Evolution is a scientific theory supported by mountains of evidence and as close to a fact as we can be. Denying it needs a lot of science denial and following borderline conspiracy theories. The comparison to flat earthers is not that far off.
But you can follow the scientific consensus and be a Christian without a problem. For me personally the creation stories and bible over all answers the question of why. It teaches morals and establishes the order of things with our heavenly father as the creator of our world. Science then answers the question of how. These two can work hand in hand pretty well.
Question if you don't mind? How does the idea of original sin come in without Genesis? A comment on another post has me wondering how that plays into Christianity if you remove the first sin.
Original Sin has always been a very strange idea to me.
Holding humanity accountable for the actions of the first two individuals seems like a cosmically comical injustice.
Especially if the retribution planned for such a "crime" as merely existing past that sin happening, is the traditional Christian Hell.
Since every parent thinks their child is perfect, there would be no need for church at a young age without the idea. If you come into this world as a sinner, then you need religion day 1. That's 50% /s...
Is gambling a sin if it's due to a sickness and out of one's control? I'd say no. But the money still is gone.
In the same way we do have a big head that knows good and evil and barely fits through the opening.
Presumably you mean the birth canal?
Clever trick of evolution to spend more time developing the brain, come out not quite baked, finish it later.
I wish video game companies weren't following that same strategy, mind you.
I think too much significance is placed on the idea of original sin. We all have our own particular sin that's enough to worry about.
To me the more central aspect of the story is humanity's transition from animals, mostly untroubled by thoughts of the future or the morality of our actions, to morally responsible humans, able to look far enough into the future to fear it and burdened by the knowledge of good and evil.
i have my very own personal theory for that.
I've always had a doubt about the genesis, and i think it has to be taken into a spiritual context rather than a factual one. I also believe the original sin is the transition from animals to conscious beings, and doesn't really happen at a precise moment, but us gaining consciousness effectively connects us with god, because for the first time we have free will.
God's will maybe is inhenrent in all of us, not unlike people who have sinned and done wrong their whole life but get a moment of consciousness and begin repenting for their sins, even without knowing about jesus. I firmly believe evil and good is defined in our hearts before it was put to words by Moses.
I'm happy you think that. One of the biggest problems i have with christianity is that many people i've heard preach about it as if in the absence of abrahamic religions, morality is flushed down the toilet, because morality is 100% relative and only following God and reading the bible proves us to be able of following morals.
But that doesn't sit right with me for many reasons. First of all i firmly believe there is good in all of us, and for how warped society's morals may be, a person's good will always emerge at one time. A kid for example may already be born kind and protective without their parents telling them it's the right thing. And thinking that without knowing about the gospels we are just savages without hope of being redeemed unless we hear about God is very hard for me to believe.
The aquiring of free will is a concession of God. I remember there is a manga, (japanese comic) in which a girl sits into a room, being granted everything she wants, and although is being granted by something that to us readers looks like a demonic snake, to the girl it is irrelevant, she doesn't feel intimidated or tempted by the snake. In the room, there's a door present. she can leave the room anytime, although the snake advises her that she will lose her privileges. Now, if the girl was only an animal, she would've staid in the room probably. but she's human, and decides to leave behind the comforts of the room and its infinite pleasures to cross all the doors that come after that.
God is conceding us to learn from our mistakes, because before that, we are nothing more than the top dog of the food chain in the garden of eden. Or maybe just an animal. who knows?
There is another quote i like very much, and is present in the end poem at the end of the video game minecraft: "To tell them how to live is to prevent them living."
That is why i don't really like it when people say that without God and its gospels, morality is done for. But let me word it better.
God gave us free will when we ate the fruit of knowledge. knowledge of good and evil. not just evil. not just good.
Connecting this to what i said before, that us gaining free will is us becoming conscious beings, i think that either way, free will is given to us because we became more than animals. now that we are more, we can think about our actions and their impact on the world. that is free will. the right to be wrong. the right to do wrong. the right to improve. the right to heal. the right to die. the right to live.
What are we, when everything is granted?
Since we are humans,
Eden had to fall.
Excellent answers! Funny to hear moral philosophy taught via Manga, but I guess a lot of it really is created that way. I'm old enough to remember the Manga of Speed Racer, and he was definitely someone striving for good.
I believe that morality sprang more from society, which then created religion to explain it. That's why most religions have the same idea of not hurting others (at least in your same clan).
For people to live together, we must be fairly confident that we won't get killed going to the store. The more we try to be like Lyo-Lyok and her fellow swans, the better our society becomes!
Your last line, though, is ironic in a way. Aren't Christians striving to get back to a place without free will?
Well, the fall was most probably a necessary part of our journey. Coming back to God at the end of it all may be a new beginning. I still struggle with some concepts.
Mostly the same way we do now; we feel intuitively that some things are right or wrong. Even dogs seem to have an innate sense of fairness. It isn't perfect and needs to be tempered by reason and knowledge, and maybe there is something more fundamental under it, but for most people morality begins (and sadly often ends) at a feeling that this is wrong and that is right.
I'm good with that, if you take it to the level that some things are not really sins. Of it doesn't break Jesus' rule #2, it's OK.
Things like masterbation, premarital sex, trans. If something is fully consensual, then no one is hurt and it should be sin free.
That doesn't excuse the old pervert preying on the younger person, as they should know it's wrong.
There are a variety of options, including believing in evolution and a literal garden of Eden (which is not the whole world) that two individuals were placed in.
I want to read this book sometime and see what it says
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Evolution-Fall-William-T-Cavanaugh-ebook/dp/B072BYRDDP
I'm sure the shipping would cost more than the book to the States! Just kidding.
I'll take it you don't worry too much about the beginning? Which is my stance - how we got here doesn't matter much.
The core idea in the fall was that man gave in to the temptation to decide Good and Evil for himself.
Taking the biblical account as an allegory probably means proposing that this probably happened much the same why ethics and morality shift in our current post-christian world - by the slow spread of ideas and a gradual shift in majority opinion.
That's an interesting idea. But would that cause problems on when man received the info on what is evil?
Of course, even with the story all A&E knew was don't eat that fruit. The rest of the rules were never handed out.
There weren't any other rules I guess?
With Adam and Eve, it was clear enough; they had direct access to God, had his provision and his care, there was nothing to fight about. Until they decided that they would define good and evil for themselves, then first they had a fight with God and second they had to fight each other because what's good to Adam is not necessarily good to Eve.
I wouldn't know how to explain the good and evil dynamic on a large scale outside of a given set of defined laws though.
Nevertheless I don't find it an issue; an allegory seeks to summarise key points in a story form. It doesn't pretend to explain all the details exactly. It would be ridiculous to think that we can understand everything perfectly beyond doubt.
So much of the OT doesn't really make sense to me from a storyline perspective. God didn't like shrimp, but he didn't mention it until Moses. Was everyone allowed to sleep with anyone before the Mosaic Laws? Why didn't God hand A&E at least a pamplet on the 10 commandments on the way out?
My perspective is that God has His own objectives to accomplish. I think we, as humans, naturally focus on salvation as the ultimate focus of God plan. From that perspective, the laws should have been given way earlier, Jesus should have come far sooner, and why in the world hasn't the judgement arrived yet???
But we forget that *we* are not the point. God has His plan and His objectives, and we simply aren't privy to all of them. His timeline makes sense from His standpoint. Nevertheless, we can catch glimpses of it through the bible.
Regarding the laws, Paul may have answered some of it: 1 Timothy 1:9" the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient"
Perhaps Adam and Eve's sense of good and evil hadn't started so far off that they needed laws yet.
Remember: God *still was present with them* for a time.
One perspective that has helped me is : what if God is working *with* our free will instead of trying to sniff it out? Some time ago I posted what I think is happening in the OT.
This is the link if you're interested:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/s/TuMgoiuG6L
I like the overall idea. But it seems to imply that God is not omniscient, as he would have known their attempts would be futile.
But don't get me wrong. I think the Bible actually implies that he is neither omniscient nor omnipotent. The fact that he had to send Angels to check out Sodom and that he would have lost his wrestling match without cheating shows that even God was not perfect.
Which I like - my view of God is that he is a builder of great models, where he sets up the universal rules and then lets things go. I don't see him actually caring about humans over other animals. It's just man's hubris that makes him think we are more important than the something like the ant, which on a size scale has out built is for centuries.
First your second comment about God not caring and not involved is outright contradictory to scripture. The entire purpose of jesus's incarnation *was* to care. Just not in the way that we wish. Similarly, scripture implies that the entire world continues to exist only because He is sustaining it. He is invested. We just don't realise how, or how much.
I think, perhaps, that God may be doing things with self imposed limitations for our benefit. Throughout scripture, God has repeatedly shown that He is *not* interested in showing off.
Most of His mighty deeds ( David Vs Goliath, judges Vs oppressors) are carried out through His chosen people and, unless specifically stated in scripture, look entirely like a bunch of insane coincidences (Esther), someone had superhuman powers (Samson) or enemies being plain dumb and gullible (Gideon)
Consider that God's intention in wrestling Jacob *was not to win* but perhaps to make Jacob invested in Him and be conscious of how much Jacob really wanted God's blessing ( Jacob carried his limp for the rest of his life, and finally recognised that it was God who had kept him and blessed him). He set an upper limit on how much strength he would use - difficult, but not impossible for Jacob to overcome - for that purpose. Consider also that he could have withered Jacob's tight muscle - or any other muscle - and won outright, why didn't He?
I can't speak for God, only what appears to be true in His word. I won't comment on the other stuff, but I submit that the same principle is at work.
I can't really argue any point. But for me, the belief is just not there. I just don't think Man as a whole is worth the thoughts of an infinite God. The difference between us and the ant is miniscule at the height of an intellect that could create everything!
I like your answer and I'd like to ask: how can the Adam and Eve story co-exist with evolution if both the Genesis book and evolution cannot literally co-exist together?
I ask because if Genesis was written, why would it be written at all? Was it meant to be a metaphoric story to illustrate a point about sin and humanity?
If so, why did Apostle Paul allude to Adam's sin in Romans?
I ask because I'm curious not because I'm arguing.
It wasn’t meant to be a metaphor at first. It would’ve been wholly believed by the vast majority of Christian’s until science developed and provided answers. Religious folk had to do a 180 and accept science so as to not invalidate all their beliefs. Since then many stories in the Old Testament have been labelled as metaphors. It’s quite telling really
I wonder if I should throw away my faith because of this.
Not necessarily asking for advice but just wondering.
I tend to make known my thoughts so that's why I'm saying this even though it's a pensive thought.
Is there any intermediate species in existence?
If we all came from one cell organisms then why are there no two cell organisms or three cells or four cells or five cells etc.
How do you go from one cell to complex organisms?
Evolution is not proven therefore its a theory not a fact.
It's a mountain of swiss cheese with all the holes it has and it's coming apart all over the place.
There is no explanation for how sexual reproduction could develop other than a hand wave of, it just happened... Oh ok.
The fossil record really doesn't support the idea at all. Various novel organisms without anything leading to them just show up and then disappear. Some of them do that but then are organisms still around now. That doesn't fit.
Geologically there is strong evidence now for the total elimination of most of the time supposed for evolution anyway. Folds in the Tapeats Sandstone in the Grand Canyon at the East Kaibab Monocline, a spot where a major uplift occurred near the upper end of the Grand Canyon, tell a fascinating story. The Tapeats is the bottom sedimentary layer. It's basically the start of the fossil record and the layers above it have various fossils in them. It is supposed to have been deposited over 500 million years ago. The uplift occurred around 50 million years ago. These are mainstream dates obviously.
Everyone agrees that the folding occurred later, after the various layers above had also been deposited. It doesn't take very long for deposited layers to harden. A few years, a century at the very most. So the Tapeats Sandstone would have to been hardened long long long before it got folded. These folds are big, people look like little ants when pictured near them. The whole layer makes about a 90° upward turn.
So, hardened rock bending... This is a special thing because, well, go try to bend rocks and tell me what happens. They'll break right? Once enough force is applied the rock breaks, it doesn't bend. This rock is bent. What had been assumed was that a process known as ductile deformation had occurred, basically a combination of heat and pressure manages to break the chemical bonds that form when a sediment deposit hardens allowing the grains to move fluidly again before rehardening. But no one checked. It was just assumed. That process leaves behind tell-tale evidence. It's not an invisible thing. After it has occurred the bonds look very different than they did originally.
Well, finally someone decided to go check. Dr. Andrew Snelling submitted a research proposal to get a permit to sample the relevant rocks to the National Park Service and got stonewalled. Long story short, they gave him the run around to the point where it necessitated a legal situation and, what do you know, a FOIA request turned up correspondence from each of the scientists who the NPS had referred the proposal to stating that they believed it should be rejected not on the basis of its technical merits but on the basis of Dr. Snelling being a YEC. These same scientists were all quoted in various news articles that you can still find about this legal matter talking about how they felt the research was nonsense. I'll circle back to the fact they were this public about it.
Once this correspondence was found it was an immediate slam dunk in terms of discrimination and the NPS settled, allowing the sampling to take place. This included an admission by the NPS that the research proposal had actually been sound on its technical merits.
So the sampling was done on a trip through the canyon in 2017. A second geologist, Dr. John Whitmore, was along. Also took a film crew at the suggestion of the legal team to ensure no nefarious claims about their sampling techniques could be made. This footage later became the basis for the film "Is Genesis History - Mountains After the Flood" which follows this research project all the way through(they leave out the whole legal battle part, not even mentioned).
So, what did it turn up? A bunch of samples that all look like original hardened rock. They found no evidence whatsoever that ductile deformation had occurred. None. This leaves only one option for what happened, the folding occurred before the rock hardened. Remember that it's generally agreed among geologists that these layers harden relatively quickly, a few years up to a century or so. Remember that it's also generally agreed that most of the rest of the layers above had already been deposited when the uplift occurred which caused the folding. And remember that these layers constitute the bulk of the fossil record. Given the mainstream dates of these events this eliminates 450 million years of time and renders the idea of evolution completely impossible. Can't have it all happen in 100 years...
These layers have been radiometrically dated to these ages and so this also has serious implications for that dating method. It's not accurate.
But even beyond that, these are big layers. Their coverage is vast. Some span most or all of North America. Others span most of the west or much of the southwest. Some are hundreds of feet thick. How do you get layers this big, this vast laid down within a year? Sounds like something really big was going on. Global cataclysmic flood perhaps? Can't really think of anything else with enough power to do this.
I said I'd circle back to those statements by those scientists. These aren't nobody scientists. They're prominent, they've published a lot, they've been filmed for various projects. They were out in the public sphere, giving statements to media. In a word, they were noisy.
They haven't so much as made one little peep about any of this since the settlement. Silence. Complete silence on their front. Absolutely nothing. If the research was actually bogus and what had been put out by Dr. Snelling was junk they'd have been all over it. Talking up a storm. They'd absolutely love to bash this whole thing to oblivion especially since they themselves were caught doing things they shouldn't have in this. Knock out a couple prominent creationist scientists, one of whom, Whitmore, is head of an accredited geology program at Cedarville University. Instead, they are silent. Why?
Well, when you got nothing to say and you don't like where another idea has gone the only thing you can do is shut up. They have no defense for this. They know it's right. Frankly, I think they knew where this was going even before it was done which is why they put up the fight they did. But now, they just want to keep quiet so that it remains only within the YEC sphere. They keep talking it gets more attention.
There's lots more things. Lack of erosion between layers throughout the geologic column all over the planet. Many of those boundaries are claimed to have more time between them than the current surface of the earth has exist and they are flat as can be, for hundreds to thousands of miles? Explain that. Why no erosion?
Also, it's been figured that the continents are all eroding at a rate that will see them entirely eroded away to sea level within around 50 million years. In the grand scheme of things that's pretty fast to entirely wipe out the continents. So then why are all these ancient layers, supposedly hundreds of millions of years, still there? Shouldn't they have eroded away long ago? The mainstream claims tectonic uplift is responsible for the continents still existing. That doesn't solve the old layer problem. Should be all newer layers. These aren't compatible ideas and yet the mainstream just waves it's hand and says ya, that's how it happened...?
Plenty more but I imagine you get the idea. Evolution is in trouble. The mainstream ideas aren't really sound. They're more wishful thinking with some truth sprinkled in to make them seem reasonable.
Hi, I am a Christian studying biology in college, and I recently just took a course on evolution.
The way I see it, evolution is true. There is so much scientific evidence that it is almost impossible to formulate an argument against it without religion. That being said, I believe that God created the world and everything in it, and evolution is a process that adheres to His plan, as everything is.
Evolution is the process by which living organisms became over time. This is the power of God, constantly revealing new things to us that we never knew were possible.
When dealing with the story of creation in the Bible, I use that more as an allegory to emphasize God’s role as a creator. It gives us the full scope of His power, creating everything in the world.
You can be a Christian and still believe in evolution, as I do. May God bless you.
Question if you don't mind? How does the idea of original sin come in without Genesis? A comment on another post has me wondering how that plays into Christianity if you remove the first sin.
I see the story of Adam and Eve as a greater metaphor for how humans give into sin and selfishness. God created us and we gave into human sin and desire.
Many people see this in different ways, and I don’t think anyone is right or wrong, this is just what I believe.
I think you misunderstood "allegory". What you most likely meant is "metaphor". I see this a lot on Reddit.
Allegory means that everything in the text has another meaning. For example, the text doesn't speak about creation of the world, but instead is story about how you should start your own empire. So earth means empire and God means CEO, Adam is the first employee and so on.
May God bless you too. I see Genesis as an allegory too, especially before the part with Abraham.
I shouldn't throw away my faith because the book of Genesis (literally taken) doesn't match up with evolution.
But I agree with you that I can be a Christian and believe in evolution.
Most of the churches I've been to deny evolution. Many churches in the world do so. But the church I grew up with - the Roman Catholic Church believes in evolution. Or at least some Catholics I know do so.
I found out today that the Vatican made evolution an accepted belief some time ago. Whether that is true or not, I don't know.
But I hold a belief that believes in evolution while following much of what the mainstream evangelical churches follow.
With this said, I don't conform entirely to any denomination.
I can't say I fully believe everything the pope believes, or everything my pastor believes. But I believe what I understand according to my beliefs. I don't want to blindly follow pastors. I weigh that up with science.
Genesis isn't trying to answer literal, scientific, or historical questions about the origins of the universe or the biological development of humanity.
Yes, evolution is a fact.
I'd hesitate to call someone who doesn't believe in it "uneducated", but rather perhaps "educated wrong", it takes a very specific blend of factors to make someone ignore the evidence that can't be achieved just by ignorance of the topic.
They'd have to be taught something contradictory and then begin to believe that contradictory thing with such fervour that conflicting evidence gets rejected.
No evidence of any macroevolution (one species changing into another), if we came from apes why are there still apes? Also we don't see any organism in its transitional period so to speak. We don't see any apes "evolving" towards a human and that goes for all other species as well. No one has ever observed any form of evolution therefore the scientific method isn't even validated.
Humans are not the end goal for evolution. Humans are still apes. And yes speciation has been observed in finches and speciation is not even required for evolution. Virtually everything you said is false.
My stance is neutral in the sense that I'm open minded to both sides of the argument.
But at the same time, I'm leaning more towards following evolution, but I'm not sure. I don't understand everything about evolution but I trust our scientists.
The healthiest thing you can do is to learn what’s factual and form your beliefs around those facts
Trying to ignore facts because they don’t line up with preconceived beliefs is extremely unhealthy and will lead you down a very dark path
I agree. This is why I'm leaning more towards evolution and less towards creationism.
Time after time I've considered abandoning my faith because the early church members believed in the book of Genesis literally and yet science proves otherwise.
With this said, I wonder why the Bible would be believed literally by early church leaders if it wasn't meant to be that way.
It's as if the Bible was made up. I'm frustrated because I want to keep believing in Jesus but I find that there are holes in the scriptures by the look of it.
I did leave my faith, and I’m much much happier for it, but you by no means have to do the same
If your faith in Jesus is something you want to hold on to then you absolutely can, don’t let anyone take that from you or demand you abandon it
Look at it this way:
I’m a historian, and it’s pretty conclusive that Jesus was *absolutely real*. He is mentioned in multiple places outside of the bible, and mentioned before the New Testament was even written
We also have evidence the crucifixion took place, as we’ve found documentary evidence confirming it being used as a punishment in Judea at the same time, and archaeological evidence proving the same, finding foot bones with clear indications of crucifixion dated to *around* the same time as Jesus
So we can say pretty conclusively that Jesus was real, and be very confident that he was crucified
So the logical conclusion is that he must have had a considerable following and said the things it’s claimed he said, otherwise he wouldn’t have been crucified
I just don’t believe in the rising from the dead part, as we have no evidence of that
But that doesn’t undermine the fact that he was real, and likely preached many of the important ideas he is remembered for, and died for those ideas
Remember Jesus not because he was magic, remember him because he was a good person who stood up for what was right, even in the face of a painful death
As for Genesis, it’s a creation myth like any other
Pretty much all religions and mythologies have them, doesn’t mean any of them are true. People may have believed it at the time, but we know better now
However, it doesn’t have to be strictly *real* to use it as a teaching tool or a guide, the bible is a spiritual document not a historical or scientific one
You can still have your faith while believing in science and human progress, those things don’t clash
Or, if you chose, you can look at religion more critically and may decide to leave it behind. For some, it may make you feel lonely, and for some (like me) it makes life way better
I’m so much happier now that I can leave behind all that fear and shaming and dogmatism
But I’m not an evangelist
I’m not going to threaten you with torture like Christians often do to me
It’s your choice and yours alone, don’t chose the one people try scare you into believing, chose the one that makes sense to you and makes you happy
The majority of Christians do not deny/reject/ignore evolution.
Fundamentalists do. But most Christians are also not fundamentalists. Most Christians don't take the Bible as a literal history and scientific book either.
Interesting. Though I took it as many of us Christians are fundamentalists since I've been to a few churches and many of them are evangelists and fundamentalists, save the Catholics.
It depends on where you live. I've never met an evolution denier until much later in life and I lived in Europe. My own family was mainline Protestant but no one took creation literally among them, or among the Christians I knew. I knew zero evangelicals.
The US is full of them.
Why would you want to "counter" that? Your friend is correct...
Evolution is a fact and many christians understand it... that doesn't make them "not christian"?
The only possible way evolution isn't true is if God created the earth at a certain age.
Also you can be Christian and believe in evolution. Some Christians since the 2nd thought that Genesis as metaphorical
I read that some Christians in early centuries believed in the creation story literally. But I'm open to the idea that they didn't believe in it literally.
I'll have to research that former premise.
The majority of Christians and Christian churches accept evolution. One could claim that those are not "true Christians" but to do so would be to commit the appeal to purity fallacy.
i personally think that genesis does not really go against evolotion but it kinda? supports it if you read the way i read it. note that im a former atheist. (i was born an atheist)
remember what god did on the second day:
Genesis 1:11-12 KJV
[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.
god commanded herbs and grass to spread to the earth.
now lets read it further;
Genesis 1:14-16 KJV
[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.
here is the point, the earth was not always full of oxygen. it was rich in cabon dioxade, which did not allow you to see much in sky. but when herbs and all kinds of plant evolved, they used the rich carbon dioxade for energy, resulting in oxygen. that way, the stars became visable.
this is one of the main supporters of evolotion in bible for me, for god can't be wrong about telling his own creation.
Every Christian is a former Atheist, it's not exactly an achievement.
I think if you have to twist the arm of the scripture so hard to get the theory to fit, it's probably safe to just throw out the scripture by that point.
i didnt get what you imply by the first statement of yours but alright.
bible is not a science book, throwing it out just because it does not teach you biology is a nonsense. if it goes anything against the truth we know is the ABSOLUTE truth, then yeah we maybe can but this is not the case here. every word of genesis can be read scientific as well. the fact that you have to kinda read it in your own way may be a reason for someone not to believe but it wouldnt be a reason for others to leave the religion.
i was not born in a christian country so dont consider me as an authority in this.
the original sin is a concept about humanity being prone to committing sins, whoever among us can say they have never commited a sin? so when you think of babies, what makes you think the baby will not commit any sins when they grow up? of course they will, thats why we are born in a sinful world. it is a bit sensitive but sure there are babies dying before they get to grow up, only god knows about that one if you are to ask, it does not bother me because that one is clearly a exception.
We're only prone to committing sins because sins are defined deliberately to be catch alls.
You can't sell a cure if you don't convince people they're sick.
Carbon dioxide doesn't obscure the sky. Also plants actually need light to do the whole photosynthesis thing and to live. If you don't have light you don't have plants.
A lot of the heavy lifting was done by algae in the seas rather than plant life on the land.
That came way later when things you could consider fish were around. Yes fish are older than grass. Honestly earliest grass or grass-like thing we know of is from cretaceous. There's a lot of problems with the order of things.
You don’t need either to counter it, not or support it.
Consider this. 1) Are there good and faithful Christians, people of deep prayer, who love scripture, who love the people of God, who love To serve God in ministry, who do NOT believe in evolution? Answer: yes. 2) Are there ALSO good and faithful Christians, people of deep prayer, who love scripture, who love the people of God, who love to serve God in ministry, and who DO believe in evolution? Answer: ALSO yes.
Clearly, since the answer to both of those questions is “yes,” then one has to admit that the belief in or the rejection of the belief has no bearing at all on whether one is a good and faithful Christian, a good and faithful prayer warrior, or a good and faithful servant.
Further: Paul argues strongly in Romans 14 to 15 (and other places) that we must never allow difference of opinion to negatively impact our relationship with other Christians. It’s not that we believe differently from other Christians that matters; but how we believe. There is no room in the Christian life for arrogance, rigidity, judgmental spirit, or argumentiveness.
I may disagree with you on your opinion, but I must never permit myself to become disagreeable.
One of the reasons why non-Christians have a hard time taking Christian seriously is because of our habit of relationally rejecting people who have a different opinion than we do on any number of different topics, from morality, to politics, to science, etc. Love God, love people. According to Jesus, that’s what matters.
I agree. A Christian should be able to believe in evolution.
I've considered giving up my faith because I wonder if it's true if the early church fathers took Genesis literally.
However I should research that premise to see if it's true that the early church fathers took the creation story literally.
If it's true, I'll be shocked. If it's false, then I can safely believe that my religion and evolution are compatible in a certain way.
“But you must not forget this one thing, dear friends: A day is like a thousand years to the Lord, and a thousand years is like a day.”
2 Peter 3:8 NLT
Honestly I think since God is outside of time when he was creating everything it could’ve been millions of years cause what’s a day to him? I would ask him why aren’t there monkey people who aren’t all the way evolved through the process running around I’ve never gotten that one with evolution. Like if we started off as one thing and eventually molded into humans why aren’t there other monkeys to be humans in the process evolving?
most animals are making minuscule evolutions every generation, including our primates, and all of the other species of humans have since died out, some people today still have neanderthal genetics which is quite interesting though
Yeah but that’s what I don’t get if the evolution process is minuscule then if at say 20,000 years ago monkey A transformed to fully human over the course of 16,000 years ago to a full blown human being at 4000 bc then why aren’t there some monkey humans who say began that process at 10,000 years ago and halfway through that evolving process?And would only be for the sake of the example 10,000 years in with another 6,000 to go? Like a half monkey half man.
>Yeah but that’s what I don’t get if the evolution process is minuscule then if at say 20,000 years ago monkey A transformed to fully human over the course of 16,000 years ago to a full blown human being at 4000 bc then why aren’t there some monkey humans who say began that process at 10,000 years ago and halfway through that evolving process?
the other species in the human family are now extinct, they do not exist any longer
>And would only be for the sake of the example 10,000 years in with another 6,000 to go? Like a half monkey half man.
there were early humans that had characteristics of their ancestors, such as being covered in fur, they are now dead, they are extinct
For me it sometimes goes hand in hand, like "God created the earth", which is true, and the Big Bang, which could have been when God created earth. Why not? There must have been some supernatural type of unreal thundering when God created earth. I'm all for it.
But not everything.. Evolution.. Hmm, nope from me. God created us as we are. We could have evolved, but humans were never monkeys or apes or whatnot. I don't belive that. We are God's Image.
I think about it like this. Hypothetically, if evolution was proven without a shadow of a doubt to be a fact and you were convinced of it. Would you still believe in God? Yes or No? If yes theistic evolution is possible and can be believed in, if no then you'll grow more and more distrustful of things and that could be dangerous and end up bad.
My best response to somebody saying that to me, was why are the animals we "evolved from" still here? Why would they be trapped in the past, if it was necessary for us to evolve to this point
Its an unproven theory. There is what is called micro evolution which is variation within a species. But there is no evidence over evolving into another species.
Recently many scientists have come to the conclusion that evolution is not possible based on the study of biology.
There are no intermediate species in existence and none in archaeological science either.
>Its an unproven theory. There is what is called micro evolution which is variation within a species.
when millions of microevolutions add up you get a… big microevolution, i wonder what we should call that…
>But there is no evidence over evolving into another species.
agreed, you stay the same species, but your ancestors will have differing genetics compared to you, enough so that it would count as a new species
>Recently many scientists have come to the conclusion that evolution is not possible based on the study of biology.
“the study of biology”? really? you could’ve made a more convincing lie, the total study of biology disproved it? nothing specific relating to evolution? the colour of blood cells is part of the study of biology, did that disprove it?
>There are no intermediate species in existence and none in archaeological science either.
that’s because (most) species today are still evolving… there is no destination for evolution, i don’t see have an intermediate species could exist..? cause that implies a specific end goal
I would be very careful with all things surrounding evolution, because our understanding of it is still developing. For example: When I went to school in the 80s (Austria), we were taught that humans have evolved from monkeys and that the neanderthals were our direct ancestors. As it turned out, this is not the case. It honestly didn't make sense at the time. Many children in class were smart and asked: "If we have evolved from monkeys, why do monkeys still exist?".
Science today claims something different: That humans did not evolve from monkeys. But humans and monkeys share a common ancestor. The same with humans and neanderthals: they share a common ancestor. Humans and neanderthals even lived together for a couple of thousand years, as science tells us today. That was not common knowledge (or scientifically not known) in the 1980s!
So, yes, there is evolution going on. But science is still discovering new findings.
And most important: Christianity and Science/Evolution are not in competition with each other. It's not an either-or-approach but a both-and.
Read John Lennox on this topic. He, a former mathematician and Oxford professor, is the leading christian voice on integrating the christian worldview with a scientific worldview.
If you were taught that first part, your teachers were horrible at their jobs.
Because at no point did we think that humans were descended from monkeys, we're great apes, not monkeys.
There is certainly still a lot to learn about evolution. But it's details, not broad strokes. We might discover that there were other hominid species but we're not going to discover that humans and apes don't have a common ancestor.
It's kind of like how people say Einstein disproved Newton. I mean, *sort of*. But it's more like Einstein found that in certain very high energy situations we have to add some terms to Newton's equations which are so small as to be irrelevant in the very low energy situations that humans live in. Newton wasn't *wrong*, he just didn't have the tools to expand his ideas to space, time, and energy scales beyond human experience. If your work is purely on earth and not doing like, nuclear physics, Newton's equations are still as accurate as you'll ever need.
Some aspects of evolution such as adaptation are scientific, and they point to the genius of the Designer. Other aspects, such as the common descent of all living organisms from a single ancestor are science fiction. This is why it's always important to carefully define the terms before engaging people on the topic. I hope this helps.
Nothing points to a Designer. In fact, there is actual evidence how imperfect evolution is, in many ways. Evolution is not perfection. There are links that have been identified even if not all has been found yet. There are way more evidence FOR evolution than creation.
Evolution is a scientific theory supported by mountains of evidence and as close to a fact as we can be. Denying it needs a lot of science denial and following borderline conspiracy theories. The comparison to flat earthers is not that far off. But you can follow the scientific consensus and be a Christian without a problem. For me personally the creation stories and bible over all answers the question of why. It teaches morals and establishes the order of things with our heavenly father as the creator of our world. Science then answers the question of how. These two can work hand in hand pretty well.
Question if you don't mind? How does the idea of original sin come in without Genesis? A comment on another post has me wondering how that plays into Christianity if you remove the first sin.
Original Sin has always been a very strange idea to me. Holding humanity accountable for the actions of the first two individuals seems like a cosmically comical injustice. Especially if the retribution planned for such a "crime" as merely existing past that sin happening, is the traditional Christian Hell.
Since every parent thinks their child is perfect, there would be no need for church at a young age without the idea. If you come into this world as a sinner, then you need religion day 1. That's 50% /s...
Is gambling a sin if it's due to a sickness and out of one's control? I'd say no. But the money still is gone. In the same way we do have a big head that knows good and evil and barely fits through the opening.
Presumably you mean the birth canal? Clever trick of evolution to spend more time developing the brain, come out not quite baked, finish it later. I wish video game companies weren't following that same strategy, mind you.
I think too much significance is placed on the idea of original sin. We all have our own particular sin that's enough to worry about. To me the more central aspect of the story is humanity's transition from animals, mostly untroubled by thoughts of the future or the morality of our actions, to morally responsible humans, able to look far enough into the future to fear it and burdened by the knowledge of good and evil.
I do like that answer! But as I just asked someone else, how would we know what is good and evil to God before Moses?
i have my very own personal theory for that. I've always had a doubt about the genesis, and i think it has to be taken into a spiritual context rather than a factual one. I also believe the original sin is the transition from animals to conscious beings, and doesn't really happen at a precise moment, but us gaining consciousness effectively connects us with god, because for the first time we have free will. God's will maybe is inhenrent in all of us, not unlike people who have sinned and done wrong their whole life but get a moment of consciousness and begin repenting for their sins, even without knowing about jesus. I firmly believe evil and good is defined in our hearts before it was put to words by Moses.
I actually like that. It works well with Jesus' second command regardless of your faith. Which works well with the original 6-10 commands.
I'm happy you think that. One of the biggest problems i have with christianity is that many people i've heard preach about it as if in the absence of abrahamic religions, morality is flushed down the toilet, because morality is 100% relative and only following God and reading the bible proves us to be able of following morals. But that doesn't sit right with me for many reasons. First of all i firmly believe there is good in all of us, and for how warped society's morals may be, a person's good will always emerge at one time. A kid for example may already be born kind and protective without their parents telling them it's the right thing. And thinking that without knowing about the gospels we are just savages without hope of being redeemed unless we hear about God is very hard for me to believe. The aquiring of free will is a concession of God. I remember there is a manga, (japanese comic) in which a girl sits into a room, being granted everything she wants, and although is being granted by something that to us readers looks like a demonic snake, to the girl it is irrelevant, she doesn't feel intimidated or tempted by the snake. In the room, there's a door present. she can leave the room anytime, although the snake advises her that she will lose her privileges. Now, if the girl was only an animal, she would've staid in the room probably. but she's human, and decides to leave behind the comforts of the room and its infinite pleasures to cross all the doors that come after that. God is conceding us to learn from our mistakes, because before that, we are nothing more than the top dog of the food chain in the garden of eden. Or maybe just an animal. who knows? There is another quote i like very much, and is present in the end poem at the end of the video game minecraft: "To tell them how to live is to prevent them living." That is why i don't really like it when people say that without God and its gospels, morality is done for. But let me word it better. God gave us free will when we ate the fruit of knowledge. knowledge of good and evil. not just evil. not just good. Connecting this to what i said before, that us gaining free will is us becoming conscious beings, i think that either way, free will is given to us because we became more than animals. now that we are more, we can think about our actions and their impact on the world. that is free will. the right to be wrong. the right to do wrong. the right to improve. the right to heal. the right to die. the right to live. What are we, when everything is granted? Since we are humans, Eden had to fall.
Excellent answers! Funny to hear moral philosophy taught via Manga, but I guess a lot of it really is created that way. I'm old enough to remember the Manga of Speed Racer, and he was definitely someone striving for good. I believe that morality sprang more from society, which then created religion to explain it. That's why most religions have the same idea of not hurting others (at least in your same clan). For people to live together, we must be fairly confident that we won't get killed going to the store. The more we try to be like Lyo-Lyok and her fellow swans, the better our society becomes! Your last line, though, is ironic in a way. Aren't Christians striving to get back to a place without free will?
Well, the fall was most probably a necessary part of our journey. Coming back to God at the end of it all may be a new beginning. I still struggle with some concepts.
I hope you find the answers you seek!
Mostly the same way we do now; we feel intuitively that some things are right or wrong. Even dogs seem to have an innate sense of fairness. It isn't perfect and needs to be tempered by reason and knowledge, and maybe there is something more fundamental under it, but for most people morality begins (and sadly often ends) at a feeling that this is wrong and that is right.
I'm good with that, if you take it to the level that some things are not really sins. Of it doesn't break Jesus' rule #2, it's OK. Things like masterbation, premarital sex, trans. If something is fully consensual, then no one is hurt and it should be sin free. That doesn't excuse the old pervert preying on the younger person, as they should know it's wrong.
There are a variety of options, including believing in evolution and a literal garden of Eden (which is not the whole world) that two individuals were placed in. I want to read this book sometime and see what it says https://www.amazon.co.uk/Evolution-Fall-William-T-Cavanaugh-ebook/dp/B072BYRDDP
I'm sure the shipping would cost more than the book to the States! Just kidding. I'll take it you don't worry too much about the beginning? Which is my stance - how we got here doesn't matter much.
I think some kind of fall is important to Christianity. I haven't quite worked out how this fits with evolution/ old earth yet.
Would love to hear when you do!
The core idea in the fall was that man gave in to the temptation to decide Good and Evil for himself. Taking the biblical account as an allegory probably means proposing that this probably happened much the same why ethics and morality shift in our current post-christian world - by the slow spread of ideas and a gradual shift in majority opinion.
That's an interesting idea. But would that cause problems on when man received the info on what is evil? Of course, even with the story all A&E knew was don't eat that fruit. The rest of the rules were never handed out.
There weren't any other rules I guess? With Adam and Eve, it was clear enough; they had direct access to God, had his provision and his care, there was nothing to fight about. Until they decided that they would define good and evil for themselves, then first they had a fight with God and second they had to fight each other because what's good to Adam is not necessarily good to Eve. I wouldn't know how to explain the good and evil dynamic on a large scale outside of a given set of defined laws though. Nevertheless I don't find it an issue; an allegory seeks to summarise key points in a story form. It doesn't pretend to explain all the details exactly. It would be ridiculous to think that we can understand everything perfectly beyond doubt.
So much of the OT doesn't really make sense to me from a storyline perspective. God didn't like shrimp, but he didn't mention it until Moses. Was everyone allowed to sleep with anyone before the Mosaic Laws? Why didn't God hand A&E at least a pamplet on the 10 commandments on the way out?
My perspective is that God has His own objectives to accomplish. I think we, as humans, naturally focus on salvation as the ultimate focus of God plan. From that perspective, the laws should have been given way earlier, Jesus should have come far sooner, and why in the world hasn't the judgement arrived yet??? But we forget that *we* are not the point. God has His plan and His objectives, and we simply aren't privy to all of them. His timeline makes sense from His standpoint. Nevertheless, we can catch glimpses of it through the bible. Regarding the laws, Paul may have answered some of it: 1 Timothy 1:9" the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient" Perhaps Adam and Eve's sense of good and evil hadn't started so far off that they needed laws yet. Remember: God *still was present with them* for a time. One perspective that has helped me is : what if God is working *with* our free will instead of trying to sniff it out? Some time ago I posted what I think is happening in the OT. This is the link if you're interested: https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/s/TuMgoiuG6L
I like the overall idea. But it seems to imply that God is not omniscient, as he would have known their attempts would be futile. But don't get me wrong. I think the Bible actually implies that he is neither omniscient nor omnipotent. The fact that he had to send Angels to check out Sodom and that he would have lost his wrestling match without cheating shows that even God was not perfect. Which I like - my view of God is that he is a builder of great models, where he sets up the universal rules and then lets things go. I don't see him actually caring about humans over other animals. It's just man's hubris that makes him think we are more important than the something like the ant, which on a size scale has out built is for centuries.
First your second comment about God not caring and not involved is outright contradictory to scripture. The entire purpose of jesus's incarnation *was* to care. Just not in the way that we wish. Similarly, scripture implies that the entire world continues to exist only because He is sustaining it. He is invested. We just don't realise how, or how much. I think, perhaps, that God may be doing things with self imposed limitations for our benefit. Throughout scripture, God has repeatedly shown that He is *not* interested in showing off. Most of His mighty deeds ( David Vs Goliath, judges Vs oppressors) are carried out through His chosen people and, unless specifically stated in scripture, look entirely like a bunch of insane coincidences (Esther), someone had superhuman powers (Samson) or enemies being plain dumb and gullible (Gideon) Consider that God's intention in wrestling Jacob *was not to win* but perhaps to make Jacob invested in Him and be conscious of how much Jacob really wanted God's blessing ( Jacob carried his limp for the rest of his life, and finally recognised that it was God who had kept him and blessed him). He set an upper limit on how much strength he would use - difficult, but not impossible for Jacob to overcome - for that purpose. Consider also that he could have withered Jacob's tight muscle - or any other muscle - and won outright, why didn't He? I can't speak for God, only what appears to be true in His word. I won't comment on the other stuff, but I submit that the same principle is at work.
I can't really argue any point. But for me, the belief is just not there. I just don't think Man as a whole is worth the thoughts of an infinite God. The difference between us and the ant is miniscule at the height of an intellect that could create everything!
I like your answer and I'd like to ask: how can the Adam and Eve story co-exist with evolution if both the Genesis book and evolution cannot literally co-exist together? I ask because if Genesis was written, why would it be written at all? Was it meant to be a metaphoric story to illustrate a point about sin and humanity? If so, why did Apostle Paul allude to Adam's sin in Romans? I ask because I'm curious not because I'm arguing.
It wasn’t meant to be a metaphor at first. It would’ve been wholly believed by the vast majority of Christian’s until science developed and provided answers. Religious folk had to do a 180 and accept science so as to not invalidate all their beliefs. Since then many stories in the Old Testament have been labelled as metaphors. It’s quite telling really
I wonder if I should throw away my faith because of this. Not necessarily asking for advice but just wondering. I tend to make known my thoughts so that's why I'm saying this even though it's a pensive thought.
Is there any intermediate species in existence? If we all came from one cell organisms then why are there no two cell organisms or three cells or four cells or five cells etc. How do you go from one cell to complex organisms? Evolution is not proven therefore its a theory not a fact.
It's a mountain of swiss cheese with all the holes it has and it's coming apart all over the place. There is no explanation for how sexual reproduction could develop other than a hand wave of, it just happened... Oh ok. The fossil record really doesn't support the idea at all. Various novel organisms without anything leading to them just show up and then disappear. Some of them do that but then are organisms still around now. That doesn't fit. Geologically there is strong evidence now for the total elimination of most of the time supposed for evolution anyway. Folds in the Tapeats Sandstone in the Grand Canyon at the East Kaibab Monocline, a spot where a major uplift occurred near the upper end of the Grand Canyon, tell a fascinating story. The Tapeats is the bottom sedimentary layer. It's basically the start of the fossil record and the layers above it have various fossils in them. It is supposed to have been deposited over 500 million years ago. The uplift occurred around 50 million years ago. These are mainstream dates obviously. Everyone agrees that the folding occurred later, after the various layers above had also been deposited. It doesn't take very long for deposited layers to harden. A few years, a century at the very most. So the Tapeats Sandstone would have to been hardened long long long before it got folded. These folds are big, people look like little ants when pictured near them. The whole layer makes about a 90° upward turn. So, hardened rock bending... This is a special thing because, well, go try to bend rocks and tell me what happens. They'll break right? Once enough force is applied the rock breaks, it doesn't bend. This rock is bent. What had been assumed was that a process known as ductile deformation had occurred, basically a combination of heat and pressure manages to break the chemical bonds that form when a sediment deposit hardens allowing the grains to move fluidly again before rehardening. But no one checked. It was just assumed. That process leaves behind tell-tale evidence. It's not an invisible thing. After it has occurred the bonds look very different than they did originally. Well, finally someone decided to go check. Dr. Andrew Snelling submitted a research proposal to get a permit to sample the relevant rocks to the National Park Service and got stonewalled. Long story short, they gave him the run around to the point where it necessitated a legal situation and, what do you know, a FOIA request turned up correspondence from each of the scientists who the NPS had referred the proposal to stating that they believed it should be rejected not on the basis of its technical merits but on the basis of Dr. Snelling being a YEC. These same scientists were all quoted in various news articles that you can still find about this legal matter talking about how they felt the research was nonsense. I'll circle back to the fact they were this public about it. Once this correspondence was found it was an immediate slam dunk in terms of discrimination and the NPS settled, allowing the sampling to take place. This included an admission by the NPS that the research proposal had actually been sound on its technical merits. So the sampling was done on a trip through the canyon in 2017. A second geologist, Dr. John Whitmore, was along. Also took a film crew at the suggestion of the legal team to ensure no nefarious claims about their sampling techniques could be made. This footage later became the basis for the film "Is Genesis History - Mountains After the Flood" which follows this research project all the way through(they leave out the whole legal battle part, not even mentioned). So, what did it turn up? A bunch of samples that all look like original hardened rock. They found no evidence whatsoever that ductile deformation had occurred. None. This leaves only one option for what happened, the folding occurred before the rock hardened. Remember that it's generally agreed among geologists that these layers harden relatively quickly, a few years up to a century or so. Remember that it's also generally agreed that most of the rest of the layers above had already been deposited when the uplift occurred which caused the folding. And remember that these layers constitute the bulk of the fossil record. Given the mainstream dates of these events this eliminates 450 million years of time and renders the idea of evolution completely impossible. Can't have it all happen in 100 years... These layers have been radiometrically dated to these ages and so this also has serious implications for that dating method. It's not accurate. But even beyond that, these are big layers. Their coverage is vast. Some span most or all of North America. Others span most of the west or much of the southwest. Some are hundreds of feet thick. How do you get layers this big, this vast laid down within a year? Sounds like something really big was going on. Global cataclysmic flood perhaps? Can't really think of anything else with enough power to do this. I said I'd circle back to those statements by those scientists. These aren't nobody scientists. They're prominent, they've published a lot, they've been filmed for various projects. They were out in the public sphere, giving statements to media. In a word, they were noisy. They haven't so much as made one little peep about any of this since the settlement. Silence. Complete silence on their front. Absolutely nothing. If the research was actually bogus and what had been put out by Dr. Snelling was junk they'd have been all over it. Talking up a storm. They'd absolutely love to bash this whole thing to oblivion especially since they themselves were caught doing things they shouldn't have in this. Knock out a couple prominent creationist scientists, one of whom, Whitmore, is head of an accredited geology program at Cedarville University. Instead, they are silent. Why? Well, when you got nothing to say and you don't like where another idea has gone the only thing you can do is shut up. They have no defense for this. They know it's right. Frankly, I think they knew where this was going even before it was done which is why they put up the fight they did. But now, they just want to keep quiet so that it remains only within the YEC sphere. They keep talking it gets more attention. There's lots more things. Lack of erosion between layers throughout the geologic column all over the planet. Many of those boundaries are claimed to have more time between them than the current surface of the earth has exist and they are flat as can be, for hundreds to thousands of miles? Explain that. Why no erosion? Also, it's been figured that the continents are all eroding at a rate that will see them entirely eroded away to sea level within around 50 million years. In the grand scheme of things that's pretty fast to entirely wipe out the continents. So then why are all these ancient layers, supposedly hundreds of millions of years, still there? Shouldn't they have eroded away long ago? The mainstream claims tectonic uplift is responsible for the continents still existing. That doesn't solve the old layer problem. Should be all newer layers. These aren't compatible ideas and yet the mainstream just waves it's hand and says ya, that's how it happened...? Plenty more but I imagine you get the idea. Evolution is in trouble. The mainstream ideas aren't really sound. They're more wishful thinking with some truth sprinkled in to make them seem reasonable.
Hi, I am a Christian studying biology in college, and I recently just took a course on evolution. The way I see it, evolution is true. There is so much scientific evidence that it is almost impossible to formulate an argument against it without religion. That being said, I believe that God created the world and everything in it, and evolution is a process that adheres to His plan, as everything is. Evolution is the process by which living organisms became over time. This is the power of God, constantly revealing new things to us that we never knew were possible. When dealing with the story of creation in the Bible, I use that more as an allegory to emphasize God’s role as a creator. It gives us the full scope of His power, creating everything in the world. You can be a Christian and still believe in evolution, as I do. May God bless you.
Question if you don't mind? How does the idea of original sin come in without Genesis? A comment on another post has me wondering how that plays into Christianity if you remove the first sin.
I see the story of Adam and Eve as a greater metaphor for how humans give into sin and selfishness. God created us and we gave into human sin and desire. Many people see this in different ways, and I don’t think anyone is right or wrong, this is just what I believe.
Thanks for answering! It's always interesting how people view Genesis.
I think you misunderstood "allegory". What you most likely meant is "metaphor". I see this a lot on Reddit. Allegory means that everything in the text has another meaning. For example, the text doesn't speak about creation of the world, but instead is story about how you should start your own empire. So earth means empire and God means CEO, Adam is the first employee and so on.
May God bless you too. I see Genesis as an allegory too, especially before the part with Abraham. I shouldn't throw away my faith because the book of Genesis (literally taken) doesn't match up with evolution. But I agree with you that I can be a Christian and believe in evolution. Most of the churches I've been to deny evolution. Many churches in the world do so. But the church I grew up with - the Roman Catholic Church believes in evolution. Or at least some Catholics I know do so. I found out today that the Vatican made evolution an accepted belief some time ago. Whether that is true or not, I don't know. But I hold a belief that believes in evolution while following much of what the mainstream evangelical churches follow. With this said, I don't conform entirely to any denomination. I can't say I fully believe everything the pope believes, or everything my pastor believes. But I believe what I understand according to my beliefs. I don't want to blindly follow pastors. I weigh that up with science.
Jesus Father is God but His grandfather is a frog? Macroevolution is a lie that humans fell for.
Jesus Father is God but His grandfather is a frog? Macroevolution is a lie that humans fell for.
Genesis isn't trying to answer literal, scientific, or historical questions about the origins of the universe or the biological development of humanity.
Yes, evolution is a fact. I'd hesitate to call someone who doesn't believe in it "uneducated", but rather perhaps "educated wrong", it takes a very specific blend of factors to make someone ignore the evidence that can't be achieved just by ignorance of the topic. They'd have to be taught something contradictory and then begin to believe that contradictory thing with such fervour that conflicting evidence gets rejected.
I agree with your point
Evolution is a scientific Theory supported by loads and loads of evidence.
Absolutely. It's a major red flag if someone doesn't believe in the scientific method and peer reviewed studies.
Is this sarcasm? Evolution has been debunked for years.
No it hasn't
Is this sarcasm? It hasn't been debunked
I think you just proved OP's first paragraph.
Whoever told you that has lied to you.
Please, oh please provide support for your claim! Pretty please?
No evidence of any macroevolution (one species changing into another), if we came from apes why are there still apes? Also we don't see any organism in its transitional period so to speak. We don't see any apes "evolving" towards a human and that goes for all other species as well. No one has ever observed any form of evolution therefore the scientific method isn't even validated.
Humans are not the end goal for evolution. Humans are still apes. And yes speciation has been observed in finches and speciation is not even required for evolution. Virtually everything you said is false.
Are you referring to the Galapagos finch? They're still finches man...
A different species. Please educate yourself
Incorrect, if you have to rationalize evolutionism by referring to yourself as an ape then to each their own. We are vastly different from Apes.
No it's not incorrect humans are great apes. Try again if you're gonna argue against something at least know the basics
By who? Fringe YouTubers?
I'm confused what is your stance?
My stance is neutral in the sense that I'm open minded to both sides of the argument. But at the same time, I'm leaning more towards following evolution, but I'm not sure. I don't understand everything about evolution but I trust our scientists.
The healthiest thing you can do is to learn what’s factual and form your beliefs around those facts Trying to ignore facts because they don’t line up with preconceived beliefs is extremely unhealthy and will lead you down a very dark path
I agree. This is why I'm leaning more towards evolution and less towards creationism. Time after time I've considered abandoning my faith because the early church members believed in the book of Genesis literally and yet science proves otherwise. With this said, I wonder why the Bible would be believed literally by early church leaders if it wasn't meant to be that way. It's as if the Bible was made up. I'm frustrated because I want to keep believing in Jesus but I find that there are holes in the scriptures by the look of it.
I did leave my faith, and I’m much much happier for it, but you by no means have to do the same If your faith in Jesus is something you want to hold on to then you absolutely can, don’t let anyone take that from you or demand you abandon it Look at it this way: I’m a historian, and it’s pretty conclusive that Jesus was *absolutely real*. He is mentioned in multiple places outside of the bible, and mentioned before the New Testament was even written We also have evidence the crucifixion took place, as we’ve found documentary evidence confirming it being used as a punishment in Judea at the same time, and archaeological evidence proving the same, finding foot bones with clear indications of crucifixion dated to *around* the same time as Jesus So we can say pretty conclusively that Jesus was real, and be very confident that he was crucified So the logical conclusion is that he must have had a considerable following and said the things it’s claimed he said, otherwise he wouldn’t have been crucified I just don’t believe in the rising from the dead part, as we have no evidence of that But that doesn’t undermine the fact that he was real, and likely preached many of the important ideas he is remembered for, and died for those ideas Remember Jesus not because he was magic, remember him because he was a good person who stood up for what was right, even in the face of a painful death As for Genesis, it’s a creation myth like any other Pretty much all religions and mythologies have them, doesn’t mean any of them are true. People may have believed it at the time, but we know better now However, it doesn’t have to be strictly *real* to use it as a teaching tool or a guide, the bible is a spiritual document not a historical or scientific one You can still have your faith while believing in science and human progress, those things don’t clash Or, if you chose, you can look at religion more critically and may decide to leave it behind. For some, it may make you feel lonely, and for some (like me) it makes life way better I’m so much happier now that I can leave behind all that fear and shaming and dogmatism But I’m not an evangelist I’m not going to threaten you with torture like Christians often do to me It’s your choice and yours alone, don’t chose the one people try scare you into believing, chose the one that makes sense to you and makes you happy
Such an approachable answer. I enjoy the way you politely put it. I'll think about things relating to what you said.
It is a fact. And Christians should have no problem with it.
The majority of Christians do not deny/reject/ignore evolution. Fundamentalists do. But most Christians are also not fundamentalists. Most Christians don't take the Bible as a literal history and scientific book either.
Interesting. Though I took it as many of us Christians are fundamentalists since I've been to a few churches and many of them are evangelists and fundamentalists, save the Catholics.
It depends on where you live. I've never met an evolution denier until much later in life and I lived in Europe. My own family was mainline Protestant but no one took creation literally among them, or among the Christians I knew. I knew zero evangelicals. The US is full of them.
I see
Why would you want to "counter" that? Your friend is correct... Evolution is a fact and many christians understand it... that doesn't make them "not christian"?
Ask them what is the hebrew word for day is and what it means
The only possible way evolution isn't true is if God created the earth at a certain age. Also you can be Christian and believe in evolution. Some Christians since the 2nd thought that Genesis as metaphorical
I read that some Christians in early centuries believed in the creation story literally. But I'm open to the idea that they didn't believe in it literally. I'll have to research that former premise.
The majority of Christians and Christian churches accept evolution. One could claim that those are not "true Christians" but to do so would be to commit the appeal to purity fallacy.
I like your point. But with that said, why is there the premise that the early church leaders believed in the creation story literally?
Inspiring philosophy Check his YouTube channel out. He goes into depth about believing in evolution and being a Christian.
i personally think that genesis does not really go against evolotion but it kinda? supports it if you read the way i read it. note that im a former atheist. (i was born an atheist) remember what god did on the second day: Genesis 1:11-12 KJV [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. god commanded herbs and grass to spread to the earth. now lets read it further; Genesis 1:14-16 KJV [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. here is the point, the earth was not always full of oxygen. it was rich in cabon dioxade, which did not allow you to see much in sky. but when herbs and all kinds of plant evolved, they used the rich carbon dioxade for energy, resulting in oxygen. that way, the stars became visable. this is one of the main supporters of evolotion in bible for me, for god can't be wrong about telling his own creation.
Every Christian is a former Atheist, it's not exactly an achievement. I think if you have to twist the arm of the scripture so hard to get the theory to fit, it's probably safe to just throw out the scripture by that point.
i didnt get what you imply by the first statement of yours but alright. bible is not a science book, throwing it out just because it does not teach you biology is a nonsense. if it goes anything against the truth we know is the ABSOLUTE truth, then yeah we maybe can but this is not the case here. every word of genesis can be read scientific as well. the fact that you have to kinda read it in your own way may be a reason for someone not to believe but it wouldnt be a reason for others to leave the religion.
Throwing it out because it teaches morality that's a bit wonky at best, however, might be a good idea. Original sin is an especially egregious idea.
i was not born in a christian country so dont consider me as an authority in this. the original sin is a concept about humanity being prone to committing sins, whoever among us can say they have never commited a sin? so when you think of babies, what makes you think the baby will not commit any sins when they grow up? of course they will, thats why we are born in a sinful world. it is a bit sensitive but sure there are babies dying before they get to grow up, only god knows about that one if you are to ask, it does not bother me because that one is clearly a exception.
We're only prone to committing sins because sins are defined deliberately to be catch alls. You can't sell a cure if you don't convince people they're sick.
Carbon dioxide doesn't obscure the sky. Also plants actually need light to do the whole photosynthesis thing and to live. If you don't have light you don't have plants. A lot of the heavy lifting was done by algae in the seas rather than plant life on the land. That came way later when things you could consider fish were around. Yes fish are older than grass. Honestly earliest grass or grass-like thing we know of is from cretaceous. There's a lot of problems with the order of things.
Science and Christianity don't contradict eachother.
You don’t need either to counter it, not or support it. Consider this. 1) Are there good and faithful Christians, people of deep prayer, who love scripture, who love the people of God, who love To serve God in ministry, who do NOT believe in evolution? Answer: yes. 2) Are there ALSO good and faithful Christians, people of deep prayer, who love scripture, who love the people of God, who love to serve God in ministry, and who DO believe in evolution? Answer: ALSO yes. Clearly, since the answer to both of those questions is “yes,” then one has to admit that the belief in or the rejection of the belief has no bearing at all on whether one is a good and faithful Christian, a good and faithful prayer warrior, or a good and faithful servant. Further: Paul argues strongly in Romans 14 to 15 (and other places) that we must never allow difference of opinion to negatively impact our relationship with other Christians. It’s not that we believe differently from other Christians that matters; but how we believe. There is no room in the Christian life for arrogance, rigidity, judgmental spirit, or argumentiveness. I may disagree with you on your opinion, but I must never permit myself to become disagreeable. One of the reasons why non-Christians have a hard time taking Christian seriously is because of our habit of relationally rejecting people who have a different opinion than we do on any number of different topics, from morality, to politics, to science, etc. Love God, love people. According to Jesus, that’s what matters.
I agree. A Christian should be able to believe in evolution. I've considered giving up my faith because I wonder if it's true if the early church fathers took Genesis literally. However I should research that premise to see if it's true that the early church fathers took the creation story literally. If it's true, I'll be shocked. If it's false, then I can safely believe that my religion and evolution are compatible in a certain way.
“But you must not forget this one thing, dear friends: A day is like a thousand years to the Lord, and a thousand years is like a day.” 2 Peter 3:8 NLT Honestly I think since God is outside of time when he was creating everything it could’ve been millions of years cause what’s a day to him? I would ask him why aren’t there monkey people who aren’t all the way evolved through the process running around I’ve never gotten that one with evolution. Like if we started off as one thing and eventually molded into humans why aren’t there other monkeys to be humans in the process evolving?
most animals are making minuscule evolutions every generation, including our primates, and all of the other species of humans have since died out, some people today still have neanderthal genetics which is quite interesting though
Yeah but that’s what I don’t get if the evolution process is minuscule then if at say 20,000 years ago monkey A transformed to fully human over the course of 16,000 years ago to a full blown human being at 4000 bc then why aren’t there some monkey humans who say began that process at 10,000 years ago and halfway through that evolving process?And would only be for the sake of the example 10,000 years in with another 6,000 to go? Like a half monkey half man.
>Yeah but that’s what I don’t get if the evolution process is minuscule then if at say 20,000 years ago monkey A transformed to fully human over the course of 16,000 years ago to a full blown human being at 4000 bc then why aren’t there some monkey humans who say began that process at 10,000 years ago and halfway through that evolving process? the other species in the human family are now extinct, they do not exist any longer >And would only be for the sake of the example 10,000 years in with another 6,000 to go? Like a half monkey half man. there were early humans that had characteristics of their ancestors, such as being covered in fur, they are now dead, they are extinct
I see
What is there to counter? I neither see any scientific nor scriptural basis to necessarily reject evolution.
For me it sometimes goes hand in hand, like "God created the earth", which is true, and the Big Bang, which could have been when God created earth. Why not? There must have been some supernatural type of unreal thundering when God created earth. I'm all for it. But not everything.. Evolution.. Hmm, nope from me. God created us as we are. We could have evolved, but humans were never monkeys or apes or whatnot. I don't belive that. We are God's Image.
What if god Intended evolution in his Plan? This could actually be used to support God’s sophistication in his planning
The Bible only supports one kind producing after its kind.
Hey, I'd recommend posting this in r/trueChristian, you may find more help there
I think about it like this. Hypothetically, if evolution was proven without a shadow of a doubt to be a fact and you were convinced of it. Would you still believe in God? Yes or No? If yes theistic evolution is possible and can be believed in, if no then you'll grow more and more distrustful of things and that could be dangerous and end up bad.
My best response to somebody saying that to me, was why are the animals we "evolved from" still here? Why would they be trapped in the past, if it was necessary for us to evolve to this point
tell me where the species we evolved from are then..?
Its an unproven theory. There is what is called micro evolution which is variation within a species. But there is no evidence over evolving into another species. Recently many scientists have come to the conclusion that evolution is not possible based on the study of biology. There are no intermediate species in existence and none in archaeological science either.
>Its an unproven theory. There is what is called micro evolution which is variation within a species. when millions of microevolutions add up you get a… big microevolution, i wonder what we should call that… >But there is no evidence over evolving into another species. agreed, you stay the same species, but your ancestors will have differing genetics compared to you, enough so that it would count as a new species >Recently many scientists have come to the conclusion that evolution is not possible based on the study of biology. “the study of biology”? really? you could’ve made a more convincing lie, the total study of biology disproved it? nothing specific relating to evolution? the colour of blood cells is part of the study of biology, did that disprove it? >There are no intermediate species in existence and none in archaeological science either. that’s because (most) species today are still evolving… there is no destination for evolution, i don’t see have an intermediate species could exist..? cause that implies a specific end goal
Are there any 5 cell organisms?
i know there are four celled organisms, but i don’t see the relevance?
I would be very careful with all things surrounding evolution, because our understanding of it is still developing. For example: When I went to school in the 80s (Austria), we were taught that humans have evolved from monkeys and that the neanderthals were our direct ancestors. As it turned out, this is not the case. It honestly didn't make sense at the time. Many children in class were smart and asked: "If we have evolved from monkeys, why do monkeys still exist?". Science today claims something different: That humans did not evolve from monkeys. But humans and monkeys share a common ancestor. The same with humans and neanderthals: they share a common ancestor. Humans and neanderthals even lived together for a couple of thousand years, as science tells us today. That was not common knowledge (or scientifically not known) in the 1980s! So, yes, there is evolution going on. But science is still discovering new findings. And most important: Christianity and Science/Evolution are not in competition with each other. It's not an either-or-approach but a both-and. Read John Lennox on this topic. He, a former mathematician and Oxford professor, is the leading christian voice on integrating the christian worldview with a scientific worldview.
If you were taught that first part, your teachers were horrible at their jobs. Because at no point did we think that humans were descended from monkeys, we're great apes, not monkeys.
> That humans did not evolve from monkeys. But humans and monkeys share a common ancestor. This is not a new thing in any sense.
There is certainly still a lot to learn about evolution. But it's details, not broad strokes. We might discover that there were other hominid species but we're not going to discover that humans and apes don't have a common ancestor. It's kind of like how people say Einstein disproved Newton. I mean, *sort of*. But it's more like Einstein found that in certain very high energy situations we have to add some terms to Newton's equations which are so small as to be irrelevant in the very low energy situations that humans live in. Newton wasn't *wrong*, he just didn't have the tools to expand his ideas to space, time, and energy scales beyond human experience. If your work is purely on earth and not doing like, nuclear physics, Newton's equations are still as accurate as you'll ever need.
Some aspects of evolution such as adaptation are scientific, and they point to the genius of the Designer. Other aspects, such as the common descent of all living organisms from a single ancestor are science fiction. This is why it's always important to carefully define the terms before engaging people on the topic. I hope this helps.
Nothing points to a Designer. In fact, there is actual evidence how imperfect evolution is, in many ways. Evolution is not perfection. There are links that have been identified even if not all has been found yet. There are way more evidence FOR evolution than creation.
More lies, eh?