jump to last post 1-37 of 37 discussions (302 posts)

do christians reject theory of evolution?

  1. pisean282311 profile image57
    pisean282311posted 6 years ago

    was curious about what do Christians think about theory of evolution..in this forum i have found statements rejecting it by few..do everyone rejects it ?

    1. 0
      SirDentposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I reject it.

      1. CMHypno profile image89
        CMHypnoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Even when there is so much evidence and knowledge about human evolution?  Yes, there are still huge gaps in our knowledge, but that does not refute the theory of evolution

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ … devil.html

      2. ceciliabeltran profile image85
        ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        why?

      3. Paul Wingert profile image79
        Paul Wingertposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        There's people who reject evelution because they are mentally lazy and believe some BS fairy story that was told to them over and over to the point where they believe it without question. There's also people who believe the earth is flat!

    2. Jerami profile image78
      Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Many things can get lost in translation.
         The Big Band did happen.
         Did God speak the bang into being? or is God the highest intelect produced in the Bang?
         I don't know if it makes any difference?
         Either way; after the earth cooled down...  The spirit of God moved over the body of water and life abounded (evolved??)
         God saw that it was all good and he then created man.
         Does it really matter how?

         Does it really matter how many times civilization flourished upon the earth?
         
        I do not see the above statement as being in conflict with the Genesis account.
         I only have to see mans written account as not being absolutely 100% perfectly correct in their understanding or translation.

      1. pisean282311 profile image57
        pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        u have a point..

      2. Mark Knowles profile image61
        Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        None of which has anything at all to do with evolution.

        Sorry - if you don't know what the theory of evolution says - why not ask about it?

        1. Jerami profile image78
          Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I choose to exersize free will to believe most but not all of the evolution theory.
             I choose to not be a slave to the religionist theory of the creation of the earth  6000 years ago.
             
            If I stay halfway between the two ditches; I might be on the right road?  If I am wrong then I am wrong?  At least I won't be following something that I do not believe in.

          1. Mark Knowles profile image61
            Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            But - what on earth do you think the theory of evolution says if you are referencing how many times civilization has risen?

            Seem to me you are just adjusting proven facts to suit an irrational belief system that you would otherwise have to reject.  wink

            1. Jerami profile image78
              Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              That is the procedure that the scientific community has used to come to the conclusions that they have come to.

                The same process should be considered in all areas of theology. don't you think. How else is religion expected to mature?

    3. 0
      Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Can you specify your meaning of evolution.

      There is no proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, Creator did not set in motion the development or dismantling of any/all organic systems.

      The human expression of those events, by any measure of sensation, equation, hypothesis is just that -human. And those considerations are seen by human injection, human methods, for human purposes, resulting in human explanations/adaptations for those events.

    4. ledefensetech profile image80
      ledefensetechposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      No, belief is a personal thing.  Just because someone calls themselves a Christian doesn't mean that they reject evolution.  I consider myself a follower of Christ, yet there is room in my personal view of the world to incorporate science and technology into my belief system. 

      It becomes especially interesting when you consider that the scientific method arose, in part, due to the desire of Christians in the previous centuries to gain a better understanding of the mind of God.  Even more interesting is that the scientific method did not arise as a discrete discipline in other societies or religions.  Why is that I wonder?

      1. wilderness profile image98
        wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I don't see how the scientific method (hypothesis, testing, theory) can result in any information about God, let alone a better understanding of His mind.  Hypothesis is certainly possible, but the reproducible testing is not.  Indeed, any testing was normally shut down violently any time it produced a theory that was in opposition to the hypotheses of the religious elite.

        I would also take exception to the idea that no other society or religion produced the scientific method, or something very close to it.  The Chinese found gunpowder - it did not just happen to laying around.  They experimented with it and found ways to use it effectively.  The Europeans were not the only people to examine the world around them and make discoveries about it.

    5. Ralph of "N" profile image61
      Ralph of "N"posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Do onto others as they would have do onto to you. Everything else is conjecture.

    6. oceansnsunsets profile image89
      oceansnsunsetsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I don't reject evolution, if you mean small changes over time, as evolution. I just reject Darwinian evolution, because I think it is lacking in real good science.  It takes too great of leaps.  I think if we stick to what we see and observe in the world, and don't presuppose any extra things into it, then that is where the truth is. 
      Evolution, if you mean small changes over time, can be observed every day, and most of the people I know that are religious don't have a problem with that. 
      What is really needed, is a definition of what is meant by evolution.  There is more than one definition out there, and the ones I have seen, are very different.  Thanks for asking ,as it is often misundertood by many people.

  2. joaniemb profile image59
    joaniembposted 6 years ago

    I also reject it.

    I am a Catholic Christian and believe God created man. This is my faith and my faith is strong.

    1. thisisoli profile image66
      thisisoliposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Maybe you should have chosen intelligence instead tongue

    2. Ralph of "N" profile image61
      Ralph of "N"posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      After everything is taken away from you faith is all that you have left.

  3. Origin profile image61
    Originposted 6 years ago

    I believe in evolution of humans on earth, but on the same token I believe that some supreme being created the universe, so with that it's sort of a combination. big_smile

    1. pisean282311 profile image57
      pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      interesting thoughts..

    2. Ralph of "N" profile image61
      Ralph of "N"posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Contrary to belief or non belief be the best you can to yourself and all that exsists.

  4. Rafini profile image82
    Rafiniposted 6 years ago

    I believe in a combination - but cannot force myself to believe man 'evolved' from a sea creature or monkeys.

    God created earth and man.  I believe God planned for evolution (different blood types and genetics, DNA...)  I do not believe carbon dating is capable of accurately determining the age of anything let alone anyone being able to say precisely how old Earth really is.

    1. pisean282311 profile image57
      pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      but u do believe in fossil of homo series..right?..

      1. Rafini profile image82
        Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        uumm......??   lol  I believe in You  smile  I believe in Love smile  I believe in Babies smile....I believe in ....Many Things!  lol

        1. pisean282311 profile image57
          pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          smile

      2. Ralph of "N" profile image61
        Ralph of "N"posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        simple pray for the ultimate truth with honesty, humility and conviction and it will come to you.

        1. skyfire profile image74
          skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          really ? is this how truth stuff works ? i wonder why people create password breakers to guess password of other people. Just pray honestly and truth will come to you.

      3. Ralph of "N" profile image61
        Ralph of "N"posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        simple pray for the ultimate truth with honesty, humility and conviction and it will come to you.

  5. Greek One profile image80
    Greek Oneposted 6 years ago

    I accept both God's creation of everything, and the Theory of Evolution

    1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
      Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Indeed, I don't understand why it must be one or the other. It's a false dichotomy.

      1. Ralph of "N" profile image61
        Ralph of "N"posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        put a belief system to the test. How else do you discover anything if you don't venture into any realm to prove it true and real.

  6. Greek One profile image80
    Greek Oneposted 6 years ago

    Dawrin's theory seems sound to me (although I was a history and pol. sci .major, so what do the hell do I know about science lol)

    We must embrace scientific thought, rationality and logic, and not run away from knowledge (Adam ate the apple, so we gotta deal with the consequences now).

    Faith in God doesn’t mean you have to bury your head under a rock (not that I am implying any Hubbers here are doing that).  In terms of explaining how Biblical accounts can reconcile with Darwin, Galileo, or other evidence that seems to reject various Biblical interpretations of the world, I don't feel that I am wise enough to explain, presumptuous enough that I can understand, or need to be able to in order to be at intellectual ease in my faith. 

    As God’s replied to Job (sic Greek One).... "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof."

    1. Daniel Carter profile image91
      Daniel Carterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Homer, methinks you do think a lot.
      It's very good.
      wink

      I'm not sure what "God" is, but there is something wonderful out there, whether it's just consciousness or a being of some kind. Evolution makes perfect sense to me, as it did to Darwin.
      As to the full extent of evolution, from single cell to man, I don't see enough proof one way or another. But Darwin did document some startling evidence of evolution types.

      1. Greek One profile image80
        Greek Oneposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        thanks.. i'll be here all week.. try the chicken (which was evolved from a much smaller chicken with the help of steriods and breeding techniques) smile

        1. Daniel Carter profile image91
          Daniel Carterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Mmmmm, tastes like chicken, all right. So do all the other evolutionary forms! (They say...)
          lol

          1. Greek One profile image80
            Greek Oneposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            one day, ALL species will evolve into the perfect form that God and nature intended...

            http://scrapetv.com/News/Images/kfc%20bucket%20of%20chicken.gif

    2. TMMason profile image74
      TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      You should read Alfred Russel Wallace's work on it, Greek. It may not seem so sound then. None of his list of questions in regards to evolutions inability to account for many of the traits we find in man have ever been answered.

      And though you may be able to list some many similairities bteween the great apes and man... the differences are inumerable.

      1. Greek One profile image80
        Greek Oneposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        And though you may be able to list some many similairities bteween the great apes and man... the differences are inumerable...



        You clearly haven't dated the types of women I have

        1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
          ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          and the greek bends shows up with misogynistic quips!

          1. Greek One profile image80
            Greek Oneposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            oh come now, that wasn't misogynistic!

            It might have been anti-women-who-look-like-apes...
            but as a man who looks like an ape himself on a good day, i don't see how you can call it misogynistic (perhaps superficial, etc... but not mysogenistic)

            1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
              ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              women who look like apes is not a misogynistic quip?

              1. Greek One profile image80
                Greek Oneposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                of course not.. men can look like apes too!

                1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
                  ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  but that is not what you said greek bends.

                  1. Greek One profile image80
                    Greek Oneposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    now there is no need to be mean...

                    why would i compare the men I have dated to apes when I have not dated any men?

                    In fact, one of the reasons I never dated men was of their ape-like features!

    3. Ralph of "N" profile image61
      Ralph of "N"posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.( Leonardo Da Vinci) Perhaps in religous belief to?

  7. ediggity profile image60
    ediggityposted 6 years ago

    I reject the THEORY of evolution.

    1. Paraglider profile image90
      Paragliderposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Do you similarly reject the THEORY of gravity, the THEORY of thermodynamics, Relativity THEORY, Quantum THEORY? Or are you just demonstrating that you don't really know what a theory is?

      1. ediggity profile image60
        ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I'm sure I do a lot better than you.  Additionally, the first two are LAWS.  Way to make a point LOL.

        1. Paraglider profile image90
          Paragliderposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          They are theories formulated as laws, yet Newtonian gravity is disproved. Still good enough for practical purposes, but wrong.

          1. ediggity profile image60
            ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Disproved by whom, and what replaced them?

            1. 60
              (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Einsteins General Theory of Relativity.

              1. ediggity profile image60
                ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Well if you can provide me the value for this I will believe everything you two geniuses say:


                Λ=?

                1. Paraglider profile image90
                  Paragliderposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  I've not studied Lambda calculus, but I don't see why you bring it up now?

                  1. ediggity profile image60
                    ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    LOL, you're a funny guy.  You bring up all those "Theories" and that's your answer?

                    Anywho, back to evolution.

                2. 60
                  (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about.

                  1. ediggity profile image60
                    ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Then don't try to sway your opinions on me if you don't even understand what you believe in.

                3. Jeff Berndt profile image91
                  Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Lambda equals what?

                  --What?

                  Lambda equals what?

                  --What?

                  Exactly.
                  smile

                  1. ediggity profile image60
                    ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    That is the question, isn't it?  Only one man knew and forgot.

      2. Ralph of "N" profile image61
        Ralph of "N"posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        What is a theory in any subject. Only through practicle application testing a theory can it be deemed as legitimate and credible.

  8. 60
    (Q)posted 6 years ago

    You'll find that those who reject evolution do not understand what they are rejecting. They reject it based on what their holy books state about creationism, hence they don't need to understand it.

    It's like small children who still believe in magic and pixie dust and haven't accepted reality due to ignorance.

    The difference is that believers will actually choose not to learn anything and would rather remain ignorant.

    It clearly demonstrates how lethal religious indoctrination is to mankind and our future.

    1. Rafini profile image82
      Rafiniposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      You do realize that is only your opinion, right?

      I reject evolution in terms of man evolving from sea creatures or monkeys.  I don't believe man 'evolves' by changing form, however, blood types & DNA "prove" evolution does occur as does the movement of man (to populate the earth) proves evolution.

      I am a firm believer in God and the Bible and I believe in Magic.  (One who believes in Magic doesn't usually believe in God)

      Where does that put me in terms of ignorance for rejecting evolution??

      Blanket statements are useless statements.

      1. 60
        (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Right on top of the pile, of course. smile

  9. getitrite profile image78
    getitriteposted 6 years ago

    The theory of evolution has some serious gaps.

    ...and creationist use rigid standards to disprove evolution, but require only faith to prove creation.

    Some outright reject the theory of evolution, but readily accept biblical creationism, which is way more implausible than evolution.

    To them, it makes more sense that god breathed life into some dust, rather than life evolved over millions of years.

    1. thisisoli profile image66
      thisisoliposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I would seriously like you to point out what these gaps are.

      The usual thing religious types point out is a gap in the fossil record, the problem is those damn excavators keep uncovering new fossils which continually fill in those gaps.

      1. getitrite profile image78
        getitriteposted 6 years ago in reply to this



        Yes.

      2. getitrite profile image78
        getitriteposted 6 years ago in reply to this



        Are you implying that my statement is, in some way, supporting creationism?

        1. thisisoli profile image66
          thisisoliposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Gaps in evolution support creationism, just as they support the existence of teh flying spaghetti monster.  That doesn't prevent the gaps being used by creationists as a groundless argument.

          1. getitrite profile image78
            getitriteposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I agree.

      3. Ralph of "N" profile image61
        Ralph of "N"posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        If we didn't have a belief system in anything. How would we have evolved to the present day? What form of conscience would guide us through the life experiences that we encounter reject or embrace.

    2. Jeff Berndt profile image91
      Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "The theory of evolution has some serious gaps." True. As we learn more, and fill in the gaps, we refine the theory. That's how science works.

      "Some outright reject the theory of evolution, but readily accept biblical creationism, which is way more implausible than evolution."

      And that's how faith works.

      And that's okay, just don't try to teach it in science class, 'cos it ain't science. It's either religion or philosophy, and there'd be nothing wrong with teaching about creationism in a comparative religion class (even in a public school, imo) or a philosophy class.

      1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
        ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        people think evolution is as linear as their minds. lol

        there can be gaps in evolution. environment changes...bam massive physical adaptation in one generation.

  10. optimus grimlock profile image61
    optimus grimlockposted 6 years ago

    i'm chatholic as well and I believe god created everything and let evolution take over. I also listen to all side and never totally reject others theories.

  11. thisisoli profile image66
    thisisoliposted 6 years ago

    There are plenty of Christians who do believe in the Theory of Evolution. However these are the same people who I argue are not real Christians, since they talk more about the values of Christianity, and avoid talking about their belief in God.

    You can follow moral values without religion.

    There is very little of the religious fervour which appears in America still left present in Europe.

  12. IntimatEvolution profile image81
    IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago

    I've never rejected the theory of evolution.  I've never rejected science in any way.  The same as Isaac Newton, Galieo, Darwin.........  People who embraced science and religion.  Without science, religion would not exist and without religion, there would be great open voids in scientific theory.

    So to answer your question- No, Christians do not reject evolution or any other scientific theory.

    1. 0
      Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      smile

    2. 60
      (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Actually, without religion, Galileo would most likely have been the first person to walk on Mars rather than being held captive by the medieval church. smile

      1. 0
        Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Really? How so? (by scientific proof, if you please).

        IE is very correct, in that without the sensation keeling the equation, the value of your discoveries/hypothesis is void, useless and does not benefit the whole of humanity -for human purposes. Same goes in reverse. Remove them both and you have an altogether different perspective/approach to everything.

        1. 60
          (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I have no idea what you're talking about. Gibberish.

          1. 0
            Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Why am I not surprised...

            1. 60
              (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Because everyone else says the same thing to you? smile

              1. 0
                Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                They do? lol
                And why the runoff from the topic?
                Very typical.

                1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
                  ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  lol cracking up

        2. ceciliabeltran profile image85
          ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          lol He's amazing isn't he. He has a special place in my heart this way. Q, the guy who ruined that name for me when he is such an interesting character in Star Trek TNG

          1. Ralph of "N" profile image61
            Ralph of "N"posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Q was in awe and complete fear of the human equation.
            He understood and realised that our species would evolve even higher than his own and wanted to test our metal in every shape manner and form by being the blowfly in the custard of john luc picards breakfast serial!

    3. pisean282311 profile image57
      pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      ok

    4. Ralph of "N" profile image61
      Ralph of "N"posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Which would you prefer a world of religion or a world of science?
      The greatest asset and liability we have at our very disposal is free will and freedom of choice. We all have the right to choose what we want everyday of our lives or reject it in total and walk away from everyone and everything.
      Then quality of life comes into the picture, for you to seriously consider.
      I am content with my belief system. We all are seeking that contentment easily or with great difficulty. Keep it simple!

      1. pisean282311 profile image57
        pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        i would prefer world of spirituality backed by science ..i would not prefer religion world..

        1. skyfire profile image74
          skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          To even back spirituality, there needs to be proof for spirit (soul) which religious nutcase can't bring and there we go with arguments with religious people. Just like this:

          http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

          1. earnestshub profile image87
            earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Nice list! smile

      2. Randy Godwin profile image94
        Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        We have had many years of religion without much science until the last few centuries.  People were sick and ignorant because they didn't have science to discover medicine or to teach them the lightning didn't come from god. 

        Diseases spread into epidemics which wiped out many people despite the prayers of the religious folk of the day.  The earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth.  And you and your kind are trying to put us back into that unwashed and ignorant state with you imaginary gods and demons.

        You would have fit right in back then.  You have the requirements to be a shaman or soothsayer if you desire the old ways.  Not today though!  Just those with delusions follow your words.

        1. pisean282311 profile image57
          pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          quiet right..

        2. 0
          Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          err, Randy, science has existed with religion equally. Even the religious texts confirm it. The Egyptians, Mayans, etc used what religions called sorcery, magic, the craft, to make potions, powders, forge gold, iron, you name it -which is sceince.
          They had a huge variety of medicines, machines, weapons, back then too. If anything, the advancement of science -like religion- has caused more harm than good. The A bomb, Petroleum, any synthetically compounded medication, weapons, machines -the list is endless...

          People are sick and ignorant NOT because of the lack of medicine/science or religion -just the opposite -too much of them both. Name me one person who is still alive after the use of those methods of medicine, say from 1910 to 2010.

          A spoonful of glucose helps the synthetically designed anti aging potion -sold by the sexy blond priestess model- go down in the most delightful way...?

  13. 0
    Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago

    clean thread, move down...

    1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
      ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I don't get it

      1. 0
        Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        "clean cup, move down".

      2. Jeff Berndt profile image91
        Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Alice in Wonderland reference.

  14. Pearldiver profile image87
    Pearldiverposted 6 years ago

    Do christians reject theory of evolution? roll

    Do Bears crap in the bush? hmm

    And.....

    Do the trees that they squat under still get pollenated by the same type of colored bugs as they did 1,000,000 years BC? hmm

    Hahaha....... Prove It.... With Scripture roll lol

  15. 60
    SarahLambertposted 6 years ago

    The only thing I reject is teaching the "theory of evolution" as fact.

    1. ceciliabeltran profile image85
      ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      you apparently don't realize what it takes to call anything a fact

    2. 60
      (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It's when you gain an understanding of evolution do you yourself come to the realization it is a fact. It's still taught as a theory.

      1. Jerami profile image78
        Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The theory of evolution in part is undeniably true. Short legged deer were caught by the tiger. Long legged deer lived to breed.  Genetic mutations are also a reality. Some mutations can be seen as a improvement, better able to survive, others not so lucky.
          But to think that an ameba turned into a frog and a frog turned into a monkey stretches the imagination a bit too far for a sane person beyond its capabilities.
          Bunny rabbits  popping out of an Easter egg is much more likely.

           I would say that it takes much more blind faith to believe that a drop of murk grew legs, climbed a tree and now here we are. murk just does not turn into eggs or seeds.

           Now after the seeds and or eggs were planted here; YES of course things do evolve.
        You say what created the seeds and or eggs.... I ask what caused the big bang?
           Stalemate.

        1. Rishy Rich profile image80
          Rishy Richposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          You say what created the seeds and or eggs.... I ask what caused the big bang?...stalemate


          ... I ask What caused the God?

          1. Rishy Rich profile image80
            Rishy Richposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            We have plenty of evidence in support for evolution...now I would ask what evidence do u have in support of God?

            1. Rishy Rich profile image80
              Rishy Richposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              The historical Jesus is hard to trace back, even if he existed he was an ordinary human who didnt matter to most of the part...what evidence do u have that God came, visited & left while most of the world didnt even realize that?

              1. Rishy Rich profile image80
                Rishy Richposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                What caused the big bang & What created seeds or eggs, eh?

                When u shiit in the toilet, do u say God created shit?

            2. NathanSyckel profile image62
              NathanSyckelposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              How did life just spontaneously generate from nothing? What about the complete lack of transitional life-forms in the fossil record? 

              I dont fall in either of these camps... I just like a good arguement.

              1. Origin profile image61
                Originposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Genetic accident. big_smile

              2. 60
                (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                The process of abiogenesis.



                The fossil record IS a demonstration of transitional life-forms.

                1. NathanSyckel profile image62
                  NathanSyckelposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  There is a lack of transitional life forms in the fossil record.  I'm not going to debate that. I know that. So are you saying that all life forms are transitional?

                  And what about my question about life spontaneously appearing from nothing?

                  1. 60
                    (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    That's a relief, for a minute there I thought you were going to draw out the same misleading and ignorant argument creationists use to support their myths.

                  2. pisean282311 profile image57
                    pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    lack doesnot mean it is not there..it mean it might not be there or it is still to be discovered..science's quest to find continues and would keep on continuing..

                  3. 60
                    (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    I answered it. Are you asking a different question now?

                  4. Mark Knowles profile image61
                    Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    What question is that? Your considered opinion that it is not possible, therefore it must have been majik? LOLOLOL

                    Or do you think evolution attempts to explain that in some way?

                    When you say "lack of" do you mean "there are some missing" or "there are no transitional forms"?

          2. Jerami profile image78
            Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            What caused the big Bang?
              What caused God?
              What caused a lump of dirt to grow legs and climb a tree??
             
              Fact is we can follow the trail back to where the horizon ends and we keep coming back to where we started.

              That is why the theory of evolution is a theory. It is provable only up to a point. And then speculation is necessary to reach a desired conclusion.
              We can only prove things up to the boundaries lines of the realm of our reality that we live in..
               There is a reality that extends way beyond our understanding; both outwardly towards infinity and inwardly towards infinity.
               Life in an oxymoron both in the small things and in the grand scheme   of things.
               And we think that we are going to figure it (ALL) out???

            1. Mark Knowles profile image61
              Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Nonsense. LOLO

              Gawd you religionists are lazy. It is not  just a theory. The theory explains the proven measurable facts that evolution happens. Dear me - Do you even know what the theory of evolution states? LOLOL

              1. Jerami profile image78
                Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                MK said   It is not just a theory..the theory explains ... what ???

                  the assumption that a theory is proven to not be a theory because the theory says so?

            2. 60
              (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Once again, it's "grand" to see how believers believe with such confidence in their absolutism that such things exist well beyond anything us humans can figure out.

            3. 60
              (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Jerami, here's a great example of a fact in which you may compare to that of a theory:

              Believers don't understand evolution. smile

        2. 60
          (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          While an education would have helped you to see the world slightly different than that from the perspective of an indoctrinated cult member, it would have also helped you to understand how diversity of species and natural selection create new species.

          What's really hilarious, Jerami, is that believers have no issues with people rising from the dead, walking on water, healing the sick with the wave of a hand and every other physical law being violated in the pursuit of happiness, yet they completely reject theories that do not violate any physical laws.

          Silly in the extreme, Jerami. Think about it.

          1. pisean282311 profile image57
            pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            u have a point out here..

          2. NathanSyckel profile image62
            NathanSyckelposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Actually Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

            1. 60
              (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              You're free to explain how that is possible. Can you?

              1. ediggity profile image60
                ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Can you?

                1. 60
                  (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  No, I cannot explain how evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics.

                  You certainly got me there. smile

                  1. NathanSyckel profile image62
                    NathanSyckelposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    I could try and explain it...but not as well as many of the reputable resources you could find it at online.

            2. ediggity profile image60
              ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Uh oh, someone is using science rationally.  This might get interesting.

              1. 60
                (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                "Misleading" was the word you were looking for...

              2. 60
                (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Notice how the rationale fizzled, popped and then disappeared altogether? wink

  16. Jeff Berndt profile image91
    Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago

    Okay, this is getting ridiculous, especially the people trying to nit-pick the teaching of a "theory" as a "fact."

    Clearly, these folks need to either get a dictionary, or else take a remedial science class.

    Other people have already explained the difference between the scientific usage of the word "theory" (meaning the best understanding that we have so far of a given phenomenon) and the general usage of the word (meaning a guess or a conjecture).

    Here's a good article on the subject. I think it should be required reading for anyone who tries to dismis evolution on the basis that it's "just a theory."

    1. pisean282311 profile image57
      pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      good read jeff

      Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

      In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

    2. ediggity profile image60
      ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Great read.  It explains exactly that a Theory is not a Scientific  Law.  So, which of these Theories is correct, Big Bang Theory, String Theory, or TOE?  According to that article they are all accepted to be true in the scientific community.

      1. 60
        (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        No, they are not all accepted as true, that is a misrepresentation on your part.

        1. ediggity profile image60
          ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I'm sure it's not a misconception.  I am just stating what was written in the article.  Didn't you read it?

          "In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole."

          1. 60
            (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            You see, you did misrepresent. Thanks for showing us what was really stated. smile

            1. ediggity profile image60
              ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Great to see you can side with science when it's convenient.

              1. pisean282311 profile image57
                pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                we all are indebted to science..it covers every human being which exist in current times..believer or non believers , common believer or preacher..it is science which has made life easier for all human beings and it is science which made human being reach where they are now..we must be thankful to handful of great minds who made all these possible by keeping their curiosity intact and their mind's ability to question...isn't it?..

                1. ediggity profile image60
                  ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm not saying I don't believe in or like science, but it's not a necessity for daily life.  It's a want.  It's also a great way to try and explain what GOD has created.

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image61
                    Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Nonsense. You religionists are soooo very funny. Clearly you do not understand evolution.

                    There could not have been a god involved. wink

                    Love how you do not need electricity or computers for your daily life. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

                  2. Uninvited Writer profile image84
                    Uninvited Writerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Ok...that is the funniest thing I've heard today so far smile

                    Science is science, it's there whether you think you need it or not.

                  3. 60
                    (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    And, without science, your daily life would be a nightmare. Like all believers, they diss science but take advantage of it every single moment of their hypocritical lives.



                    Yes, god created cancer and science is trying to defeat gods creation. This must be the reason why believers are so upset. Who would dare to defeat one of gods creations and not be sent to a lake of fire for an eternity.

                    Damn you scientists, damn you all to hell!

  17. prettydarkhorse profile image61
    prettydarkhorseposted 6 years ago

    I didnt read through the thread, not all Christians reject evolution -- I believe in evolution but I am a Christian, the concept of a GOD for me is somewhat in the emotions,  I can never justify his existence but I believe he exist etc.

    Feelings are the most important things in the world, which you can feel, it is more powerful than the things you can see.

    1. 60
      (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Relying on ones feelings is no better than guesswork and is often wrong. They are only powerful if one believes rather than thinks.

  18. Jerami profile image78
    Jeramiposted 6 years ago

    I have got to go and get some work done today.

       To argue whether or not mankind is capable of learning everything that there is to know ??? 
       I'm not going to argue that issue. I'll just keep my opinion that we can never know all of the unknown.

      To believe that this realm of reality is all that there is doesn't sound very scientific to me.

       Quantum physics is knocking down doors in the scientific world.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image61
      Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Odd that you choose to ignore what we do know then. wink

      1. Jerami profile image78
        Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        What we do know is that life after it exists does evolve when the necessity requires it.  I think that it may be attempting to evolve but the environment does not allow a successful transformation (yet)  I just have trouble understanding or agreeing with the THEORY that  inorganic material can convert to organic material.

          When we assume certain facts beyond the scope of proof, that extention is theory.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image61
          Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Dear me. The theory of evolution seeks to explain the proven facts that life evolves. The proven fact that men were not created in our present form.

          It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the beginning of life as we understand it.

          You are perfectly fine with the THEORY that inorganic material can convert to organic material. Your entire belief system rests on this happening.

          You just think it needs a majikal GOD to do it. LOLOLOLO

          You also seem perfectly fine with the 100% totally unproven idea of this majikal god with no facts to back it up.

          SO - I am going with - hypocritical. wink

          1. Jerami profile image78
            Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            What part of my statement above  are you argueing with?

               You want to argue, so you inflict beliefs upon me so that you can argue. I see you doing that a lot.  Well done.

            1. Mark Knowles profile image61
              Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              All of it.


                    You feel comfortable with accepting certain things with zero facts, but

                                              then claim that other things are merely theory and not to be accepted.


              this is                the           typical hypocrisy of believers in a god.


              Yet you accept and argue for a god - with absolutely no facts or proof whatsoever. This is hypocrisy.

    2. Cagsil profile image83
      Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Hey Jerami, do not hurt yourself while you work. tongue
      Humankind will never know everything there is to know, but what we do already know is all knowable. wink
      That's the best statement you made in this post. wink
      Reality is all that there is Jerami. What other forms of reality is there? Is the question you meant to ask. We know there are other Dimensions, we just cannot nor have the ability to get to those places.
      The science community, which encompasses every field of discovery is always expanding, because our exploration of reality is a forever expanding subject. Just a thought.

  19. 0
    Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago

    PS, Marcus, is it actually evolving or devolving?
    How do we really know for certain?
    That is something either side cannot bare to think about...

    1. Mark Knowles profile image61
      Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Well - The term evolution is this case would better be "changed," as I understand some changes could be considered "devolved."

      But - as I understand it - the changes have generally evolved into more, rather than less complexity. Which - could also be considered "devolving." big_smile

      Sometimes the simplest is the best. Who knows - maybe the Amoebas have all the answers and we should be asking them?

  20. Michael Adams1959 profile image43
    Michael Adams1959posted 6 years ago

    I reject it,

    1. Mark Knowles profile image61
      Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      You reject scientific facts? Why would you do that? Does it prove your invisible friend does not exist?

      1. 0
        Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Quit sidestepping and give them that proof -scientifically or what-have-you already, man.
        all this would stop if you would show the humanoids proof.

        big_smile

        1. 60
          (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          But, that's exactly what we've been asking you for all along... proof of your invisible and undetectable super being.

          smile

          1. 0
            Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I guess you really don't get it, yet.

            It is the responsibility -and duty- of the one refuting (the prosecutor) to provide proof/evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, against the defendant. YOU are the one charging there is no such Creator. So, those who believe are the defended.

            BTW, circumstantial evidence, here say and "well I just think there isn't" are invalid.

            1. 60
              (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I often wonder why believers must resort to openly lying about who is making claims and who is questioning those claims. Is it from sheer ignorance or do they actually know they are lying to protect their beliefs?

              It certainly is an interesting aspect to the psychosis of religious indoctrination and why the natural altruistic morals and ethics of humans must be eliminated in order to be replaced with cult alienation and protection from the outsider.



              Here say, there say, we all say, hearsay.

              1. 0
                Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                And that is your closing argument? Really?!
                Good job, Q. Very good job.

            2. Mark Knowles profile image61
              Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Your ISM is showing again. LOLOL

              1. 0
                Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                wha-, who? ooooooh lookie here, lookie here.

                http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/44065?p … ost1027450

                "my" Ism? Budda scotch (Mike Myers voice). But due be a gentleman an answer the bloody question -with proof.
                "Moo chase Gray C Ace, Me Go!"

                muahahahahaha

        2. skyfire profile image74
          skyfireposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          That's weird to come from you. You're already aware of proof for evolution.

  21. goldenpath profile image81
    goldenpathposted 6 years ago

    I poopy on it as well with a torpedo large enough to sink Atlantis - again! smile

    1. 60
      (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Hard work, rigor and dedication to understanding the world is but fecal matter to the indoctrinated. How uncaring and heartless they are to their fellow men who give their lives in the pursuit of helping us understand ourselves better and build better lives through knowledge and sharing of ideas.

      They help us to be better humans while the religious stamp them into the earth, only to happy to defecate in their faces, spewing forth their gods wrath in blindingly hysterical glee.

      But, the hard work, the rigor and the dedication to understanding will continue and flourish, and someday soon the insanity will end.

      1. 0
        Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        cough, bullsh!te. They don't help you -because like religion- they lead you.
        Oddly, you seem equally indoctrinated into an alternate method called science.
        Seems, the pendulum swings both ways.

        Rigor and hard work requires and demands critical thinking, critical function.
        You appear to have neither -only suggestive, cynical, deflective and submissive attitude.

        The wrath of scientific gods paints a far darker picture than the Hebrew one...
        Might want to re-read those scientific documents.

        1. 60
          (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          To think, to synthesize information critically, to take the time and effort to understand is forbidden to the believer, and something most certainly to be feared and avoided at all costs, lest the indoctrination lose its footings and bring into question the very foundations of belief.

          To the believer, thinking and indoctrinated belief can only be conceptualized as one and the same.

          1. 0
            Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            And where prey tell did you imagine that crud from? Your own limited experience? No believer is limited to the methods of determination.

            and what cost is there to believer or not? Who imposed this mental taxation?

            Which most certainly pertain to science also. But you evade again the point of critical thinking which is subjected to neither your equation nor their sensation approach.

            Q, you are so obviously venting about your experiences, or lack there of, with the sensation side of the house you both live in. A funny couple science and theology are. Identical, yet willfully opposing each other. For what? Do you or they gain any value or substantial gratification by belittling the other? Certainly not. Do you or they have absolute provable answers -less the standard human injection? Absolutely not! So just give it up already. Lick your wounds and move on. Your quest is no better than theirs. Abusing her is not a show of true strength and character, but weakness and contempt. Also, her lack of interest in your hunting techniques is no better.

      2. goldenpath profile image81
        goldenpathposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Cheers to poopy power! smile

      3. 0
        SirDentposted 6 years ago in reply to this



        While science tries to find the answer to everything spending billions upon billions of dollars for research, experiments, etc. . . Christians are feeding starving children with donations of food, money, seed etc. . .

        http://www.jesussite.com/ministries/charitable.html

        That is a short list of only a few christian charities.

        1. thisisoli profile image66
          thisisoliposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          There are thousands of huge charities which are not Christian based.

          Science has helped make life better for millions of people, it has extended life spans, reduced disease, and reduced suffering from common ailments.

          That research and experimentation is why you are still alive past the age of thirty.

          1. 0
            SirDentposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Do you know where all those charities started? The first chatiable organizations in the USA were Christian based in the late 1700s.

            Science has wasted a lot of money to try and figure things out instead of helping the needy.

            Just so you know, I live past the age of 30 because of God. Science has nothing to do with it.

            Had to come back and edit. The first Christian charities started in the early 1800s.

            http://hubpages.com/hub/New-York-New-York

            Not a link to one of my hubs.

  22. yoshi97 profile image89
    yoshi97posted 6 years ago

    Evolution has been witnessed occurring ... in recent times and today ... among certain salamanders in California. It's no longer a theory - it's a proven fact.

    Also, the Pope has validated evolution ... and the possibility there could be life on other worlds

    If the leader of one of the largest congregations in the world (the Roman Catholic faith) can move to accept all of this, then why can't the rest of us step in line and walk forward.

    According to the Pope ... none of this invalidates the existence of God. In fact, he sees God as the driving force of evolution and the possible creator of life on other worlds.

    While many of us choose not to believe in God, we still believe something tangible is responsible for everything around us. Religion calls it God - science calls it nature. The only difference is that scientists don't subjugate themselves to serve nature's written will.

    Evolution does not disprove God, nor does a 5000 year old tome offer proof.

    As best said ... "It's what one is willing to believe that is truth in their heart. And he'd be a fool to turn away in disbelief from that which truly stands before him."

    Religion and science hate each other because they both seize upon the same idea ... explaining all that happens around us ... from either a scientific point of view of a spiritual one. If only you would substitute the word God for nature, and vice-versa, you would see both speak the same language. The only difference is that men of science see themselves as free, whereas men of God see themselves as servants.

    Serve as you will or lead yourselves. Free will gives that choice to one and all of us. For if it was not truly a choice, then no choice would exist to be made ...

    1. Mark Knowles profile image61
      Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I disagree. Evolution does not disprove "a" god, but it pretty much demolishes the biblical "created in His own image in 6 days" god.

      His own image was what? A Brontosaurus - oops - that didn't work - I know - I'll wipe them out and try mammals. lol

    2. spiderpam profile image57
      spiderpamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      “About 5,000 years ago the Sumarians originated many Pagan religions and beliefs. One of these beliefs or religions was the Myth of Evolution. According to the Sumarian Epic, life originated in water and then evolved to land creatures. This same concept was also accepted by Ancient Greek Philosophers called "Materialists". Thus Ancient Greece became the junction point of Materialist philosophy and the Myth of Evolution. The Pagan Romans later chose to embrace this same Myth in their dynasty. These 2 idol worshiping Pagan cultures heavily influenced the modern world in the 18th century. Some European intellectuals were influenced by ancient Greek sources who accordingly adopted Materialism with one common belief. They were completely against the very idea of a monotheistic religion.” Charles Sobo


      We have only observed phenotypic changes (variation in eye color, hair color and texture and size) and adaptations IN populations or families, but we've NEVER witnessed the quantum leap miracle required for the evolutionism model of common descent.

      The Pope also condones and hides child molesters should we all step behind that too? You're losing credibility using the pope as an ally. "Roman Catholics were known for adopting many old pagans rituals (cannibalism, mary or mother goddess worship, the "infallible" pope, the church is true the Bible is false, evolution, priest celibacy, etc). All which are unbiblical, heretical and blasphemous, and is one of the reasons that the protestant church formed."

      There are laws of nature and laws require a lawgiver, God.


      No yoshi, almost man-made religions accept evolutionism. Evolutionism itself is a religion. Christianity and evolutionism are in conflict, not because of facts, but because of worldview.

  23. Merlin Fraser profile image78
    Merlin Fraserposted 6 years ago

    I think what many people cannot accept is change and it seems an unfortunate fact that the more religious a person is the less likely they are to accept a new idea or a new interpretation on something that was once widely accepted.
    If Charles Darwin had been around at the same time as Copernicus, nearly 500 years ago, when he theorised that the Earth revolves around the Sun then undoubtedly he would have been branded a heretic and suffered at the hands of the Christian church.
    Choosing to ignore scientific fact simply because it contradicts ancient religious doctrine is not defending faith; it merely reinforces ignorant intolerance and hinders the natural development of our mind.
    I’m sorry to say that religious intolerance is both alive and well today.  It is an unfortunate sad fact of life that many people believe in Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny and God.  Nothing we do or say will ever change their minds so no matter how much evidence is produced to support the evolution of life by natural selection they will neither accept it nor change their minds.  A sad fact but true.

    1. Rishy Rich profile image80
      Rishy Richposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      nicely put!

    2. getitrite profile image78
      getitriteposted 6 years ago in reply to this



      Shocking, but true.

  24. thisisoli profile image66
    thisisoliposted 6 years ago

    Evolution dipsroves the christian god, but not necessarily the existance of A god or overall creator.

    Christian religion is based on the fact that god created everything, if that is wrong, what else is?

    1. 60
      (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      We find a great many religions boast creationism in the form presented by their own sets of myths and superstitions. We also find they boast all things were created as they appear today.

      We can infer and inject evolution into any creation myth, but we are bound by the creation story itself and the explanation it provides as to our origins.

      Natural selection and diversity of species simply do not support the claims of those creation myths.

  25. 0
    Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago

    Which still does not refute Creator being everything.
    Evolution is a process/method, not an entity.
    Perhaps one method -which only humans define so- is one attribute of Himself.

    To be textual, it states "the worlds were framed by the words of his mouth." So that would present the visual of a bubble, and in it is everything we humans call universe. So His own breath is in that bubble every increasing -as evolution and universal expansion are defined.

    1. thisisoli profile image66
      thisisoliposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The old 'god is everything' argument is nothing new, however God is also meant to be infallible, in which case, the story he relayed to man kind regarding Genesis suddenyl causes some major problems.

      Remember te Old Testament is the word of God, the new Testament is the word of Man.

      1. 0
        Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Soli, the notion of Testaments is strange to hear from you.
        This is the issues root, perhaps. Neither is 'the word' of Creator, but elements of those words/events transcribed.

        Oddly, taking evolution and big bang and the Mosiac account, all seem to meet up. Something caused everything to form into this universe. The infallible mention rests solely on the human perspective of those events. So, Creator is still infallible, human perception fallible.

        Having spent quite enough time in Christian circles as well as Judaic neither disputes the method of evolving, in fact they emphasize the point of intervals and events that took place.
        The formation of the universe, introduction of light/stars/moons, etc, development of the planet, its atmosphere, the separation of land from water, the appearance of plant life, animals, fish, birds; the elements of dinosaurs, giants and a change in that process called flood, etc. Could the only disputable factor be the mention of time? days? Why is it impossible to believe the basic formation of life took so long? If you have all the ingredients, how long would it take someone to bake a cake- 30 minutes, 45 maybe. The same energy/elements/molecules in the cake are the same ones in the universe, yes?

        Perhaps the explanation is not accepted by evolutionists and various scientific groups -and religious groups also. But, I don't think Christianity refutes it. I do think Christianity refutes the scientific view of those events because of the removal of Creator from it.

        1. thisisoli profile image66
          thisisoliposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          taking you own compounds and mixing them together to form a cakes is much different to the process of evolution.

          Evolution is a godless theory, and while you can apply God to it in some ways, it just doesn't fit with teh rest of Gods theory which talks about how he created everything, including man, from scratch.

          I am interested in theology, and have read both the old and new testament, along with lost bible verses such as the dead sea scrolls.

          It did not take me long to realise that the bible can barely be used along with modern day Christianity, and that the religion of Christianity, and the bible is now becoming more and more seperate.

          It is surprising how much of the bible has been removed in the last 30 years, nevermind in the last 500.

          Unfortunately most of these forum topics bring up arguments, on both sides, which have long since bene proven futile, or proven wrong.

          1. 0
            Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            not so far off.
            that is what propaganda does.

            As for my cake mention: all the elements, turned molecules, turned chemicals, turned vitamin, mineral, dairy, grain, etc. are all from the same premise -nature uniting and transforming into something else -evolution.

  26. 0
    Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago

    Also noteworthy, from the Christian perspective, humans are predestined to go through an evolutionary transformation -as depicted in the resurrected Y`shua and others accounted for in the letters transcribed called New Testament.

    Even more is that the whole of humanity is to go through this process, yet some -because they have not evolved passed the 'old' mental stigma of sin, will not fully survive this event and so be removed post evolution. (EDIT: according to evolution, this event is defined as natural selection)

    Maybe Christians and evolutionists are missing the connection between? (so you know, i say that as a question, even though to me it is an emphatic statement).

    1. 60
      (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Often, believers will use concepts completely foreign to them and use them to describe their religious beliefs in an attempt to create the facade they know what they're talking about.

      1. ediggity profile image60
        ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I fixed it for you Q.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image61
          Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Ahhh - Lying for Jesus? I see - not convincing me of anything other than I am right.

          You have no morals. None.

          1. ediggity profile image60
            ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I'm just showing him what a ridiculous statement it is on both counts.  Don't read into it to much man.  Not everyone is out to get you.

        2. 60
          (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Thanks, but all you really did was admit to not understanding evolution, and I couldn't agree with you more. smile

          1. ediggity profile image60
            ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I am glad we both agree it was a ridiculous blanket statement.lol lol

            1. 60
              (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              No, I agree with your admitting of you not understanding evolution.

              1. ediggity profile image60
                ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Of course I don't understand it, because it's not true.  It's like asking me to understand 1+1=3.  It doesn't make sense.  And you know what Judge Judy says?"If it doesn't make sense, it's not true sir."

                1. 60
                  (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Whether it is true or not is irrelevant... not understanding it does not give you the right to pass judgment.

                   

                  You haven't taken the time to read or understand '1+1' as yet, which is why you mistakenly presume the answer is 3. You simply haven't done your homework. Few, if an believers have actually read about evolution. smile

                  1. ediggity profile image60
                    ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    You should take your own advice and apply it to Christianity.

                    Yes, I have read extensively on the topics of micro/macro evolution, stabilizing/directional/diversifying selection.  Not to mention it was taught ad naseum through elementry/High School/ and college.


                    Lastly, you still haven't told me what Λ =

          2. Jerami profile image78
            Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Do you know what you just agreed with.
              Do you know what Facade means???   You just revealed yours..

            1. 60
              (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, I did. Thanks for asking.
               


              Yes, I know what facade means, that's why I used it in a sentence.

              What facade did I reveal, Jerami?

              1. Jerami profile image78
                Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                You admitted that like every one else; you are operating in one.

  27. Merlin Fraser profile image78
    Merlin Fraserposted 6 years ago

    Creationists believe that the Bible is the literal Word of God and therefore everything else is wrong !

    However, if the Biblical version of events depicted in Genesis used by creation theorists to debunk the Darwinist version of evolution by natural selection was to be believed;  then during the six days their God took to create everything wouldn’t that put Dinosaurs and Man on the Earth at the same time ?

    1. ediggity profile image60
      ediggityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Would it?

    2. 0
      Twenty One Daysposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      No reason to think they weren't.
      Talmud shows a much broader view of creation than the present biblical transcripts. Many Hebrews acknowledge evolutionary concept as part of creators methods. The most notable point: even if evolution wiped out every creature, the only creature valuable to Creator, is humans...

  28. spiderpam profile image57
    spiderpamposted 6 years ago

    I reject the evolutionism model, because I accept science over vain speculation.

  29. Alison Graham profile image96
    Alison Grahamposted 6 years ago

    I'm not sure if I am really qualified to comment here as I have a very simple faith. I guess faith is something you either have or you don't - it's a very personal thing which is why I would never say anyone was wrong in their beliefs. But, it does seem to me that the book of Genesis has everything in the right order, darkness, light, oceans with some creatures in it, then land and then some creatures on it and then humans.  I guess the only thing is the timescale but who knows how long a day is for God?  I do believe in Evolution but I also find it incredible that someone who wrote all that time ago could have got the order of everything right?

  30. Hunting Videos profile image59
    Hunting Videosposted 6 years ago

    Since I believe in the Bible as absolute truth and the Bible indicates God created all things in 6 days, then it is impossible for me to belive in the theory of Evolution.

  31. Jerami profile image78
    Jeramiposted 6 years ago

    Let me confess.  Q ... I realy do like you, cause you are as messed up as the rest of us.
      And if everyone could listen as well as we speak we might find some understanding.

      You sir do have some truth that you have expressed. as does everyone else that have posted on these forums.

       When we admitt that we do not have the answers ... and begin to listen, then we might ??  find some truth.  We all have a little piece of the truth. We just gotta bring it all together instead of fighting.

    1. 60
      (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I'm not talking about a truth, Jerami. Truth is for philosophical discussions and has little to do with the world around us.

      Religions preach about ultimate truths but we find they have very little meaning in the real world and usually wind up contradicting it.

  32. learner.brown profile image59
    learner.brownposted 6 years ago

    There is a difference between microevolution and macroevolution. The theory of macroevolution is the one where humans evolved from primates.

    The evidence for this is sketchy whether you believe in the Bible or not.

    Microevelotion is well proven and Bible believing Christians would be very ignorant to reject it, since it in no way contradicts the creation theory. The basic theory is that different genes present themselves in each generation. If certain traits, say dark fur in the polar regions, prove dangerous, animals with those traits will die off. The species is exactly the same, reproducing after its kind, but different traits are being displayed.

    1. Jerami profile image78
      Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I agree completely...

         And the evolution om man does have a missing link which can be explained with in the creationalists theory as well??

    2. Jeff Berndt profile image91
      Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Correction, Learner. Humans are a species of primates. So are apes and monkeys. Likewise, lions, tigers, and ocelots are species of cats.

  33. Jerami profile image78
    Jeramiposted 6 years ago

    Q said ....I'm not talking about a truth, Jerami. Truth is for philosophical discussions and has little to do with the world around us.

      If that is true then what is the importance of convincing others of any particular philosophical point of view???

    1. 60
      (Q)posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It is the convincing that any particular philosophical point of view is rubbish in comparison to reality.

      1. Jerami profile image78
        Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        ?????????????????????????????????????

  34. 0
    tybell74posted 6 years ago

    Here are my beliefs. Evolution is a definate part of our ecosystem. All beings have the ability to "evolve" so they can adapt to their surroundings. The evolutionary theory is something completely different. I have an extremely hard time believing that mankind started as an ape or monkey. I am a Christian and I believe in creation. However, scaring away from evolution in itself is rediculous. Animal adapt all the time to their surrounding by evolving. The concept of earth beginning 6000 yrs ago is in my opinion only earth as we know it. I believe in dinosaurs. I believe there was something way before mankind or what we know of it. Closing yourself off to what was before us is the wall that most "creationists" tend to forget. God is eternal and Adam and Eve were only the beginning of mankind. Genesis was only the beginning of the earth as we know it. We do not know what was before it. And I would also like people to understand that science can be very wrong, it is not a perfected concept. Just because a theory can be prooved visually or statistically does not mean it is correct.

    1. pisean282311 profile image57
      pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      but human beings are far more older that 6000 years..earliest homo sapiens are traced to 2 lakh years..the first bunch of humans..

    2. Merlin Fraser profile image78
      Merlin Fraserposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Darwin never said man started as an ape or monkey.... that was the argument put forward by the anti Darwinists to debunk his theory which only said an Ape like creature to give an understanding of shape and original form.
      This has been the founding argument all along the inablity of various religious groups to accept that man has evolved at all and that somehow in the image of his God he is somehow perfect....  That and their inablity to accept the fact that man is just another animal spieces on this planet.

  35. Jane Bovary profile image89
    Jane Bovaryposted 6 years ago

    Actually you can thank the secular intellectuals of the Enlightenment for the emergence of charity and relief work.

    Before that the main priority for the church was Imperialism, holy war and burning heretics.

  36. skyfire profile image74
    skyfireposted 6 years ago

    let me guess hardwork of christian charity organizations, help the needy and then convert them into Christianity, take advantage of kids and women. errm, yeah.

  37. Merlin Fraser profile image78
    Merlin Fraserposted 6 years ago

    I suppose I should admit that I am a fairly tolerant person and whatever people chose to believe is entirely up to them, ‘Whatever get’s their paddles in the water of a morning.’

    However, I do have a lot of trouble understanding anybody who, because of a book, stopped thinking 5,000 years ago. Yet the same people have no problems accepting and using every manmade discovery and invention for their benefit.

    Of course you realise that the Bible was put together with a certain amount of political selection by those in power at the time.  Written 5,000 years ago and was based purely upon a bunch of stories told to illiterate tribesmen who were told the Earth was flat by the same teachers !
    Plus you are also saying that over the last 5,000 years mankind has made no significant educational or scientific gains....  Tell me how do you keep the draughts out of your cave and do you still cook over an open fire using dried Bull Shit...?

    1. pisean282311 profile image57
      pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      exactly...

 
working