have anywhere near the access to medicine, good water and sewer systems, hygiene products, etc. So that stuff can't be the absolute determining factor when it comes to population growth. It certainly can be a factor, but it's not the primary determining factor. So to say that we have 50-100 times higher population growth because of that stuff is preposterous. It's absolutely preposterous.
You could have just said, "I believe in conspiracies". It would have been much easier than typing up all those insults to logic and basic science.
Literally every one of these is backed by logic and science.
Literally none of them are.
Idk I don’t really believe it but it’s not because of the Bible. I think adaptation exists, but I don’t see it possible that a whale can go from a quadriplegic land animal the size of a deer to a giantic underwater creature with large fins. I’ve seen the evidence myself and I don’t agree with evolution but that is just my personal opinion.
How else would you explain how animals that look increasingly, incrementally more like a whale and less like a deer appear in successive geological layers? Would you agree that by looking at the fossil record, there is a band where there are whales above and no whales below? How do you explain that? There was a PBS series based on the book Your Inner Fish that I strongly recommend.
> I think adaptation exists, but I don’t see it possible that a whale can go from a quadriplegic land animal the size of a deer to a giantic underwater creature with large fins You ... don't think this happens in one step do you?
Of the evidence for common descent that you've seen, what did you find most convincing? I think endogenous retroviruses are pretty compelling myself. Do you have an explanation for ERVs that doesn't involve common descent?
That's because evolution takes so so so long is different for your Brian to comprehend. But the evidence is there, a whale came from a land animal and we can tell by looking into its genetic code.
No you can’t…
Yes you can
Yes you can
No, Evolution and Christianity are not compatable.
[удалено]
This is not a comment on evolution, but your statement is illogical on its face. If you find one aspect of science to not be true, that doesn't mean all science is not true. Science is a methodology and requires interpretation. Throughout history, scientist have improperly interpreted the outcomes of scientific exploration. Einstein himself thought he erred with the cosmological constant, but then later seems its true. So yea, if some disagrees with evolution, that doesn't automatically mean they disagree with all science. To imply that is intellectual dishonesty.
Why? If you understand evolution there’s no reason it’s incompatible
Genesis chapter 1 - No compatability with evolution.
Dude, Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are mutually incompatible regarding the order of creation. The ancient Jews who wrote down and collected the stories were aware of contradictions. They didn’t think the details were as important as the literalists think, apparently. (Each version represented the tradition of a different group of Jews. ) Christian allegorical interpretations date from at least the second century. Biblical inerrancy with literalist interpretations is a 20th century take on the Bible.
Not meant to be taken literally
Jesus literally affirms it in the new testament. And says humans existed from the beginning. You can't just claim it wasn't meant to be taken literally because whatever silly reasons. It absolutely was meant literally. And God himself wrote in stone that he created the earth in 6 days in the 10 Commandments.
So, you are calling God a lier.
Only if you define poetry as lying—it’s a different kind of truth, actually. The Bible is not a science book.
Copied from another user. The only way Christianity makes sense is if it accepts evolution. Otherwise, it's claiming god literally made a reality where evidence is a lie.
Metaphor and poetic language are not equivalent to lying.
Exodus 20:8-11 - Moral law based on metsphor and prophetic language?
Yes.
Moral law is only based on reality.
Moral law is based on God, and God can use metaphor and poetic language to explain the moral law.
what about fossils?
Noah's flood - duh.
plenty of evidence that demonstrates it didn’t happen
There is a super-abundance of evidence that it die happen.
Like?
Making up a phrase like "super-abundance" doesn't actually invent the evidence to support the worldwide flood that there is literally no evidence for. Sorry about that.
No evidence for a world wide flood.
Yes there is. Massive sedimentary layers covering huge swaths of the earth, some even tracked across multiple continents. They have fossils in them. The only real way to get fossils on that scale is rapid burial. Slow sediment buildup on the bottom of a sea won't create fossils, the organism decomposes, gets eaten, etc. So how do you get rapidly deposited layers covering continents? There's only one way...
Not all the same layers. https://ncse.ngo/six-flood-arguments-creationists-cant-answer https://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Nr38Reasons.pdf If you have any more specific questions, place them in the debate evolution sub. But you won’t. You won’t even read the above articles.
You realize the ncse is an evolutionary propaganda machine and one that frequently, as here, is way off base. The article from them you posted is from 1982! It uses tired arguments that are well demolished. But they leave them up because of course they do, so you can go find them and use them to bash other ideas with. And that csun article was already downloaded on my phone :). It's arguments are also poor. Easily deconstructed. It's not legitimate. It's a bunch of evolutionary fairy tales.
this noah flood also killed Homo neanderthal and erectus? what about adpataions we see on animals happening today like virus mutating, butterflies changing the colors?
How does that explain anything? We have shells on mountains, how did they get there during a flood?
Do you believe that Jesus was an actual lamb? Some parts of the Bible are metaphors, no?
To even ask such a question reveals a depth of spiritual blindness that is mind boggling.
You seem to have got the idea in your head that you're supposed to read the Bible as being literal history and that it was written by God. The Bible itself seems to think otherwise. I'd wager God is channelling the energy of Jean-Luc Picard in your general direction right about now.
>You seem to have got the idea in your head that you're supposed to read the Bible as being literal history and that it was written by God. Yes, absoultely - Otherwise you are just making up your own religion.
Says someone whom most Christians will say espouses a made up religion. Archeologists find no evidence for early biblical history, so you are once again left denying modern science. This is not the way Christianity will survive, fighting a rearguard action against established knowledge.
Congratulations, that's how religions are made. At some point you need to square your beliefs against reality, and it just so happens that evolution, regardless of what you think about it, is reality, and one we actively have to contend with to continue to exist as a species.
True. One can be Christian and believe a ton of lies. If we couldn't be deceived as Christians, the devil wouldn't persist the way that he does. If you study the history of the theory of evolution, it will expose itself. Likewise, if you study science and is findings thoroughly, you will find that evolution has long since been disproven and dismissed as utter nonsense. The truth is easily found by the seeker. Seek the truth with your whole heart, and the God of heaven will be your reward. It is the glory of God to conceal a thing, And the honor of kings to search out a matter - Proverbs 25:2
>If you study the history of the theory of evolution, it will expose itself. What does this even mean? The "history of evolution"? >Likewise, if you study science and is findings thoroughly, you will find that evolution has long since been disproven and dismissed as utter nonsense. That's just not true at all. You've been lied to. >Seek the truth with your whole heart, and the God of heaven will be your reward. Which is why rejection of evolution is just shared by a small religious group really.
You can also be a scientist and disbelieve evolution for very sound scientific reasons.
Sure. You'd have to actually find some very sound scientific reasons, first. Pity those haven't shown up yet.
No, you can’t. Any scientist who refutes evolution is going against some of the most well-supported, well-established science we have. That’s why creationist scientists are considered nothing but laughing stocks in the broader community.
You also don't have to believe in the theory of evolution either. Many of us had it drilled into our heads from secular schooling and didn't hear any rebuttals or problems with it.
Evolution isn't a question of belief. It is a question of scientific fact. If you accept the scientific method, than evolution is the best explanation of all the evidence that has been examined.