jump to last post 1-29 of 29 discussions (480 posts)

Christianity and evolution

  1. Trish_M profile image88
    Trish_Mposted 4 years ago

    Hi smile

    I would like to know, please, if any Christian members of this community accept evolutionary theory as true; or if anyone knows any Christians, who believe that evolution is true?

    Thanks smile

    1. Jesus was a hippy profile image62
      Jesus was a hippyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Lots of christians accept evolution as a fact. I have even seen theists arguing for it against other theists in debates.

      1. Trish_M profile image88
        Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Hi, Yes, JWAH, that's true. I knew an Anglican priest who was happy to accept evolution, and I know that many bishops and the Pope accept it too.

        However, a fellow member has found that no Christian members of Hub pages have stated, to him, that they agree with evolution, so I was wondering about specific people, who would be willing to state that they accept it as truth. smile

        1. Jesus was a hippy profile image62
          Jesus was a hippyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Good luck. I guess you may find a few although I think they might be i the minority on hubpages.

          This site seems to attract the most fanatical religionists from all over the world.

          I had one trying to justify having sex with a 9 year old earlier just because mohammed did it.

          Unbelievable.

        2. graceomalley profile image86
          graceomalleyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Well, i think it is possible. I'm not going to dismiss it.

          I suppose that's not quite what you are looking for smile

          I see most questions as very complex, so I don't tend to definative answers, and i am one of those people who makes no one happy. i am perfectly willing to say many fine Christians accept evolution as fact.

          I see adaptation to environment as a fact. Does that count?

          1. Trish_M profile image88
            Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Well, yes, that's certainly part of it smile
            I know that this is a much more complicated issue than my question might suggest smile

        3. Lennin profile image60
          Lenninposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I for one certainly do except Evolution, There is proof all around us, take a
          look at people in some old photos taken back in our great- great-great-parents day, see how the body's structure has changed from then to now,
          Darwinian Theory tells us that part of the proof of evolution is in the fossil record, which shows a succession of gradually changing forms leading up to those known today, Structural similarities and similarities in embryonic development among living forms also paint a common ancestry , Molecular biology etc, see..creationsciencetoday.com 
          I am a Christian and i also indeed accept evolution, the bible is a great
          history book, I believe it goes hand in hand with Darwin's Theory, after all it is all about history,  Isn't it ??

          1. Mark Knowles profile image60
            Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            How is the bible a history book exactly?

            1. graceomalley profile image86
              graceomalleyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              The Bible tells a modern reader a great deal about history because the texts originated in the ancient world.These texts tell us more than any archeological dig could how ancient people saw the world, what their values were, ect. It is invaluable information about societies we have no otheer access to.

              1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                That does not make it a history book. That is social commentary according to King James and filtered through your own biases. In that case, the Greek myths and William Shakespeare's works are also "history books." wink

                This is why your religion causes so much ill will - deliberate falsehoods spread by believers. Calling the bible a history book is - at best - disingenuous.

                All we learn can really glean from the bible is that people are liars and twist the facts to suit what they want you to believe.

                You trust the "history" in the bible - which tells us that majik happens? I take all the "history" in the bible with a large pinch of salt.

                1. Dubuquedogtrainer profile image61
                  Dubuquedogtrainerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  The Bible is very historically accurate. It has greater historicity than other ancient texts.

                  1. Trish_M profile image88
                    Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Parts may be accurate, but there are many books in the bible.

                  2. A Troubled Man profile image60
                    A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    lol lol <--- coveted double laughie award

                  3. Randy Godwin profile image94
                    Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Mormon?  The reason I ask is several who've made the same claim are. 


                                                            http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

              2. Trish_M profile image88
                Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I do think that it is a very valuable resource for the historian ~ and, possibly, it is partly a history book. However, like other such documents, it cannot just be taken at face value, because of bias and because of its supernatural aspects.

          2. Trish_M profile image88
            Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Thanks for adding you comment, Lennin smile

    2. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      No.  I think you will find very few who claim that, and none who legitimately claim it in the most popular meaning of biological "evolution".

      Christians believe the Bible, period.  That's what a Christian is---a Bible-believing born-again person; a Christian does not have the liberty (nor the confusion!) to believe in other books or theories as authoritative. 

      And although there are some events that might be seen as upholding "evolution" in a way (I could elaborate but I won't here), those events do not include the account of God's creation of the first humans, nor do they include taking most of the Biblical stories as literal.

        For instance, Christians believe that Jonah really was swallowed up by a great fish that God prepared.

      Christians believe that God created the first Man (Adam) from "scratch" (the dust of the earth), formed him with His hands, and that He created Eve from Adam's rib.  He didn't create a "Neanderthal Man" that couldn't think and communicate and walk upright.

      Christians really do believe that in the beginning God created the heaven and earth.  He didn't make it spring up and "evolve" from some indefineable blob of anything.  He created it.

      There's so much more I could go into on this subject. But since I'm not a believer in evolution per-say, and that's what you were looking for, I'll refrain from elaborating further unless you'd like to hear more.
      I simply was compelled to clarify those basic points.

      1. Disappearinghead profile image89
        Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Hi Brenda, I'm a bible believing born again Christian who accepts evolution as the vehicle by which God created life on this planet. Evolution is proven in our genes. At the moment I am also reading up on the history of Jewish theology and beliefs, and it is apparent that Jews do not interpret Genesis literally either, but fully endorse evolution today. Heck they should know, it's their book that God gave to them.

        So if you believe in a literal six day creation that occurred 6000 years ago, well that's up to you, but believing in something hard enough does not necessarily make it true.

        1. Trish_M profile image88
          Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          That was what I was hoping to hear smile

          (I am not saying that I agree, just that I felt sure that there were plenty of Christians, as well as non-Christians, who accepteded evolution. smile )

      2. Trish_M profile image88
        Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I was taught by an Anglican priest, who believed in evolution. He considered the story of Adam and Eve to be a metaphor for early life forms.

        Many bishops ~ Anglican and Catholic accept evolution.

        However, a debate isn't what this thread was about ~ it was just to collect information about the acceptance, or non-acceptance, of evolution by Christian HubPages members:)

        1. 0
          Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I understand that.
          What I told you is that a Christian believes the Bible's account of Creation (Creation of mankind) at face value as the Scripture states.  There is no metaphor for that, because a Christian believes in the God who took a personal interest in creating the first human, even created him (Adam) in His image (whether that be visible attributes or invisible).
          So, you can't expand the definition of "Christian" to include non-Bible-believing people, because that makes the basic foundation of your research results invalid.
          Not trying to debate, just pointing out the facts so that you won't have a false positive result.

          1. Disappearinghead profile image89
            Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Brenda, with respect when you say that a Christian believes the Bible's account of creation at face value, that's your definition of a Christian, and not necessarily God's definition.

            To believe in a literal Genesis means to suspend all intellectual credibility and geological, astronomical, palaentological, and genetic observation must be just swept away. The scientific word is not Antichrist, it just seeks the objective truth.

            If you compare the sequence of events of Genesis 1 and 2 they are different. This contradiction makes a literal take impossible. Which one are you going with?

      3. graceomalley profile image86
        graceomalleyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Just a side issue - Brenda mentioned Neanderthal people. Most have thought that Neanderthals were much more primitive than homo sapiens, but recent research is reversing that. The Neanderthal brain was as large as a homo sapiens, though it had a different shape (no one knows what the different shape means in terms of function) Scientists thought Neanderthals were not capable of speech, but then a Neanderthal skeleton was found with a hyoid bone, a bone which perches in the throat and makes speech possible. The real kicker for me is a recent discovery that Neanderthals and homo sapiens had children together. DNA evidence has shown that Neanderthals have had children with humans of Asian and European background, though not with African homo sapiens. If we can have babies with them, and those babies have descendents still living today, they can't be so different from ourselves.

        1. 0
          Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Eh...I mentioned the Neanderthal theory, yes.
          I don't believe there were ever such beings in existence.
          No proof has ever been shown of their existence.  Only theories derived from unproveable conclusions drawn by men who were guessing.

          1. A Troubled Man profile image60
            A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            It is truly stunning the damage religion does to people.

            http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/gen … anderthals

            1. Disappearinghead profile image89
              Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              What an interesting article ATM. Thanks for posting it.

          2. pisean282311 profile image56
            pisean282311posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            @brenda interesting...it looks like u r talking about god theory...

            "No proof has ever been shown of their existence.  Only theories derived from unproveable conclusions drawn by men who were guessing."

            @A trouble man.....ya its really stunning and shocking too that religion can close human brain to such extent ...

          3. Trish_M profile image88
            Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            What makes you think this, Brenda?
            *
            I saw the skeleton of a Neanderthal child in a museum in France. She would have been about three years old at death. It was such a sad sight.

          4. Jesus was a hippy profile image62
            Jesus was a hippyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            What about the 400+ fossils?

            How do you type with your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears?

        2. Trish_M profile image88
          Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Hi smile

          I doubt that they were so very different smile

          But where do they fit into the  Adam and Eve scenario?

          1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image87
            HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            They were long gone by the time Adam and Eve came about. Just as Genesis 1 said of the humans created, be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it, and establish dominance in the animal kingdom. This is exactly what homo sapiens did. While in the process they completely pushed the Neanderthal out of existence, along with the remaining mega-fauna (mammoths, dire wolves, saber-toothed tigers), establishing themselves as the dominant species that by 10 thousand BC populated the entire inhabitable planet, as well as the only surviving species of the homo genus.

            Then Adam and Eve, free will, civilization.

            1. Mark Knowles profile image60
              Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              LAWL

              So - this majik book was written 10,000 years or so after the event? And predicts what will come 10,000 years ago that has already come to pass. Sounds about right.

              Unless you disagree with the religious scholars who now put the Majik book at being written 4-5 th century BC?

              10,000 BC man wipes out all competition and dominates the animals (like wot the bible sez to do)

              500 BC (9,500 years later) a book is written predicting this will happen......

              lol lol

              1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image87
                HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                First off, who said it was a prediction? Many of the events in creation happened millions and billions of years before humans even existed. Accurately listing these events is significant because there's no way they could have known events so far in the past, not because it was an accurate prediction of the future.

                Besides, the Neanderthal disappeared from the fossil record about 28 thousand years ago, and mega-fauna about 13 thousand years ago. Without accumulative knowledge through writing or an uninterrupted society to maintain the stories, it's highly unlikely this would be known by the time the bible was written. Not to mention the fact that even the humans involved in the process would most likely be unaware of their accomplishment or of its significance.

                As for the bible, yeah, the Torah was probably edited together in the form we know it today around 450 BC, following Jewish exile in Babylon. The four or more sources that this combined text was made of were centuries older.

                * The Yahwist source(J): written around 950 BC in the southern Kingdom of Judah.
                * The Elohist source(E): written around 850 BC in the northern Kingdom of Israel.
                * The Deuteronomist(D): written around 600 BC in Jerusalem during a period of religious reform.
                * The Priestly source(P): written around 500 BC by Kohens (Jewish priests) in exile in Babylon.
                * The Redactors: first JE, then JED, and finally JEDP, producing the final form of the Torah c. 450 BC.
                (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis)

                And even those appear to have been updated versions of even older texts.

                For example, Genesis 11 (from the Yahwist source) lists the birth place of Abraham's father as 'Ur of the Chaldeans'. Most scholars and historians agree this is referring to the Sumerian city of Ur, though it was not called 'Ur of the Chaldeans' until the Chaldeans settled at the site of Ur around 850 BC. Obviously, in Abraham and his father's time, which definitely predated the kingdom of Judah, this would not be how that city was known. This is just one of many examples that illustrates these were old stories that were updated with names and titles that would be recognized by its contemporaries in the time they were written as we know them.

                1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                  Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  LOLO

                  How funny that your majik book told what was to come yet it is not a prediction. And you did not say it was either? "Be fruitful and multiply" is past tense?

                  Like "be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it, and establish dominance in the animal kingdom 9,500 years ago." lol lol

                  Little wonder your religion causes so many fights.

                  Cut and paste some more stuff from wikipedia so we know you can cut and paste stuff.......

                  1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image87
                    HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    When you're reading a book set in the past, do the characters speak in past tense about the time they're living in? Think about what you're saying.

      4. Doc Snow profile image96
        Doc Snowposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        No.  Literalist Christians are not the only Christians, and in my opinion, the best evidence in Scripture says that they are not necessarily the wisest nor 'best' Christians, either:  Scripture is full of metaphor, poetry, and question (think of Jesus' parables, for instance.)  They are also full of inconsistencies which are either a) a result of human folly or struggle, in which case the Bible is not infallible and the product of pure Divine inspiration, or b) deliberately put there by God. 

        (Examples:  compare Genesis 1 & 2, and tell us the sequence of Creation; compare the Nativity stories in the four Gospels, and tell us the exact circumstances of Jesus' birth; or compare the four Gospels on the Resurrection, and tell us just who first found out that Christ was risen.)

        In the latter case--that the inconsistencies are of Divine origin--there are several possible explanations: a)  possibly, as Kerry suggested above, God needed to use language that would be understandable to humans over many millennia--humans holding many different pictures of how the world in general is--and such diversity could not be accomplished without inconsistency; b) possibly they are there, as some have argued, in order to 'test our faith' by requiring us to believe an obvious impossibility; or c) possibly they are there to let us know that God doesn't want us to reduce His book to an instruction manual/history book.  Possibly He wants us to use our minds.

        Throughout history, there has been no shortage of Christians who have done so.

      5. 0
        Emily Sparksposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I agree with Brenda.  You either trust in Christ and believe the whole Bible, creation and all, or you don't.  It is simple.  The Bible is not a smorgasborg where you pick what you want and leave the rest.  You either believe the entire Word of God, or you don't.

    3. liftandsoar profile image81
      liftandsoarposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Hi Trish, you know from our previous exchanges that I am one who believes the Scriptures to be the Word of God, inerrant and reliable in all that they affirm.  I, along with many of my ilk, believe that the first chapter of Genesis is an account of creation arranged in a poetic framework designed to be remembered easily.  Chapter two then picks up on it and goes into detail regarding the creation of humankind.

      While there there is a sizeable and vocal group of Christians who believe that God created the world in six twenty-four hour days and relatively recently, there are also a vast number who hold that God was ultimately responsible for bringing the world into being, but has used the processes outlined in scientific theory.

      Much like an artist takes satisfaction not only in the finished product but in the art process, God's is glorified not only by the end product but also be the process.  So to the degree that it can be demostrated that there has been development over time (perhaps millions of years) Christians can readily accept much of evolutionary theory.  I recommend the writings of Hugh Ross to any who would like to learn more of this Christian perspective.

      Finally, there are assertions made by evolutionist that stretch credulity far more than anything Chrstians believe.  The further back it goes the more evolution shows itself to be more a theory adopted by "faith" than an hypothesis demostrated by facts.

      1. Trish_M profile image88
        Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Thank you, Lift and Soar. smile

        Can I just double check, please?

        Are you saying that you believe that God created life and that it then evolved; or that you believe in creation, as per the Bible, but think that it is equally acceptable to believe that God created life and that it then evolved; or that either may be the case?

        Thanks smile

    4. graceomalley profile image86
      graceomalleyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Louis Leakey, the anthropologist who pioneered the "Out of Africa" theory, and discovered the homo habilis skeleton, was a Christian, the son of missionaries. He was planning to be a missionary before he became facinated by bones. He saw no problem with Christianity and evolution. One of his first books on early humans was titled "Adam's Ancestors." He often said that there was no conflict between the Bible and science - some people just read the bible the wrong way.

      Jane Goodall is also a Christian, and sees no problem between her faith and evolution.

      C.S. Lewis did accept evolution, though in his later years he changed his mind. As I understand it - his problem was not scientific, it was he thought evolutionary theory made people uncaring about the suffering of others - his problem was with what some call "Social Darwinism."

      Jane Goodall has commented on the hostility towards people of faith in the scientific community, and how difficult that is for young beleivers who want to go into science. I think perhaps many quietly choose another field. I personally think a polarizing culture has grown up that sees science on one side and faith on the other - it isn't necessary, but once the battle lines are drawn, getting everyone to lay down their weapons of war is difficult.


      CS Lewis

      1. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Sadly, we need to reject everything we know about evolution if an involved god dunnit.

        There is/was no developmental destination. If this was the case, evolutionary theory is complete bunkum.

        So - unless your Invisible Super Being merely threw everything in a pot to see what came out - which invalidates christianity - there is no synergy.

        Life on earth has also - not finished evolving. wink

        1. 0
          Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          This may be the first post of yours, Mark, that I agree with (except for the last line, of course).

          I like it when a person states which side of the line they're on; actually, when they're aware that there even really IS a line!

          Perhaps we have something in common after all----neither of us are lukewarm fence-straddlers.

        2. Trish_M profile image88
          Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Hi Mark smile
          Maybe. Maybe not. smile

          The thing is, there are many hubs and threads, on this site, where science and atheism are on one side and belief and creationism are on the other.
          Then there is a debate and maybe even some unpleasantness at times.

          However ~ as with others on this thread ~ I keep saying that evolutionary theory is not atheistic dogma.

          Of course I can see where these iseas come from, and I can see why some people ~ on both 'sides' ~ think that Christianity and evolution are incompatible.

          Even so, there are many Christians, who believe that Genesis is allegorical. They think that God set life in motion, allowing it to evolve.

          Some Christians obviously accept this, but one fellow Hubber had not, yet, encountered any on here.

          On this thread I am seeking them out (not looking for debate ~ I have debated the issue at length elsewhere smile )

          1. Mark Knowles profile image60
            Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            No maybes about it.

            There was either a developmental destination (us) in mind and evolution was deliberately manipulated in order to achieve this - in which case everything we know about evolution is wrong.

            Or - there was not - in which case christianity is wrong.

            As there is ample evidence for evolution as we understand it.... Guess what?

            1. Trish_M profile image88
              Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Hi smile

              Just to be clear, I do not believe in the Genesis story ~ except, perhaps as allegory.

              What I am saying, here, is not that Christians are right, or that non-Christians are right, or that some liberal Christians are right; rather, I am arguing that some genuine Christians do accept the theory of evolution. That's all.

              Many Christians state that it is impossible to be a Christian and also to accept 'atheistic' evolutionary theory. You may even agree with them, but, either way, these Christians do exist and I am trying to find some of them.

              Now, in response to your point, I would say that we do not know, yet, how life arrived on Earth. There are hypotheses, but no-one actually knows. Therefore, if we allow for the possibility of the existence of God, and if that God is all knowing, etc, etc, then it would fit that God could have created life. Once created, life could then evolve. There would not, necessarily, have to be any developmental plan, simply the ability for that first simple life to evolve into more complex organisms ~ as per Darwin.

              I am not saying that I believe this. I am an agnostic, who does not think that the Bible describes God, or his works. I don't know how life got here. This is not even part of evolutionary theory. I am just saying that it is a hypothesis, accepted by some Christians, which fits with the way things seem to be. smile

            2. vector7 profile image61
              vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Hey Mark..

              Looking for an explanation for evolution of biological flight.

              Got one for me?

              smile

      2. Trish_M profile image88
        Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks Grace. smile
        I have read some of their books, but I didn't know that.

    5. Trish_M profile image88
      Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Just to explain this thread a little better....

      In the 'comments' section of his hub 'My Search For Truth', Highvoltagewriter wrote: "BTW Trish, I have not had one Christian who answered my question claim to believe in evolution...I will give it a week and see if there are any takers...I know they are out there! smile"

      So I am wondering ~ are they out there in Hubland, and, if so, will they will make themselves known? smile

    6. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image87
      HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Hi Trish_M,

      My name is HeadlyvonNoggin, I am a Christian, I am a hubber, and I believe God created evolution. In fact, that's the main topic I hub about. Really the only topic I hub about.

      And, I take the stories of early Genesis literally, including creation. One hub illustrates how Genesis 1 correctly lists 13 specific 'creations' and 6 major eras of earth's history in the correct chronological order. Another illustrates how pre-flood Genesis is actually set in an already populated world and that the humans created at the end of Genesis 1 and the creation of Adam in Genesis 2 are two separate events. And then another that links the events of early Genesis through Babel to the dawn of civilization in Mesopotamia.

      I believe life formed through evolution driven by God's will that they survive and multiply and fill the earth. Life adapted in whatever way necessary to realize what it was commanded to do.

      In my experience on HP, Christians here are either of the fundamental young earth creationist variety, or in the camp of accepting evolution and science in general, and viewing early genesis as metaphor. I, so far, appear to be in the minority. I hope to change that.

      1. Trish_M profile image88
        Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks for commenting.

        I'll take a look at your hubs.

    7. Trish_M profile image88
      Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I really did only intend this thread to be a fact-finding mission smile

      I must have been feeling very naive at the time smile

    8. fixter profile image62
      fixterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Trish_M, all of my words on this thred are my true convictions. May time find you well,as with all the posters here! 
          Time for me to go,  Text ya later in Hubland.

    9. dmop profile image87
      dmopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I consider myself a Christian, though many would disagree with my ideas. I do believe that evolution is a distinct possibility. Do we fully understand it, I don't think so; are our definitions accurate, probably not. I think we might be close but there are just too many missing pieces to know for sure. I do know that there is too much evidence to suggest otherwise, for me to believe that the earth is only 7 or 8 thousand years old. I have studied and researched the methods used to date artifacts, and the methods are tested and tested, over and over again in separate independent labs and they are accurate to the degree that is specified by the testing methods used. Yes science is flawed, but so is everything that has been touched by the hands of man. I said everything, even the Holy Bible. We are not perfect; therefore nothing created by us will ever be perfect. Take for example Dinosaurs; the Bible doesn't mention their existence. Many will argue, oh yes it does they just changed the words to Rhinoceroses it should have been a type of dinosaur. OK, I can buy that as a possibility, but doesn’t that prove that the Bible is flawed. Then I hear oh no; that is just how it is translated. This could go on all day. The bottom line is that the Holy Bible is sacred and holy, and it holds truths that you will find in no other place on Earth, but it is the work of men of God; not God directly.

      1. Trish_M profile image88
        Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks for adding your name to the list of Christians, who are willing to accept the possibility of evolution, at least .

        As for fully understanding it, I get the impression that even the experts accept that they do not yet have the full picture smile



        Well, yes, the Bible is considered to be a sacred holy book. It may contain some truths ~ ie some history. It was written by men, who thought, or claimed, that they had some kind of direct line to God. That doesn't mean that they did, of course. smile

    10. Trish_M profile image88
      Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Hi All smile

      Thanks to everyone, who participated in the discussion. I am not surprised at the mix of responses.

      As expected, some Christians feel that they can accept evolution, and some do not.
      I just wanted to show that the former did exist on Hub Pages smile

      Thanks again.

      1. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I actually find the ones who accept it (hard not to given the overwhelming evidence) as somewhat funnier than the ones who understand it means their majik book is wrong and need to reject it outright.

        As a method of "creating something in your own image," it would be hard to think of a less efficient method than evolution. 14 billion years? If I was omnipotent, I could have created man in a day. wink

        And if you understand evolution - a developmental destination destroys all knowledge we have of the process.

        Not to mention the fact that evolution is an ongoing process and we can hardly be the end product. lol

        At least the science deniers are being honest with themselves (if no one else). They are protecting their irrational beliefs to the best of their abilities.

        1. liftandsoar profile image81
          liftandsoarposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Thankfully, none of us is God!  I'm amazed at how absolutely certain you "scientific" types are about your opinions.  Given humankind's record, that certainty is an act of blind faith.

          1. Mark Knowles profile image60
            Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Yes - I can see why you would need to think that. This would be why your religion causes so many fights.

            Sorry you don't understand. Maybe an education would help? Were you homeschooled perchance? Did they have biology classes where you grew up?

            So - you are not absolutely certain about the majikal super being you have spent your life grovelling to? Despite the 100% lack of evidence and illogical nature of your beliefs?

        2. Trish_M profile image88
          Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Well, Mark, I am as willing as anyone to debate issues, but I have no desire to cause people distress. Thus, though I am willing ~ keen, even ~ to debate the evolution issue, I don't want to insult the people with whom I disagree. I like many of them.

          There are, of course, those who insult me and threaten me with hellfire, etc, but I don't want to argue with them on their level, even though I may feel annoyed and irritated by their stance.

          I understand what you mean about those believers who deny evolution, because, like many atheists, they see that proven evolution could be considered as 'proof' against God's existence.

          However, it doesn't have to be that way. As you say, evolution does not explain the origins of life, so there is still room for a creator God ~ provided one accepts that Adam and Eve would then have to be more like amoebae than humans.

          As I said, this thread was just my opportunity to see how many Christians there were, here on Hub Pages, who might accept that possibility and see Genesis as 'true', but only in an allegorical way.

          Just for the record, I find evolution to be 'unbelievable' too, yet I believe it, because it fits with our scientific knowledge. On the other hand, I find Genesis to be simply unbelievable, because it doesn't fit with much, if any, of our scientific knowledge smile

          1. Mark Knowles profile image60
            Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            But - and this is a BIG but. While evolution allows for a Creator God - it does not allow for a Creator God that was involved in directing the process to end up with humans as the final product.

            SO - this Creator God just threw a few bits n pieces together and had no idea what (if anything)  would emerge.

            1. Greek One profile image80
              Greek Oneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              My Mentor is ALIVE!!!!

              1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                And well. big_smile

                You still owe me money.........

                1. Greek One profile image80
                  Greek Oneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm so sorry...
                  Fricken PayPal is NOT to be trusted!!!

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                    Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Whatevva!

            2. Trish_M profile image88
              Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Apparently so.
              Well, thinking about it, an all-knowing God would know, I suppose smile smile

              It just becomes a circular argument, doesn't it smile

              1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Knowing what would come out and directing the process to ensure something came out are not the same thing. wink

            3. Eric Newland profile image59
              Eric Newlandposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Why not? Why wouldn't God have known ahead of time, or why would God not have been able to guide the entire evolutionary process in ways either overt or too subtle to be detected by science, yet equally profound?

              Natural selection and mutation, like everything else in the material universe, are ultimately subservient to God's will.

              1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                So - we need to discard everything we understand about evolution then? When there is an environmental change that means a species adapts - it is god doinit? Dammit - it was majik after all. lol

                Should I go kill some homos?

                1. Eric Newland profile image59
                  Eric Newlandposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I am saying that in the context of the assumptions that (A) the Biblical God is real and (B) He created life via the modern notion of evolution, it isn't reasonable to assume that He started the spark of life with "no idea" what would happen or that He couldn't have continued to play an active role in events from that point to the origin of man, however small or rare any such direct "nudge" in the right direction might have been on top of nature taking its course.

                  1. Eric Newland profile image59
                    Eric Newlandposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    To put it another way, if you're constructing a hypothetical situation in an attempt to show a fallacy, you can't build your scenario on the God spoken of in the Bible being real, but not omnipotent or omniscient. If you assume the latter you're not assuming the former, so the entire scenario becomes a strawman.

              2. Trish_M profile image88
                Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                In your opinion / based on your (supernatural) beliefs smile

              3. A Troubled Man profile image60
                A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Why would God "guide the entire evolutionary process" to result in over 99% of all the species on earth to be extinct? How does that make sense?



                Why would god create the Glyptapanteles Wasp whose only way to survive is to burrow into the larvae of a caterpillar, sting it such that it is paralyzed and then lay its eggs so the young can slowly feed on the caterpillar?

                Is that what you call subservience to God's will?

                1. Eric Newland profile image59
                  Eric Newlandposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Technically I call that awesome and fascinating, if we're gonna split hairs.

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image94
                    Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Not if you're the caterpillar!  yikes


                                                            http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

                  2. Mark Knowles profile image60
                    Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Majik!

          2. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image87
            HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Genesis only conflicts with known history when read as it is traditionally interpreted. The traditional interpretations that say Adam was the first human are centuries old and formed by people who read Genesis that way because they had nowhere near the level of knowledge we have now.

            It is clear, using our modern understanding, that the creation of humans in Genesis 1 and the creation of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2 are two separate events. The 'others' that Cain feared in Genesis 4 and the whole bit about 'sons of God' having children with 'daughters of humans' in Genesis 6, humans who it also says are mortal and only live 120 years compared to Adam and his descendants who Genesis 5 says lived for centuries, make it clear that not only is Genesis illustrating this story took place in an already populated world, but that those other humans are an important part of the story.

            Genesis matches up with real history all the way through the earth's formation and the formation of all life (Gen 1), then the creation of Adam and Eve as the first beings able to choose to live outside of God's will (Gen 2), then rule breaking (Gen 3/4), then children born of both bloodlines (Gen 6), then a local/regional flood (Gen 7-9), then the dispersion of Noah's descendants from Babel, each with free will, their own unique language, and knowledge of the flood story (Gen 11). Almost as if free will were planted into an already established planet.

            This coincides with the rapid advancement of civilizations in Sumer, Egypt, and the Indus Valley around 3500 BC.

            1. Mark Knowles profile image60
              Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Almost as though "free will," evolved with human consciousness you mean? lol lol

              Noah's descendents? lol
              With their own unique language? lol
              Chinese/Italian - same roots right? lol
              Did the Australian Aborigines swim from mount Ararat? lol
              Or did they ride the Kangaroos as they swam? lol

              1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image87
                HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                No, I think the emergence of free will can be clearly seen historically as the same time/place that there was a noticeable increase in violence. Some associate it with 5.9 kiloyear event where northern Africa and Mesopotamia became a very dry/arid region, literally dispersing the humans in that region in all directions not long before the birth of full-blown civilizations in Sumer and Egypt...

                "Historically the period of the 5.9 kiloyear event is associated with the increased violence noticed in both Egypt and throughout the Middle East, leading eventually to the Early Dynastic Period in both the First Dynasty of Egypt and Sumer." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.9_kiloyear_event)

                Before that, humans lived very much in harmony with nature and didn't feel the need to impose their will on others and take whatever they wanted. Kind of like the Aborigines of Australia. Their ancestors migrated out of Africa tens of thousands of years before these events. Notice the dramatic difference between the Australian Aborigines and the "civilized" humans that came from the Mediterranean region (Sumerians/Egyptians/Akkadians/Babylonians/Greeks/Romans).

                And no, the Chinese and Italian languages most likely do not share the same roots language wise. Genesis clearly illustrates numerous languages coming out of the Babel story. This coincides with historical events like the emergence of the Indus Valley culture around 3400 BC, where a people of unknown origin and having their own unique language began building advanced structures and quickly developed their own system of writing. In that small region, after 3500 BC, the Sumerians, the Akkadians, the Egyptians, and the Indus Valley culture all had unique languages.

    11. dearljackson profile image59
      dearljacksonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Truth is that which agrees with fimal reality. Truth and eternity are synomymous. There is no truth apart form eternity. Jesus said, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End..." Revelation 1:8. In the light of eternal truth, the theory of evolution has no creditability. It does not agree with final reality. The Word of God is the truth. It is the revelation of Almighty God to His creation, i.e. human beings. Human beings are not sovereign beings. The purpose for our individual existance did not begin with us. It began with our creator, the only Sovereign, Almighty God.

      1. Trish_M profile image88
        Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Hi smile


        But in the light of what we can clearly see around us, the theory of evolution has lots of credibility.

        I do not see how it can be possible to discount science, just because of a set set of ancient stories.

        Sorry smile

      2. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        No, truth is what agrees with evidence.



        That makes absolutely no sense.



        Evolution is a fact, there are mountains of evidence to support it in every facet of scientific thought. This has been shown with viruses and how they evolve as a result of antibiotics, for example.

      3. getitrite profile image81
        getitriteposted 4 years ago in reply to this



        Then Jesus must be a lie, because if he has a beginning and an end, he is not eternal...and since you asserted "there is no truth apart from eternity" you have confirmed this.



        Thanks for clearing that up.



        Of course you must have irrefutable facts to base these BOLD assertions upon.  And I'm sure you held these facts to the same uber rigid standards that you hold the Theory of Evolution .

        1. dearljackson profile image59
          dearljacksonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Evolution needs time. Time has no value in the realm of eternity. Eternity is always NOW.  Time has an expiration perspective. Nothing expires in the realm of time. Almighty (Elohim) God is the embodiment of eternity. All that is visible and invisible came out of Him. God is the final reality.

          1. dearljackson profile image59
            dearljacksonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Correction. Nothing expires in the realm of eternity. Etertinity has no need for time. Nothing changes in the realm of eternity.

          2. getitrite profile image81
            getitriteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I'm sure you have no idea what you are talking about.  In fact this sounds like pure drivel. 

            Using drivel to "prove" that God is what dunnit is desperate indeed.

            You need to prove that your God exists first, then prove that He has something to do with eternity.

            I'll leave you to work now, as you have a lot to do proving these outrageous assertions.

          3. A Troubled Man profile image60
            A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            So, based on your logic, you don't own a watch or a clock or a calendar? You have no use for time and don't recognize it even though it is woven into our universe and is a requirement for it to exist?

            Yes, evolution requires time, huge amounts of time, which is one of the great misunderstandings believers have because they are unable to grasp this concept.

            Your words are somewhat poetic but they have very little meaning, if none at all.

    12. chinedu eke profile image61
      chinedu ekeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      that is so true

  2. kerryg profile image88
    kerrygposted 4 years ago

    I have a bunch of family members and friends who are Christian and believe in evolution. My husband and his family are Muslim and they believe in evolution, too.

    It's mostly people who believe the Bible is the literal truth who don't. Reasonable people acknowledge that an immortal, omniscient, omnipotent being would be smart enough to use metaphors when attempting to explain the origin of the universe to a bunch of semi-literate Bronze Age sheep herders. lol

    1. Eric Newland profile image59
      Eric Newlandposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      That's more or less where I sit. Try explaining "billions and billions of years" to people who lived close enough to the equator that the only seasons they knew were "wet" and "dry."

      I also believe God is omnipotent, so I feel that I also have to acknowledge the slight possibility that Genesis 1 is literally true despite all appearances. He could have created the world any way He wanted and caused its origin to scientifically appear to be anything else He wanted, but that sounds like a lot of extra work to me.

      Personally, I see the exact mechanics of the beginning of the world as non-crucial. I can see myself standing at the gates of Heaven, and God might say, "Oh, by the way, it really was seven days," and I'll be like, "Oh, sorry, my bad," and He'll be like, "S'alright, you still got the more important stuff right. Come on in."

      1. Jesus was a hippy profile image62
        Jesus was a hippyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Why should you be rewarded for believing someone without evidence and people who attempt to make sense of things and use the mind that god gave them get punished for ever and ever and ever.

        Sounds a bit f**ked up to me.

        1. Eric Newland profile image59
          Eric Newlandposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I don't pretend to know with absolute certainty who's going to Heaven or Hell; Hell in particular. I feel that doing that is placing yourself in God's place.

          1. Trish_M profile image88
            Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            But I have dound some Christian believers who accept evolution then?
            Great!
            Thanks.
            Any more?

      2. kerryg profile image88
        kerrygposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Yup. I'm personally agnostic on both the existence of God and the possibility of intelligent design, but it puzzles me why God, if He exists, would bother to create the world 6,000 years ago in 7 days in such a way that all available evidence points to it being created ~4.5 billion years ago in a universe created ~9 billion years before that. I mean He certainly could have done so, but it seems like an awful lot of effort for a joke!

        Of course, far be it from me to guess what an immortal, omnipotent, omniscient being might find funny... lol

        I guess the alternative possibility is that it's supposed to be some sort of test of faith, but I find it even more unbelievable that a Creator God would scatter lies all over His creation, give us a mind capable of uncovering those lies (coming up with something like radiometric dating is, after all, quite a bit more complicated than rubbing two sticks together to make a fire), and then punish us for believing His lies.

        It makes much more sense that Genesis is supposed to be metaphorical! After all, even human writers and orators have the brains to tailor their words to their audience, I think it's kind of insulting to the notion of an omniscient God to assume He wouldn't be capable of the same.

        1. liftandsoar profile image81
          liftandsoarposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Kerryg, you've just stated the number one reason I believe the earth was created over a vast amount of time.  If anything God is a God of truth and transparancy.  He does not play games nor does he mislead.  There's much about Him we may not understand, but that doesn't mean he misleads us.

        2. Trish_M profile image88
          Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The logic of an agnostic smile

    2. Trish_M profile image88
      Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks. I knew that they were out there smile

  3. AshtonFirefly profile image83
    AshtonFireflyposted 4 years ago

    I think you would have to be more specific with the question.

    I am a Christian. I believe in evolution, as in the gradual change and development of particular characteristics within a species.

    As far as evolution attempts to explain how the universe got started, well that's another question entirely. I think God created the world. But he could have created it any way he wanted. Even through evolution.

    To be honest, and this may sound weird, but...I don't really care.

    Whether or not I developed from an amoeba or was created spontaneously from a command doesn't really matter to me. I think I'm created by God If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. If I'm right, I'm right. Does it really matter? I believe I'm created by God either way. But that's just my opinion. Attempting to force theistic ideas on a scientific community is rather...pointless. As well as unproductive. Most Christians have the absurd idea that science is "out to get" Christianity. That's absolutely ludicrous.

    Okay I'm off my soap box.

    1. recommend1 profile image70
      recommend1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I find that most christians believe as you do. 

      Fundamental christians are few and far between in most parts of the civilized world, most actual christians just live a christian lifestyle and adopt christian values and morals.

      There are very few people actually pushing creationism as having any credibilty, and all the intelligent christians are able to cope with the metaphysical aspects of the bible and get the message from the stories and imagery without believing that the metaphors offered as description are true stories.

      Without exception the fundies show themselves to be either plain stupid, morally bankrupt or more usually they are waggling their little inflated ego stick.

      1. Paul Wingert profile image79
        Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Mainstream Jews don't take the Bible, or their Jewish Bible, literally and neither does the Vatican. It's quite amusing and also pathetic that there's still people out there that fully believe that the earth was made in 7 days and that life started in a garden with a talking snake.

      2. Trish_M profile image88
        Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        So you think that the majority of Christians probably accept evolution.
        I wonder ... smile

        1. recommend1 profile image70
          recommend1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yes - in my experience almost every christian believes in evolution, and they see no conflict with their religious beliefs.  It is only a small but very loud group of pseudo-christians who are so deliberately dis-educated.

          1. Paul Wingert profile image79
            Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            De-evolving lol

    2. Trish_M profile image88
      Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Hi smile

      Evolution doesn't really deal with how everything began, only with how it developed, so I am not asking about that specific matter.

      As for change within species, that's another 'weird' issue, because it is very difficult to exactly define a 'species'.

      Because change is usually very gradual, 'adaptations' do only take place within what might be termed the same species, but many little changes can make a few very big ones, which is why it appears to some individuals that evolutionists think that one creature can turn into, or give birth to, another.

      That doesn't happen, obviously.

      I am asking if you believe that all the creatures, on earth today, developed, slowly but surely, from very primitive life, which inhabited Earth, many, many, many generations ago ~ whether or not at the instigation of God.

      To clarify, I am including evolution of humans, and other primates such as chimpanzees, from an early ape-like ancestor.

      (And, of course, some creatures still exist as they did many generations ago.)

      1. Randy Godwin profile image94
        Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Yes!  smile


                                      http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

        1. Trish_M profile image88
          Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I am asking if you believe that all the creatures, on earth today, developed, slowly but surely, from very primitive life, which inhabited Earth, many, many, many generations ago ~ whether or not at the instigation of God.

          To clarify, I am including evolution of humans, and other primates such as chimpanzees, from an early ape-like ancestor.

          Hi Randy smile
          Thanks for the reply ~ but are you Christian?

      2. AshtonFirefly profile image83
        AshtonFireflyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Ahh ok I see. Thanks for clarifying. smile To be really honest with you....I have no idea....

    3. stclairjack profile image78
      stclairjackposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      best answer in this thread!

  4. Paul Wingert profile image79
    Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago

    A vast majority of the Catholics believe in evolution. The Vatican accepted it a long time ago.

    1. Trish_M profile image88
      Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It will be interesting to see if that is reflected in the responses we receive on this thread smile

    2. Caleb DRC profile image86
      Caleb DRCposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Paul, could you substantiate the Catholic church has officially acknowledged evolution. I have long suspected this but had no proof.

  5. diogenes profile image83
    diogenesposted 4 years ago

    Any priest with half a brain has found he has to work the belief of evolution into the philosophy containing his religious beliefs.  Some of them have done so quite cleverly.
    Trish.  It's not whether there is a force which we may call a Supreme Being behind the complex confusion of the universe, it's why so many follow the dictates of a small book put together so long after the event of Christ.
    Man has been such an evolutionary winner, perhaps that's why he can't accept the ultimate loss of a death with nothing familiar to follow it.
    Perhaps you might ask how many atheists have some religious beliefs?
    For in truth neither athiests not theists can believe in their hearts that the other may be right. 
    I will say this.  I have never met a doubting atheist, although many religious people have strong doubts.
    This comment didn't come out right, but I'll leave it in place...

    1. Trish_M profile image88
      Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Hi smile
      Yes, there are lots of whys and wherefores, and I appreciate that this is a very simple question about a very complex issue, but it was purely to gather information, in response to a comment by another member.

  6. curtisnh005 profile image61
    curtisnh005posted 4 years ago

    Trish: I think that is a great thought provoking question.  I think the scientific facts support evolution. The bible and other books that were excluded from the bible by religious institutions of the time make a history of man that has many holes and shows a God that works through many strange ways. I personally believe that the Bible is far from literal and although we have professed experts of it's various meanings, that they really don't know any more that you or I. With that said, I believe that because of the facts of evolution and that the Bible is far from literally that the two are easily compatible since many of the things revealed in Genesis is easy to interpret and apply to the evolutionary concept.  Such as what did a day really mean to God..a million years, a 24 hour period, etc.  If God created man/woman by slowing evolving him, then he still created them.

    1. Trish_M profile image88
      Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, indeed.
      Thanks smile

  7. Druid Dude profile image60
    Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago

    God changes. If God didn't change,  He would still be sitting in the darkness which preceded the light. Change is an evolution. If we were created to not change, we would still be as animals, not knowing good or evil, but we were made to change, to adapt. The bible is about knowing the self, the inner being. There is where God is "hiding".

  8. Highvoltagewriter profile image89
    Highvoltagewriterposted 4 years ago

    Good job Trish...you got a lot more responses in this form than I did in my question form and it came from those who are "true to there school" so to speak. I also believe in a type of evolution for creatures do adapt to changes in their environment. What I do not believe in, is on species evolving into another species. I have known many Christians that thought that evolution was God's way of creating the world...that He does time differently than we do.

    Now I wonder if the forms are more productive in getting a wider response than the question section.

    1. Druid Dude profile image60
      Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      We have always been man. Adam was an evolution. The gaining of knowledge was an evolution. (Otherwise, the first atomic explosion would have been detonated in the garden. Judaism was an evolution, christianity was an evolution. Everything changes. In this way God never changes....he is everchanging.

      1. 0
        CJ Sledgehammerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Although there does seem to be some validity to micro-evolution, macro-evolution is nothing more than  intellectual fool's gold.

        I have known many evolutionists and Christians during my life-time...I often disagree with both parties, so I am somewhat of an outcast.

        Many of the "Christians" that I have known are what I refer to as "Cultural Christians", that is, they were born in what they perceive to be a Christian nation, and since they don't support abortion and since they attend church on Christ Mass and Easter every year, this somehow makes them a follower of Christ.

        Many "Christians" are often led astray because they tend to be superstitious and lazy and do not actively seek God's truth nor do they concern themselves with studying God's Word. Therefore, they are easy prey and easy pickins for whatever social trend or popular thought comes along.

        So, it doesn't surprise me that some "Christians" accept something as absurd as macro-evolution, nor do they understand the implications of supporting such a fallacious principle. They are like lambs led to the slaughter - lambs that have compromised themselves for material gain and actively pursue pleasurable traditions instead of standing their ground and holding fast to the truth.

        Trish, I have told you before, your faith in evolution is far greater than my faith in God. You have absolutely nothing to go on, but the theories of men, who rely on the theories of their mentors, who rely on their mentors, and so on and so forth.

        The reason why it's still called the "Theory of Evolution" after 160 years of toil, is they have never been able to find any evidence that would make this so-called theory into a law.

        All evolution was meant to do, was to provide an alternative to "Creationism". They know there is nothing to their theory, but they feel obligated to render an alternative point-of-view to the Biblical perspective. What you have placed your faith in is an impossibility - it is nothing more than a hope and a dream.

        1. kerryg profile image88
          kerrygposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          "The reason why it's still called the "Theory of Evolution" after 160 years of toil, is they have never been able to find any evidence that would make this so-called theory into a law. "

          Laws are not more "true" than theories and a theory does not become a law when it has amassed a sufficient amount of evidence to support it. They are different concepts.

          Laws are concise statements (usually mathematical) that describe how nature works under a specific set of conditions. Theories are a synthesis of multiple related principles, observations, and concepts, generally applying to a much broader range of circumstances.

          You might find this informative:

          http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html

          1. 0
            CJ Sledgehammerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I appreciate your input, Kerryg - it proves my point even more.

            1. kerryg profile image88
              kerrygposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Lol, okay.

              1. vector7 profile image61
                vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                He's right..

                You're helping his argument buddy.

                smile

        2. Trish_M profile image88
          Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          No, really, that is not the case at all.

          It is important, when debating this matter, to understand the meanings of the terms, and a 'scientific theory' is not just a vague hypothesis; it is something, which has been shown to fit with all of the available evidence, and which, therefore, to all intents and purposes, has been shown to be true and correct.

          I did not want this thread to turn into a debate, however smile

        3. Trish_M profile image88
          Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I have my own mind and my own brain. smile
          I also have 'faith' that gravity will keep me tied to the earth and that the light will come on when I flick a switch.

  9. Jerami profile image79
    Jeramiposted 4 years ago

    Genesis 1:20 ...  Let the waters bring forth abundantly ...

         Another version says that the spirit of God moved across the surface of the waters and then life abounded. Scriptures doesn't say that God created individyally, each of these creatures, which fits quite nicely with the concept of evolution.

    1. Druid Dude profile image60
      Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Well, I see Adam as the first of our species that had an actual name, I don't see him as the first man. I'm not a christian. I could just as well call the first guy Joe or Pete

      1. Paul Wingert profile image79
        Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Adam is not a name but an acronym. The A D A M are words that in Hebrew means north, west, south, and east.

    2. Trish_M profile image88
      Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, I think that it's perfectly possible to be a 'believer' and to accept evolution. smile

      1. 0
        CJ Sledgehammerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        "Yes, I think that it's perfectly possible to be a 'believer' and to accept evolution." - Trish_M

        Indeed you do, but you also believe in evolution, so it's obvious you are open for anything...except truth.

        The only "Christian" that is open to evolution are those who do not understand God's Word and understand even less about life. They must also have a fond disregard for the scientific method, such that, they also give this fallacious theory a "free pass", just like the scientific community.

        1. Disappearinghead profile image89
          Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Nonsense. Creationism demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of God's word as well as observable scientific understanding. To believe in creationism is to commit intellectual suicide, and to disregard biology, genetics, astronomy, geology, palaeontology,....ology,......ology,.....ad nausium.

          Just where is the credible evidence for a literal 6000 year old Earth?

          1. 0
            CJ Sledgehammerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Disappearinghead:

            I think you have demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge regarding God's word.

            You say "to believe in creationsim is to commit intellectual suicide" yet you endorse a faith-based philosophy that has offered more frauds than facts.

            Truth is, intellectual suicide is believing in something that has ABSOLUTELY no credibility and this is exactly what macro-evolution offers. It is an impossibility, my friend - intellectual fool's gold.

            Now, I may not be able to prove God's existence to someone who insists that "seeing is believing", but often times it is this same individual that turns right around and promotes something that they have never seen take place, nor have their mentors unearthed any credible evidence, nor have the authors of this theory made any observations of fact or conducted any tests to validate their theory -and  then they have the audacity to claim the intellectual high ground? Now, that's intellectual suicide and flat-out dishonest!

            Besides, I would rather commit "intellectual suicide" by your definitions and suffer your judgment than to be committed to eternal damnation by God's.

            1. Disappearinghead profile image89
              Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              "Even more compelling evidence for a common ancestor comes from the study of what are known as ancient repetitive elements (AREs). These arise from "jumping genes", which are capable of copying and inserting themselves in various other locations in the genome. Mammalian genomes are littered with such AREs, with roughly 45% of the human genome made up of such flotsam and jetsam..... There are AREs throughout the human and mouse genomes that were truncated when they landed, removing any such possibility of their functioning. In many instances, one can identify a decapitated and utterly defunct ARE in parallel positions in the human and the mouse genome. Unless one is willing to take the position that God has placed these decapitated AREs in the precise positions to confuse and mislead us, the conclusion of a common ancestor for humans and mice is virtually inescapable. This kind of recent genome data thus presents an overwhelming challenge to those who hold to the idea that all species were created ex nihilo."

              The Language of God, by Professor Francis Collins, director of the human genome project to map the entire human genome, and a bible believing Christian.

              So who do I choose to believe? Christians who have never looked at science since high school and did not understand it then, or a Christian who has spent his entire career in genetics research?

              By the way, please provide scriptural evidence that believing in evolution and accepting the bible account of creation as a metaphor, renders one subject to "eternal damnation".

        2. Trish_M profile image88
          Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          That is insulting ~ not only to me, but to your fellow Christians.

  10. fixter profile image62
    fixterposted 4 years ago

    absalutely !  as we humans discover the true nature of our existance, we are in fact discovering how God created the universe and everything in it, including us. Why ,after all  would God give us the ability to reason, and create  the tools to PROVE our history as a species on this planet ,with the full knowlage that we in fact would do that very thing ! we should not fear the truth, insted be amazed at the incredible, and beutiful design of the reality we exist in!  I for one think God smiles when we become closer to him  each time we discover somthing new in our universe that PROVES he is!     Man was an animal that he created for his perpose, so that when he touched us and gave us a soul, and become aware of self, and of him .

      Then , he gave us Christ , to redeam us to him, and understand how to live with one another. and most importantly, how to forgive our weekness in ourselves and each other.  Jesus fought the battle and won ! we dont have to hate,or kill, or destroy ! we are truly FREE !!    wait for it . . . . .

    To commune with him,. . .  the creator, of all things in heaven and earth, by UNDERSTANDING the existance we live in.

    Fixter

    1. 0
      Jesshubpagesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Man was never an animal. God created man as man and not as an animal unless you are saying that you are adhering to evolution.

      1. Trish_M profile image88
        Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Evolution, or no evolution; made by God or not made by God; we are still animals. We are primates.

  11. fixter profile image62
    fixterposted 4 years ago

    wish we had spell check   lol

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It wouldn't help. wink

  12. fixter profile image62
    fixterposted 4 years ago

    ow !

  13. vector7 profile image61
    vector7posted 4 years ago

    There are more holes in evolution than in a billion slices of swiss cheese....


    Someone explain flight and how many times the first bird to fly had to jump before his body 'magically' equipped the correct aerodynamic design for lift?

    I could make use of so much, but I don't understand how people keep running with dead info. (clutterboard station)



    EVOLUTION?

    Show me something that has evolved... anything new.. anything documented and witnessed..


    And while you're searching, I'll build a list of everything that has died out. Extinction...

    "It takes thousands of years for something to evolve!"

    Well, sorry to burst your square bubble of a box you're thinking in, but in that case, we're (all life) still degenerating faster than generating. Math anyone? Plus one for "extinction of evolution."


    DEVOLVING is what you're looking for, and it's still at work today.

    Humans are degenerating faster than any known species on the planet, and they STILL think they are evolving...   lol

    What a joke.

    1. Jesus was a hippy profile image62
      Jesus was a hippyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I think the problem here is defining a species.

      We can easily look at an old fossil and see that it is completely different from any known species so we instantly label it as its own species.

      Of course, if we had every single fossil for every ancestor going back millions of years, every single one would be the tiniest bit different from the last, probably not even noticeable.

      Where do you draw the line and define a new species?

      People have been selectively breeding animals for centuries. Anyone would've thought that would be enough evidence that evolution is a fact. The only difference being that selective breeding is simply artificial selection forced by humans and natural selection is simply forced by natural surroundings.

      And yes, the more complex a species gets, the less likely it is for it to survive, that is why they go extinct like we see in complicated species every day.

      Look at a simple bacteria though, constantly evolving to survive our medication and becoming different every time.

      Im not being funny here but to deny the fact that lifeforms evolve is pretty damn retarded.

      1. vector7 profile image61
        vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        LOL

        [This is not a surrender of previously mentioned objective points]

        Ok..

        Explain the bird then.

        I'm waiting. wink

        smile

        1. Jesus was a hippy profile image62
          Jesus was a hippyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Thats actually quite simple. You have only to look at animals that can glide. For example, tree dwelling squirrels clearly benefit from not plumetting to their death and if the squirrels with the best gliding ability survive while others do not, then they will go on to reproduce and pass on their gene.

          The same goes for some lizards. Clearly the better the ability to glide, the higher the survival rate.

          Chickens on the other hand, flap their wings when they run. Why? It gives them extra agility and as a result they can escape their prey easier. The more effective the wings, the easier they escape their prey and the survival rate increases.

          Flying is very similar to swimming. There are plenty of fish that can stay airbourne for pretty lengthy periods of time. Clearly agility in the water is a benefit to survival when running from prey and if they can escape the water for 20 seconds while being chased, that clearly has advantages in survival.

          To be honest it is not really that complicated to explain. In fact, there are more than one reason how evolving wings can be gradually beneficial. Of course you dont need to suddenly be fully airbourne straight away. All the gradual increases in agility are of benefit.

          Incidentally, answering this question led me to find the most ridiculous theist question I have ever read. It asked why no species has ever evolved to fly in outer space.

          Sometimes I find such idiocy hilarious. Other times, it makes me sad and embarrassed to be of the same species....

          1. vector7 profile image61
            vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Nice attempt, but it isn't satisfactory for me to even come close to buying in.

            Flight is a feat not quite so simple, nor is it to be compared to gliding in any fashion other than directed and slowed descension. Which is still an enormously far cry from lift....



            When it comes to the essentials, the rate of species growth as compared to those deceasing must be in the positive for it to be a possibility.

            As it stands, the rate of extinction is so rapid in comparison to the rate of growth that in a scenario of 'billions of years' life on earth would have cease to exist well before a quarter way through the current estimated lifespan they claim the earth to be on account of the death of life outrunning growth by ENORMOUS proportions.

            I've did the work over and over. The details always prove the theory to be exactly what they call it.. a theory..

            A hypothetical situation which did not happen as when the numbers given are applied the math shows the equation to be rendered false.

            smile

            1. Trish_M profile image88
              Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              As I said, extinction is no proof against evolution.
              Mankind has come close to dying out. Luckily we didn't, but we could have.

              1. Randy Godwin profile image94
                Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                True!  Dinosaurs evolved for 100's of millions of years and died out because of an asteroid or comet impact 65 million years ago.  Evolution is no assurance of permanency.  smile


                                                http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

                1. vector7 profile image61
                  vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Yep, all dinos died and everything else lived.. lol


                  Pleaseeeee elaborate Randy. wink

                  smile

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image94
                    Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    No, actually all dinosaurs didn't die out, Vector.  Alligators and turtles still live, as do other reptiles.  Evolution did not stop at that point either.  People are taller now than they were in the past on average.  As a farmer I can attest to the fact insects grow immune to insecticides because some of them survive and their offspring are immune also.

                    I realize it's hard for someone who worships an invisible deity of some sort to be able to disassociate themselves form their beliefs enough to understand evolution.  I forgive you for this oft seen affliction though! smile

                    What do you think about ancient deities having sex with 13 year old betrothed virgins?  Do you consider this being godly, and is it still okay for christians to do this?  lol


                                                            http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

              2. vector7 profile image61
                vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Btw, you can claim anything you like regarding extinction, but it is indeed a factor regarding sustained and ongoing life on earth. Just because people would like to dismiss it doesn't mean they can do so and be correct in their calculations.

                And humanity is not close to dying out until every other animal on the list goes...

                Don't forget we are at the TOP of the food chain, not in the middle Trish. wink

                smile

                1. 0
                  CJ Sledgehammerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  But, Vector 7, science can prove that extinction never occurs, because the magic genie that lives in all creatures is too smart for that and won't let it happen.

                  My theory is that when pushed to the brink of extinction, they just evolve into something completely different and then show up as a new "discovery".

                  Hey, this feels kinda good. I never knew that posing lame ideas could be so much fun.

                  Vector7 - you give it a try...try to say something really lame and impossbile, and I'll back it up. What a rush!  :0)

                  1. vector7 profile image61
                    vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    lol

                    Alright, alright C.J.

                    Take it easy on'em buddy.

                    Bad thing is I've had your second sentence held as argument against me if I'm not mistaken. An 'enhanced' survival of the fittest 'survival reaction' I think they said, or something very similar. lol [poor guy was dead serious]

                    ::sigh::

                    Why not...

                    Well I suggest that when the meteor hit that the large dinos died because the only things that could survive we're the organisms that could fit into small spaces where the dust wasn't airborne and wouldn't sufficate them, so therefore, the dinosaurs [large reptiles] died out as a result.

                    Hows that? tongue

                    smile

            2. Jesus was a hippy profile image62
              Jesus was a hippyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I am a pilot and gliding is exactly the same as flight. It is obvious at this point that you are simply making things up as you go. Unfortunately those with an education on the topics you are creating lies about are fully aware of your nonsense. The only difference between a glider and a single engine plane is that one has an engine and propellors and the other does not. Everything else, is exactly the same.

              I would say nice attempt, but really, it isnt.



              Unfortunately for you, that again is untrue. New species of bacteria and new diseases are appearing daily. And that is only the ones we encounter that affect us. You cannot win an argument simply by lying. Please give me a little bit of credit. And in any case, your claim is also false. The rate of species going extinct is completely irrelevant. A meteor could strike tomorrow, it would have no effect on the fact the life evolves.



              The only false things I have seen are your assertions in this post. The theory of evolution attempts to explain the fact of evoution. Evolution isnt a theory, it is a fact and the theory of evolution tries to explain that fact.

              Im surprised you dont know that since you are arguing against it. I personaly make sure I know what I am arguing about before I open my mouth. Clearly based on your posts, you dont do that at all.

              big_smile

            3. 0
              Jesshubpagesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Vector- proponents of evolution can't really explain their own unfounded theories. Then they call themselves smart by siting sooooo many unscientific arguments...

              1. Trish_M profile image88
                Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                That is simply insulting and untrue.

          2. Randy Godwin profile image94
            Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            This is why trying to explain evolution to those incapable of thinking for themselves is an exercise in futility.  Evolution is a fact of life as anyone with any degree of education plainly understands.  Your example of the chicken flapping his wings is a perfect example of how birds obtained flight. 

            Those with the best and strongest wings lived on to pass their genes on to their offspring, eventually leading to the ability of full flight for their ancestors.  A very easy concept to grasp if one isn't totally closed minded, such as members of religious cults often are taught to be.


                                               http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

            1. Trish_M profile image88
              Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I agree that evolution seems obvious to some of us and incomprehensible to others, which is why I started this thread simply to find out if any Christian HP members accepted evolution.

              Arguing about the subject just seems to be fruiltless. smile

              1. 0
                Jesshubpagesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                the obvious is, evolution is dubious. evolution wants seems to propose continues progress of things but the 2nd law of thermodynamics which is a real science says otherwise. They might have alter definitions of the entropy but the degradation of things are just true off all things on earth. think about it.

                1. Trish_M profile image88
                  Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Evolution is a real science.
                  It's not dubious.
                  What degradation? Are you talking about old age and illmess?
                  That is not what evolution is about.

                2. Caleb DRC profile image86
                  Caleb DRCposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Hi Jess,
                  I wasn't going to enter this forum because Trish asked if any Christian believes in evolution, which I don't; therefore, I'm excluded.

                  Nevertheless, I want to validate what you said. Entropy is associated with partition mathematics and probability. The chances of DNA alone--not to mention everything else including systems--forming via random processes is 1 in
                  10^(50,000,000,000), and this is given the existence of forces, atoms and subatomic structures in the first place. You are right on key, Jess, the laws of thermodynamics are real science and no one using real science and mathematics can vanquish numbers like 1 in 10^(50,000,000,000), which, incidentally, are built on real science and mathematics.

                  1. Trish_M profile image88
                    Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I note that you mention the Scriptures in your profile, so am I correct in thinking that you are a 'believer', if not a Christian one?

                    Now, on to your argument about mathematics and probability....
                    I am not a scientist or a mathematician, but my husband is, and he accepts evolution ~ as do most scientists and mathematicians, so I am wondering why you think that science and maths disprove evolution?

                  2. A Troubled Man profile image60
                    A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Please explain how you derived those numbers? Did you base them on a dynamic system or stochastic process? By taking into account "forces, atoms and subatomic structures" did you also take into account the metric entropy of that system? What were your known values? Please show your work.

          3. fixter profile image62
            fixterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I for one accept, no,. . .I am convinced ! Evolution is the hand of God at work  in his grand design of the universe. And Christ is his love for us manifest in the flesh to redeem us to him.    I believe God would not create a false path for us to follow, rather he would provide all things in heaven and earth, to help us learn of his glorious creation!

            1. Mark Knowles profile image60
              Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Wot we need redeemin fer innit?

              1. fixter profile image62
                fixterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Perhaps to simply know that he exists. speaking to a man with ample grey matter ,I would say to you,  I have to make peace with myself on the matter.

                when we question our existence and the manner of reasoning , we can only answer ourselves.
                It’s the way I get along, and over  innit

              2. fixter profile image62
                fixterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                yer a diffnt sort, guessin yer ok wid me .I promise not to typo, or miss spell any more, cuz u r ridden that horse purddy far

            2. Trish_M profile image88
              Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              A Christian who is happy to accept evolution.

              That is what I was seeking!

            3. Jesus was a hippy profile image62
              Jesus was a hippyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Thats fantastic. Now all you have to do is demonstrate that this god exists and then we can attribute evolution to him.

    2. Trish_M profile image88
      Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You and me, for example. The evidence exists.
      Dogs. Cats. Bears. Whales.
      I could go on and on.
      I have wriitten hubs on the subject, if you are interested.


      Extinction does not negate evolution. Indeed, it's part of it.

      Survival of the fittest refers to the life-forms that are best fitted to their environments. They survive.

      Those that are not at all fitted to their environments do not survive ~ ie. they become extinct.

      I take it that you are one of the Christians who does not accept evolutionary theory? smile

      1. vector7 profile image61
        vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        lol

        Oh dear Trish.. That was so cute.. lol

        You're awesome.

        No.. I believe the Bible 100 percent.

        I'll never lay claim to genesis being that far from reality.

        There may be things we can't understand, but I've run scenarios throughout my life over and over for both views.

        And evolution to me wouldn't have a chance even if I didn't believe the Bible, personally.

        I've run the numbers and it falls on it's face. I understand why people believe it, and see their reasoning... but it's not accurate.

        I've even been close to accepting it long ago during my work and study - but after all my work... that mess is for the birds and I plan on leading people away from such illogical babble.. lol

        I'm not biased, until I've walked down both roads.. And that one is a dead end.


        I don't hate people for thinking it, I just wish I could give them my brain for ten seconds. Then they'd be set to prove all it's mess false too.. lol

        [ Sry for babble and mess.. just what I call anything I see as false. wink ]

        "Attack the false idea, not the person who holds that idea."

        -Martin Luther King Jr.


        smile

    3. Trish_M profile image88
      Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      No, there really are not smile
      Even in cases, where full explanations have not yet been given, this only shows that scientists are working on a problem, not that evolution didn't occur.

    4. Trish_M profile image88
      Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      What, exactly, do you mean, here, please?

      1. vector7 profile image61
        vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        If you're trying to convey something to me, just for future note..

        Replying from the feed puts your response, well, not under what you're directly responding to. And this is just for if you're in fact speaking to me.

        And if so, what do I mean? About what Trish?

        smile

        1. Trish_M profile image88
          Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          There is no need to be continually patronising and condescending. I think that most of the people in this thread, who disagree with you, have their own brains ~ and are more than capable of using them.

          Furthermore, I know exactly how quoting works ~ and I quoted the sentence to which I was referring.

          I'll repeat it:
          ".... Humans are degenerating faster than any known species on the planet, and they STILL think they are evolving......"

          And I'll repeat my question:
          What, exactly, do you mean by this?

          What is your definition of 'degenerating'?
          Why do you think that humans are degenerating?
          Why do you say that they are degenerating faster than other species?
          Humans evolve to adapt to their environmments. Yes, it is still happening.
          Please clarify.
          Thank you.

          1. vector7 profile image61
            vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Ironically I outwardly admit being sarcastic very often, but in that post I was being sincere and genuine.

            And to consider that I'm so stupid as to not see what 'should' be there is pretty condescending. wink

            Your quote isn't showing up on this device, I don't know why but I often notice quotes go not shown to me if done by formatting procedure. I can't say I've seen a formal format protcol quote on any pc or device I've used, besides when clicking the "post reply" button at the very bottom of the thread.

            Eyes that need extra man-made external lenses are not evolving traits, they are devolving/degeneration of a well functioning organ or solid, liquid, and gas device.

            How many drugs for health are needed nowadays? How many surgeries take place to fix deformations and abnormal growths? [non enhancing]

            We see plenty of downward momentum [toward death], but no upward momentum [toward life].

            And medical advancement is not evolution, it's innovation.

            And innovation is where my personally held proof of intelligent design is held.

            Things like viruses become immune to drugs is just like children who have allergies to peanuts.

            If you give them enough peanut butter to barely irritate the childs immune system, and continue to increase the dose gradually, the body starts adapting to the toxins and begins taking larger and larger actions to prevent a harmful reaction.. i.e. swelling, etc..

            This isn't some evolutionary proof. It is what people do within an organization when things change, but they do it with their intellect.

            I could make a list so long for ailments and deformations that have never resulted in a single transformation that I don't even care to joke about it.

            If one stops supporting evolution, and speculates the theories that are suggested, and applies them to the real world rather than just to fossils, then the entire idea breaks down into useless what-ifs that don't hold any weight at all.

            Let me know if you would like for me to elaborate on something or want a clarification about anything.

            smile

            1. dmop profile image87
              dmopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I believe each of us has a right to our opinion and I respect yours. That being said, here is a link to an interesting page about evolution, check it out if you would like. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 … e-lab.html

              1. vector7 profile image61
                vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                lol, sry for laughing dmop.

                It's nice but.. well, I see adaptation.. and that's something that's not new to me.

                Ever heard of a vaccine? wink

                I mean in billions and BILLIONS of species no limbs? No brand new organs in a species? I mean can we get out of single cell land if this stuff is true?

                If evolution happened, then where are all the new mutations giving way to new possibilities? I mean, these mutations weren't ALL successful so there has to be tons of them before one takes in a complex organism right?


                WHERE ARE THE MUTATIONS? lol

                I see nothing even coming close to promising.

                I debated about this a year ago, and they told me they were on the brink of breaking out undeniable evidence. What happened? Was he a liar or?

                I thank you for respecting my opinion, but I can't say I'll give 'evolution' any credit anymore, whereas at one time I considered it possible for part of it to be true.. Now I've sifted through all of it, and for me it's NO GO..



                It was an interesting article, but like the glide vs lift explanation I had to share, things just aint addin' up.

                There should be more proof. They currently study animals 24/7/365 and nothing? Even after what? 100 years?

                And I can always jump right back to irreducible complexity, which everyone seems to ignore or something? I don't see how they overlook what that subject does to the idea as a whole.


                I know I'm being blunt, but hey.. I can't not be and sleep tonight.

                smile

              2. Trish_M profile image88
                Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Interesting read!

                Did you know that there are people, who live at high altitude in the Himalayas, who have evolved to those conditions, which would make other people seriously ill? Tests have been done on them, which prove this to be the case. Obviously, the physical differences are not obvious to see, but they are important and life-saving. smile

            2. Trish_M profile image88
              Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Vector: "Eyes that need extra man-made external lenses are not evolving traits, they are devolving/degeneration of a well functioning organ or solid, liquid, and gas device.

              "How many drugs for health are needed nowadays? How many surgeries take place to fix deformations and abnormal growths? [non enhancing]

              "We see plenty of downward momentum [toward death], but no upward momentum"

              'Evolution' does not claim to prevent death, or disease, or getting old smile smile

    5. 0
      CJ Sledgehammerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      "Someone explain flight and how many times the first bird to fly had to jump before his body 'magically' equipped the correct aerodynamic design for lift?

      I could make use of so much, but I don't understand how people keep running with dead info. (clutterboard station)

      EVOLUTION?

      Show me something that has evolved... anything new.. anything documented and witnessed..

      And while you're searching, I'll build a list of everything that has died out. Extinction..." - Vector7

      Hey, I thought clarity of thought and sound rationale wasn't allowed at this party?  :0)

      1. Disappearinghead profile image89
        Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        "Show me something that has evolved... anything new.. anything documented and witnessed"

        Variants of flu virus for a start. Homo Sapiens and chimps from a common ancestor.

        1. 0
          CJ Sledgehammerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          "Show me something that has evolved... anything new.. anything documented and witnessed"

          "Variants of flu virus for a start. Homo Sapiens and chimps from a common ancestor." - Disappearinghead

          "Variants of flu virus for start"...........Oh, come on!

          Please don't tell me that is all you have come up with in 160 years?!

          Please tell me that you have not prostituted your faith and integrity on variations within a flu bug?

          Virtually everything in existence can adapt to different environmental challenges, but this is a far cry from evolution, in fact, it isn't even the same thing.

          1. Disappearinghead profile image89
            Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I refer you to my post on Ancient Repetetive Elements in the human and mouse genomes further up in this thread.

            Thus far in all your posts you have offered nothing to support a literal creation and 6000 year old Earth.

          2. vector7 profile image61
            vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I don't see why they keep throwing adaptation out like it's evidence..

            We are talking about solid, liquid, and gas machines that can reproduce themsleves.. LOL

            And adaptation isn't expected?

            To LEARN is to adapt. Is that what grows new limbs?

            I mean I don't understand the correlation here..

            And mutation isn't even symetrical.. Ever witnessed birth deformations?

            You grow an extra finger on one hand.. not on both [ even if you did, there is still the larger quantity of those who didn't ]. Species don't 'die out' because of simple mutations, so if evo theory was right we'd be seeing TONS of mutilated parts on all kinds of species.

            It's just so filled with errors when you put it into action and run the scenarios..

            smile

            1. Trish_M profile image88
              Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              What have you read and studied, to make you so so anti-evolution?

              1. 0
                CJ Sledgehammerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                "What have you read and studied, to make you so so anti-evolution?" - Trish_M

                Well, I would have to say - just about everything.

                There is no credible scientific evidence that supports evolutionary theory. None, nada, zip, ziltch, zero!

                It's nothing more than a myth that is repeated time and again and reinforced by those who control the media and most educational institutions. It is a faith-based sytem institutionalized and governed by mob rule. Science has nothing to do with it.

                1. Disappearinghead profile image89
                  Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  You've studied evolution have you? I'm guessing that all you've done is listen to some know nothing pastor.

                  Tell me how many science degrees do you hold? How any papers have you published in scientific journals? To what educational level have you studied a science subject?

                  Nothing? If so you are in no place to call evolution a myth.

                  1. vector7 profile image61
                    vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    publish? lol

                    Well I didn't know that was required for educational study and research.

                    And science states itself it's a theory. Don't lose yourself in an unproven concept. wink

                    smile

            2. Disappearinghead profile image89
              Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Tell me Vector, why the antagonism towards evolution? Do you find it threatening to your faith? There is no conflict between the two. You may ask the atheist if he has ever honestly objectively looked into the existence of God, but have you done the same with evolution?

              There are plenty of books available by Christians who have spent their careers in astronomy, biology, genetics, palaeontology, etc etc, and have seen for themselves the evidence for evolution. Why not go and buy one.

              As I told Brenda up the top of this thread, the first two chapters of Genesis describe the events in a different sequence, thus they cannot both be literally correct. So which one have you chosen to believe?

              1. vector7 profile image61
                vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                It's not my faith that creates the problem.

                It's the fact that people are looking so close to the tree they can't see the forest. Literally.

                All the fine details are worthless if the concept as a whole doesn't function within the parameters of life.

                Can you explain why there are no mutations on everything that hasn't evolved if evolution is as they say "by chance"?

                I don't see any chances being pursued by any animal or human being currently.

                All the deformations are so grossly close to the grave it would be silly to claim they add to the argument.

                And not a single example of one evolving limb? Or major function?

                Really? With billions of species alive, the claim is that none of them are going through the process they say shaped the earth?

                I have a problem with things that are claimed as facts which I know to be false. Respectively. [and respectfully]

                smile

          3. Trish_M profile image88
            Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Yes, it is.

            1. vector7 profile image61
              vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              lol, he means it's micro scale adaptations, not macro scale evolution..

              smile

              1. Disappearinghead profile image89
                Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                So what's the beef with macro evolution? Where are you drawing the line between micro and macro? We share some 99% of our DNA with chimps, so for a common ancestor is that macro or micro?

                1. vector7 profile image61
                  vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  And every animal alive shares leg and shoulder traits.

                  Similar design doesn't mean one species created the other.

                  This is a circle argument.

                  I'm going to go check some other threads and hubs.

                  smile

                2. 0
                  CJ Sledgehammerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  " We share some 99% of our DNA with chimps, so for a common ancestor is that macro or micro?" - Disappearinghead

                  Well, my friend, a watermelon is 99% water and yet it is not even close to being a cloud, which is 100% water vapor. This just goes to show that "close" only counts in horse-shoes and assumptions can make seemingly intelligent people look rather foolish.

              2. Trish_M profile image88
                Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this


                It's the same thing ~ just think a bit more long-term smile

      2. vector7 profile image61
        vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        lol

        Good to see you friend. In the war rooms at that, careful for bouncing betties. wink

        They told me gliding led to flight. lol

        I'm not convinced... nor impressed.

        And I think their rule is less thought, more pushing power. tongue

        smile

        1. 0
          CJ Sledgehammerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          They can push all they want, Vector7, but the truth never yields.

          1. vector7 profile image61
            vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Amen.

            smile

        2. vector7 profile image61
          vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          [sry guys, no harm meant.. just shooting blanks for fun.] lol

          smile

          1. fixter profile image62
            fixterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Gliding frogs, gliding snakes, gliding squirrels , they all exist right now . . . on this planet!   look it up, google it .  Behold the God created universe so man could evolve and discover flying squirells theory.
            my brother

            1. vector7 profile image61
              vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              lol

              I like your passion and I LOVE that you believe in God. wink

              But I'm not going to argue with you bro.


              Just a kind word. PLEASE look carefully at the devolving rather than evolving and consider for yourself if you really think it's possible.

              I've been down the long road, and if you start looking at things without following their little 'proofs' the concept as a whole is a utter hopeless disaster.

              Sometimes I wonder why I even try. But if I didn't know something factually, I wouldn't have ever considered opening my mouth.

              I understand why, and what, you believe. Just jump sides for a little while and test their theory as if it wasn't true.

              You might be surprized.. wink

              smile

              1. fixter profile image62
                fixterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Well, no need to disqualify, it is possible that I do know what I am qualified to speak about .
                And as for the “long road” you speak of,   I too have left many footprints on the path that seeks wisdom ,and knowledge. And for the 50,and some odd years ,ahemm. . .that I have traveled  this path , twenty were as an atheist ,fifteen more. . . as a borne again God fearing Christian.  And for the rest, I have studied many things to justify either one, and end the battle of, heart and soul, vs mind and self.
                For which the preponderance of evidence is to lay bare the the truth of our existence,  . .  . .  .  No man can know.     But we can surly settle to a comfortable, and self justifying acceptance of what we can live with. So I go in this manner to the dust that I surly was wrought. Happy with MY conclusions, and quite entertained with your published struggle to accept yours  as your many question s would suggest.

                1. vector7 profile image61
                  vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  lol

                  Well, well.. It's seems I found one of those buttons I didn't intentionally intend to push.


                  I'm sorry to tell you, but you are clinging to what man says.

                  Even though evolution falls on it's face without my Bible, with it it never had a chance. And when Christ says the very scriptures I read are Holy and true, well then... they are verified by my King and God in their entirety.

                  I try not to be pushy, and I figured people would pop their ego everywhere, but I believe God.. Not man and his silly little dating tools.

                  I know my view is fact and wish I had time to write all the hubs for it. Maybe one day.

                  But that leaves your view [or man's should I say] as they say, a fish without water. Dead.


                  Be entertained all you like friend. I know the factual truth, while you think you know something. I don't care how many people jump on my Bible.

                  Jesus Christ said that Genesis is a Holy account. The very Word of God given to us to tell us the truth about our history and who He is.

                  He said Moses wrote of Him, which means if Moses wrote of Jesus and every word was right, then so is everything else he wrote from God in Genesis.

                  Jesus, the person you claim to follow, denies your theory because He verifies the scriptures are from Him...

                  God.


                  But enjoy. Be entertained. And I don't mind a bit if you don't want to budge. That's all between you and God my friend. wink

                  smile

                  1. fixter profile image62
                    fixterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    prove it

                2. 0
                  CJ Sledgehammerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Fixer - I mean no disrespect, but I know plenty of middle-aged fools and a few young people who can think them under the table. Age has little to do with wisdom and folly, rather, it's the condition of one's character and the soundness of rationale that is employed.

                  You asked Vector7 to prove what? You already alluded to the fact that you are much older and wiser than he is, so where is your proof? For a man who has seen it all and has attained the ripe old age of 50 (ahemm)...let's hear what you've got. Astound me.

                  1. fixter profile image62
                    fixterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    You know as well as I ,no intent of age/wisdom relative implication, just that I haven’t lived in narrow box all of my life.  I have sought diligently to satisfy my rational for the things I stand behind.    To entertain your request that I Astound you with all my wisdom, I am quite sure not even one argument would lead to anything more than a mutual disdain towards someone with whom I know very little about. Save for the constant call for V7’s detractors to prove to him something that no living mortal has the ability to accomplish, given his zeal for God, and approach to this subject matter. Good for him.  As too “fools” and their folly, it is you who “implies”   .  And about Me,.   You can read what I have to say on the subject on this forum.  My Question to V7 stands, it is his to answer, I doubt he needs anyone to defend his position.     So, have a nice day.

  14. pisean282311 profile image56
    pisean282311posted 4 years ago

    @ts progressive christians yes...conservatives no...ironically christianity itself has evolved...1st century christianity was much different than what we have right now...

    1. 0
      CJ Sledgehammerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      "...ironically christianity itself has evolved...1st century christianity was much different than what we have right now..." - pisean282311

      I will agree with you there, but there still is a remnant of God that practices "Christianity" in its purity.

      Indeed, the Roman Catholic Church has done a great disservice to the Christian Church as a whole, and through its tenets of compromise and greed, has ushered in many pagan and heretical beliefs, practices, and traditions.

      1. fixter profile image62
        fixterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        It’s all about TIME!  People, we have a hard time comprehending the nature of great spans of time. No man can witness the natural evolution of any creature.  But man has created” forced evolution”, in the manipulation of many plants, & animals.  Dogs, Cats, corn, bees,  in very short time spans, the natural order of mutation occurs extremely slow! Causal formats are limitless in # and efficacy.  But,I say to you TIME is almost incomprehensible from our short life span . Compute the formula ;  one million days, divided by 365 you will be surprised by the sum! Now apply that concept to years, decades, centuries! Millennia!  Now you might be able to imagine how slowly these things happen. Evolution becomes plausible! I dare say even certain! Understanding the effects of radiation has on our dNA constructs, and the relentless sun shining on us every day. Not to mention the stronger, and more intelligent survive  to pass on the DNA that produces the next generation.   So there!  Na, nana, na, na !    This is fun!

        1. Trish_M profile image88
          Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Exactly smile

  15. Moezart de Foen profile image61
    Moezart de Foenposted 4 years ago

    I personly dont belive in eveloution becuase it goes against the Bible. Plus last time i checked a monkey wasnt solving quadatic equations 24/7. God made man smarter (just by a little bit) so he could watch over the animals(Genesis 2:15-20)

    1. Trish_M profile image88
      Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks for your input.
      But that does not have to be the case for evolution to be true.

  16. Highvoltagewriter profile image89
    Highvoltagewriterposted 4 years ago

    Wow Trish, I created a monster just by stating that I thought evolution the way it is presented in modern textbooks is foolish! That is why you created a thread...that lead to a debate... WAITE SECOND...IS THIS EVOLUTION IN ACTION RIGHT IN FRONT OF OUR VERY EYES????? QUICK, SOME TAKE SCREE SHOT FOR I THINK I JUST FOUND THE MISSING-LINK...ALSO KNOW AS WASTING PRECIOUS TIME DEBATING!

    1. fixter profile image62
      fixterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It would be a waist NOT to debate ! A static mind does not  evolve and learn.
      Just as a static universe would not support life .

    2. vector7 profile image61
      vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      lol

      I think I agree Voltage.

      smile

    3. Trish_M profile image88
      Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It was never meant to be a debate sad

      1. vector7 profile image61
        vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Don't be sad Trish!

        I still love you no matter what! big_smile

        I'm just really, really passionate.

        But I LOVE YOU!

        Smile? hmm

        You're still a cool person, and I know I am stubborn and can get pushy, but I don't mean bad by it.

        I just know I'm saved from Hell by Christ Jesus and I want EVERYONE to be saved and I can get defensive about the Bible.. [obvious right]

        Sry if my harsh words were wrong, I just want people to see what I see because everyone needs God....

        God bless you Trish.

        1. Trish_M profile image88
          Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I am not at all sad and I'm sure that you mean well.
          I also think that you have misinterpreted whatever you have read about evolution.

  17. recommend1 profile image70
    recommend1posted 4 years ago

    Wow Trish,  you really brought the dimwits out with this thread !  it is almost beyond belief that people can believe the twaddle of creationism and actually be able to write - I know the spelling and grammar is atrocious, but they can still actually write at some level - this is amazing !

    1. fixter profile image62
      fixterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Yes indeed!

  18. vector7 profile image61
    vector7posted 4 years ago

    I've been not so bold until now, and I think it's time after reading the sloppy and disgusting notion that what God said in His Word and Holy Scripture is "partially wrong" that I set the record straight because God is GOD.


    If you claim evolution, and Christianity, you are NOT a Christian. (Christ said you'd hate me, and this is why. I'll give you a verse in conclusion.)


    God did not say anything about evolution in His Holy Bible. Christ verified every scripture ever written in the Bible, and question me if you'd like you are wrong if you think otherwise. I won't teach you a lesson I've heard children verify and recognise as obviously true.


    Who is Christ saving then? Just the nowadays monkeys [us] or every monkey we came from? Or every organism in the chain from rats and mammals?

    Who sinned? Us or the ancestor monkey? God just waited until something showed up smart and then when they sinned He decided to save them?

    FORGET IT.. You pick evolution, or you pick my Christ Jesus. But you CANNOT have both.

    Who do you think you are to say "God didn't mean for us to take it literally."

    REALLY....? I HOPE you are joking. So I guess anything wrote in there can be twisted any way someone understands it?

    No...... it cannot. Only ONE sequence of events took place and God told you what they were.

    He is not a liar or a prankster, and it makes me sick people imply such simply because they want to cling to their little brains ideas fabricated by men.

    If it were figurative then Christ wasn't saying a wise thing in Matthew 18:3 when He said you must become as a child to enter the kingdom of God. And my Saviour and King never says anything unless it's true and important.



    You don't need a degree from some university to find God.


    You quit stating "God didn't mean it literally." Humble yourself and read it for what it is like Jesus Christ said to in Matthew 18:3...

    And don't try to add to or take away from it and you'll find Christ Jesus and the truth of History.

    God doesn't need man to say anything extra or add to the story. HE WAS THERE.

    And He doesn't say we evolved. And twisting His Holy Word will NEVER work.

    I HATE lies, and evolution is one of them. Period.

    And I could PUKE to hear people claim they serve my Lord and King Christ Jesus and then claim the Father's written Word to be something we've misunderstood when it's obvious to those who aren't listening to outside sources like silly little men with silly little tools that make silly little mistakes that turn into enormous and asinine lies against my God's truth....

    Evoltution never happened, and if you claim Christ you need to quit leading people away from believing the Bible, because THAT is NOT what Christ Jesus' will is...

    You cannot believe that garbage without having to change or disbelieve parts of the Bible, and that is evil. You either believe it and take it all, or you don't.

    Picking and choosing is writing your own book, not listening to God's.

    And now, if you will turn in your Bible to John 7:7 you will see what my Lord said about this future event that just took place.

    I am vector7 for a reason, and I know the world hates me, because I am not of this world.. I am a child of God and a servant of Christ.

    And I don't care how many people here hate me, God's Word is Holy and it says believing in evolution is evil, because that means God isn't telling the truth...

    But GOD NEVER LIES. And the Bible tells you what happened, so quit trying to stuff your un-holy man-made slop into His Holy God revealed Truth..

    1. Trish_M profile image88
      Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Oh dear, oh dear.
      Ok, as I said, Vector is a Christian who doesn't accept evolution.
      That's OK. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions.

      However, there really is ample proof for evolution. People can choose to accept or ignore it.

      I am not a scientist, I am a historian, but I read, in order to educate myself on numerous issues. I would recommend that, before rejecting evolutionary theory, people should read some good quality, unbiased works on the subject.

      By the way, I love studying the Bible, but I don't think that it is the word of God. I don't even know whether or not there is a God.

      I would say that, if people claim to be both Christians and evolutionists, then that that is their opinion ~ to which they are also entitled.

      And if there is, indeed, a God, then it will be up to him to decide who is, or is not, a 'good Christian'.

      As for allegories in the Bible ~ what about the parables attributed to Jesus?

      Anyway, I don't want to get further off track.

      1. vector7 profile image61
        vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I am not good.

        Only God is good.

        1. 0
          jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I appreciate the honesty.

      2. recommend1 profile image70
        recommend1posted 4 years ago in reply to this


        I would ignore the looney if I were you.
        What you refer to is a large part of the 'other' argument.  If we only accept the bible as a story book in a historical setting there are still many things that it is useful for.  Simple analysis can show the moral stories, and those parables that are supposed to come from 'their' horses mouth, well - they seem to be all the things 'they' ignore when using the rest of the thing for their own nefarious purposes.

        Their own main character pointed out very clearly that the 'old' ways (the old testament) was finished and that his teaching was the new way to follow - yet all the various loonies root their bigotry and intolerance in the old testament - can't they read the simplest words from their own proclaimed messiah ?

        Their own main character pointss out that his words will be twisted and used to amass a huge following - and yet 'they' ignore the obvious and very clear 'twist' in their bible supplied by Saul that was the means to establish one of the most evil and long lasting regimes the world has ever seen.


        Every bit of scriptural blabber that is posted in these threads has been negated by their own 'messiah' figure, and yet they blabber on  and on and on

        1. vector7 profile image61
          vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Christ is the very example I cannot, by my above post proven, cannot be.

          Christ is passionate.

          He is loving.

          He is good.

          He never does anything wrong.

          HE IS MY SAVIOUR BECAUSE I AM A SCREW UP AND ADMIT IT AND ASK HIM FOR HELP AND FORGIVENESS.

          My screw ups do not negate anything.

          They prove I need a Saviour, and the only difference between me and you is I've come to Him to ask for help and admit I need Him.

          I will never in this lifetime not screw things up.

          And that is exactly why Jesus Christ came.

          1. Mark Knowles profile image60
            Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            So - you spread the hatred and ill will and he comes to do away with that by majik? I think I get you now. This means it doesn't matter what you do, how many people you hurt (or stick the tough "love," at to use your parlance) it always gets forgiven by majik.

            Is that why christians are so nasty? You do not have to accept responsibility for yourselves? It is always fixed by majik?

            1. vector7 profile image61
              vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Nope, I admitted to what I done.

              I'm getting the consequence through you right now.

              I'm ashamed. [not of the message, but how I went about it.]

              And yes, Christ Jesus forgives all that want to genuinely do better.

              I'm nasty, because I'm human and as such have flaws.

              And it's not magic at all. It's sacrifice.

              It just means I'm one who knows I need it.

              Because I'm a sinner.

              1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Pity you don't just decide to behave better and show genuine love instead.

                Oh well. sad

                1. vector7 profile image61
                  vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Thank goodness Jesus loves me enough to forgive me, teach me better, and help me while I'm learning how.

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                    Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Which makes my point I think. You are choosing not to learn.

                    Oh well. sad

    2. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      LAWL

      Nice one sweetie pie. I 'gree wit cha. There b no room fer eberlushun in Kristianity. Just int make sense fer the Invisible Super Being to use it. No need fer salbation or nuffink.

      Sadly - for you - there is MASSIVE evidence, including laboratory tested speciation, plus numerous other disciplines that support evolutionary theory.

      Guess what this means.......................?

      No Majikal Invisible Super Being for you. lol

      Shout about it some more.  I love it when Kristians ATTACK the others as not being REAL KRISTIANS!

      I have never met a real one myself...............................

      1. vector7 profile image61
        vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        At least you don't sit on the fence.

        That was a good one too sweetie pie.

        And of course there are no 'kristians'... what's that?

        You're right, spell check won't help. wink

    3. getitrite profile image81
      getitriteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Don't worry Vector.  When Jesus comes back, he's gonna kill all these phony Christians who don't take his word literally.  He made a place for them.  Oh yeah!

      And since you have proven that the God of the bible created everything...Why is the Government denying that "truth" and foolishly teaching evolution, as if evolution has more evidence or something?

      1. vector7 profile image61
        vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Oh yeah, you got me..

        I'll convert to your 'belief' now.....

        [sarcasm used for those unaware]

    4. Disappearinghead profile image89
      Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Oh dear. I think you may have lost any respect with that last post.

      1. vector7 profile image61
        vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I think I already covered that.

        John 7:7

    5. Randy Godwin profile image94
      Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I am so relieved to find someone who can answer all of the mysteries of the bible, Vector.  Boy, do I have some questions for you!


      1-When the ark finally grounded on Mount Ararat and the animals were released into the wild, how did all of the animals unique to Australia get there?  And why didn't some of their species stay in Asia since the climate there was suitable for their well being? 

      2-Where did all of the water come from to cover the entire earth and where did it go afterwards? 

      3-Why was god so mad at the animals that he drowned them during the great flood? 

      4-Why didn't god simply say abra ca dabra and make all of the sinful people--babies included I suppose--disappear instead of flooding the earth and drowning the animals?  Yes, I know PETA wasn't around back then but just sayin'!

      This are just a few of my queries about Genesis and I'll add more when you answer these.  I really appreciate your taking the time to clear these things up for me.  I've never heard anyone be able to actually explain the "literal" text before where it made any reasonable sense at all.  Thanks! smile



                                                 http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

      1. vector7 profile image61
        vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Ok, nay-sayer..

        I see nothing new here..

        Regurgitate on someone else's time...

        Thanks!

        smile

        1. Randy Godwin profile image94
          Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          So far, you've claimed to be able to answer my questions about your novel but have simply fled each time one is asked.  I'm through with this guy!  Typical christian.  lol


                                                   http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

          1. vector7 profile image61
            vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Jesus Christ will forgive me for my mistakes when I die and face Him.

            And I'm done with people attempting to prove me wrong, I'd rather be reading my Bible.

            Thanks for judging me because I love Christ Jesus.

            Typical indeed.

            1. Randy Godwin profile image94
              Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I judge you because of your actions, nothing to do with Junior in the least.  You speak but fail to back up your words.  No surprise.  You have a good day now, ya heah!  lol


                                             http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

              1. vector7 profile image61
                vector7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                "Typical christian. lol"

                -Randy Godwin


                Yeah. Whatever you say.

    6. kerryg profile image88
      kerrygposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Jesus spoke in parables all the time. If Jesus could do it, why not God?

  19. liftandsoar profile image81
    liftandsoarposted 4 years ago

    Ok this stream of comments nudged me into a hub check it out.  Just posted.

    1. Randy Godwin profile image94
      Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Be very careful, lift and soar.  Even hinting at a new hub is now grounds for being banned unless it is on the Extreme Hub Makeover or a staff allowed forum.  Just a heads up and not being critical of your hub.  smile


                                                http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

    2. Trish_M profile image88
      Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I'll take a look smile

  20. 0
    Jesshubpagesposted 4 years ago

    Evolution theory of creation is rebelion against God, How could a Christian who's basis is God's living Word accept such a rebellion?

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Lucky for you - evolution is not a theory of creation so you can still accept proven scientific facts as real. You no longer need to get all your facts from a majik book.

    2. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image87
      HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Because God's word reflects what we see in the fossil record....

      Sauropsida ("lizard faces") is a group of amniotes that includes all existing reptiles and birds and their fossil ancestors, including the dinosaurs, the immediate ancestors of birds. Sauropsida is distinguished from Synapsida, which includes mammals and their fossil ancestors. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sauropsid)

      Sauropsids (reptiles and birds) 350 to 150 million years ago ...

      Genesis 1:20 - And God said, "Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven."
         
      Genesis 1:21 - And God created great sea creatures and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind; and God saw that it was good.

      Synapsids (mammals) 65 to 34 million years ago ...

      Genesis 1:24 - And God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth after his kind"; and it was so.

      Genesis 1:25 - And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind; and God saw that it was good.

      Humans 4 million years ago to 10 thousand years ago ...

      Genesis 1:26 - And God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

      1. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        More than 99% of all species on the Earth are extinct based on the fossil record. Is that what god was trying to show us?

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Mess with this god - he will extinct your ass just like that. lol

        2. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image87
          HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Considering only those of us who have lived in the last century or so could even know that, I don't think so.

          That's just what it took to get to where we are today. Countless generations of life so that animal life and our physical forms could live and operate in this physical existence. Our physical forms learned balance and equilibrium, how to break down and process food, how to decipher what we see/hear/smell/touch, how to heal cuts and mend broken bones, breathing, etc.

          I know everyone wants to equate death = bad, life = good, but the fact is death is part of life. It's part of the circle of life. Part of the process.

          Or, as Maynard James Keenan of the band Tool put it, "This is necessary. Life feeds on life, feeds on life, feeds on life, feeds on ... this is necessary"

      2. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Sorry, but there were no birds (fowl) on Earth 350 million years ago.



        Sorry, but there were no cattle on earth 54 million years ago.



        Sorry, but there were no humans on earth 4 million years ago.

        Seems your biblical account is seriously wanting.

        1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image87
          HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You understand I didn't get those dates from the bible don't you? The earliest known bird showed up roughly 150 million years ago (Archaeopteryx), but the ancestors that led to birds first climbed from the sea about 350 million years ago (Mississippian Epoch (359.2 to 318.1 mya)).

          Proto-mammals then small mammals first appeared around 200 million years ago, but mammals really began to thrive after that strangely selective K-T mass extinction 65.5 million years ago that wiped out the then dominant dinosaurs (bird's ancestors). Cattle showed up during the Eocene Epoch (55.8 to 39.9 million years ago).

          4.4 million years ago marks the first appearance of Ardipithecus, an early hominin genus. Technically, it would be 6 million years ago if you also include the first bipedal hominins. Modern humans (homo Sapiens) first appeared just under 200 thousand years ago.

          I guess I should have been more specific. I was kind of assuming you guys knew this stuff and didn't need me to clarify.

          1. A Troubled Man profile image60
            A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Actually, we do know what we're talking about.

            1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image87
              HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Me too.

              1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                lol By taking loose quotes from the Bible and attempting to align them with the fossil record, unsuccessfully? lol

                1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image87
                  HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Unsuccessfully? Explain

                  1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                    A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I already did.

              2. Mark Knowles profile image60
                Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                You got me fooled. lol

                1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image87
                  HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I know.

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                    Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Pretty sure you have every one else fooled as well. lol

                    Tell about the majik dinosaurs again. lol

  21. CaseyRamirez profile image60
    CaseyRamirezposted 4 years ago

    As a Christian, wouldn't believing evolution as truth, be contradrictory?? It's crazy to even accept such a notion. Why would you ask?

    1. Trish_M profile image88
      Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Hi smile

      I asked, becaeuse a fellow Hubber said that no Christian, on here, had told him that they accepted evolution.

      I know that many Christians do accept it, so I asked.

      The Pope accepts it.

      Many, if not most, of our Church of England Bishops accept it.

      Our Anglican priest at school accepted it.


      If they all accept it, why do you think that it is crazy???

      1. 0
        Jesshubpagesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Evolution is an attempt to hide the truth of the scriptures unless you as a christian don't fully believe in biblical account. With regards to the changing structure of body built that you've pointed out. That is because of the losing genetic information as all through out passing generations but they did not changed into another form or species. They remain as man in appearance. According to the Bible in the creation account, Gen. 1 and 2, We are informed that God created all things according to their kinds.

        1. Trish_M profile image88
          Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Evolution is not an attempt to do anything of the sort. It is a scientific discovery.

          If it doesn't fit with Scripture, then it doesn't fit with Scripture, but it doesn't have an agenda; it just is what it is.

          Christians have to come to terms with this.

          Some Christians acknowledge that evolution is true and they try to find ways to make Bible and Science co-exist.

          Some Christians feel that the two cannot co-exist, and they either reject their religious beliefs, or they reject evolution.

          But just because someone rejects it does not make it untrue.
          That would be like rejecting the theory of gravity.

          1. 0
            Jesshubpagesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            True Science agree with the literal account of the scriptures. evolution is not a scientific one but a bias that could not be proven. I would like to believe that Christians who upholds evolution believes in the so called gap theory in Gen. 1: 1 and 2.

            1. Randy Godwin profile image94
              Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              You are obviously well educated in the scientific field.  Genetics, right?  lol


                                                      http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

            2. Trish_M profile image88
              Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I don't know where you have obtained the idea that 'evolution' is biased, unscientific and unproven.

              There is a huge amount of evidence to support evolutionary theory. It is a scientific truth, backed up by facts, research, etc. There is no bias in genuine science.

              1. 0
                Jesshubpagesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Genuine science does not oppose any truth of the scriptures. Whatever scientific proofs they may present, sooner or later they will reject.

                Why I say evolution is a bias, it is because they must assume something that must be true and then hunt for the proofs that will somehow validate their assumption. We did not learn this from school for they don't want us to know that evolution theory emerged from a bias view point.

                1. Trish_M profile image88
                  Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Have you studied the history of evolutionary theory?

                  I respect your right to your beliefs and opinion, but they have to be based on truth and what you have been told is not true.

                  1. 0
                    Jesshubpagesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Well, I cannot impose my faith to someone who has a double standard belief system. Who is not satisfied with the literal truth of the scriptures.

                    Believing in the Bible does not need any other bias for us to understand the science of God.

              2. Randy Godwin profile image94
                Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Er...check out the quoted persons educational history.  This is what they teach in many religious institutes.  No telling what the poster was taught in such a place.  Some take pride in willful ignorance. 


                                                           http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

            3. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image87
              HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              The Gap Theory is rampant unfounded speculation based on one word in verse 2...

              "... the earth [was] without form and void"
              "... the earth [became] without form and void"

              This is an attempt to accept scientific history AND a literal 6-day creation by cramming the entire scientific view of earth's history between verses 1 and 2.

              This is unnecessary. The only contradiction with science is the traditional interpretation of Genesis, not Genesis itself. If you first remove the interpretations established centuries ago, like Adam being the first human ever, and simply read it for what it actually says, Genesis matches up significantly with history as we only now really understand it.

              1. Randy Godwin profile image94
                Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                So true.  Snakes can indeed talk!  Believe it or not. lol


                                                http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

                1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image87
                  HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  The image of a serpent was often used in ancient carvings and hieroglyphics, and was often used to represent one who is a deceiver. With the countless other aspects of Genesis that line up historically, consideration should be given beyond such a literal take on a single word.

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image94
                    Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Consideration is indeed given as to whether anything in the old novel should be taken literally.  I would be very interested in the "countless other aspects of Genesis" which line up historically.  Perhaps where all of the water came from which covered the entire earth during the great flood, would be a good starting point?  Not to mention, where the drain plug was and where the water is now?  It certainly isn't on earth any longer.

                    I'm sure many scientists would appreciate you bringing them up to date on this enigma.  Me too! smile

                                                     http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

              2. 0
                Jesshubpagesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Headly- I subscribe to the fact that gap theory is a rampant unfounded speculation.

        2. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          It is as obvious that your argument has nothing to do with evolution as it is obvious you have no understanding of evolution whatsoever and only shows a deep indoctrination of beliefs in which you will defend at any cost.

          1. 0
            Jesshubpagesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            A troubled man. Many are troubled because they reject the truth of God and subscribe unfounded theory of evolution. You may call me not ignorant of your acclaimed theory but that is a glory for me because I only cling unto the one true God and His Holy Word. Evolution is I have said a theory that could never be proven. I can discuss with you in detail issues on evolution outside hubpages.

            1. Trish_M profile image88
              Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Hi again smile

              It is neither unfounded nor unproven.

              Who has told you this?

            2. A Troubled Man profile image60
              A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Evolution is not just a theory, it is a fact supported by mountains of evidence in every facet of science. To ignore that evidence is simply dishonest.

        3. Jesus was a hippy profile image62
          Jesus was a hippyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          lol The WHOLE world is in a conspiracy to make you stop believing in the bible.

          What do they gain out of it? Are they all talking about it behind your back?

          If they are deliberately trying to deceive you, then they must know the bible is true, and that would mean they believe in hell so why would they send themselves to hell? What do they have to gain from deceiving YOU?

          lol

          Last time I spoke to you, you said you were going to prove that all 400+ neanderthal fossils were fraudulent.

          How are you getting on with that?

          1. Randy Godwin profile image94
            Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            i've asked many believers the same questions with no coherent answers thus far.  What motive would well educated scientists have to try and cover up proof of evolution being fake?  How could such a vast conspiracy be kept secret, especially in countries where religion is still considered important?

            These silly christians feel okay to use scientific knowledge to further their means--this forum for example--or especially if they are sick and need medical attention, but don't trust science when it spoils their little bible stories.  What hypocrites they all turn out to be.  lol

                                                                http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

  22. Druid Dude profile image60
    Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago

    Where, oh where does it say that the great flood was the first time it had rained. Making things up again, I see.

    1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image87
      HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      To be fair, I believe he's referring to this ...

      Genesis 2:5 -  and before every plant of the field was in the earth, and before every herb of the field grew; for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

      Because it's always been assumed that this depiction of Adam's creation and the creation of humans at the end of Genesis 1 were the same event, this description has always been seen as a global description, meaning before any plant life ever existed and before rain had ever fallen. Though it's not even in the same order as Genesis 1.

      1. Druid Dude profile image60
        Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Thank you, HN. I think it is safe to say that scientifically speaking, there was a point in earth's history when it rained for the very first time. In discussing Gen 1 and 2, there is an interpretation which has not gained much publicity or acceptance. Gen 1 is God as in supreme being. Gen 2 is Lord God's creation which can be said to be a different aspect. In G-1, man is created having DOMINION over the entire earth, and that creation is good. VERY GOOD. G-2 is where evil appears in the form of an aspect of knowledge in relation to Adam, who, not having dominion, was confined to a specific place, a garden called Eden. I see Adam as a descendant of dominion man. Dominion had already been acheived, and the garden was the end product of it. Some have argued in the past for G-2 to have been a separate creational process. I see it as a logical extension of G-1

        1. Druid Dude profile image60
          Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The separation between Dominion and Garden we know as ICE-AGE.

          1. Randy Godwin profile image94
            Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Which ice age.  There have been many, in case you weren't aware of it.  We are always in an ice age, dude.  It's either expanding or contracting, you know. lol

                                                  http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

        2. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image87
          HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I can see what you're saying, and agree in a way.

          Genesis 1 illustrates an existence that does exactly as God commanded. Animate or inanimate, it did exactly as God's will dictated. Including the humans. As you pointed out, after God created these humans in His form and likeness, and after He told them to populate, subdue, and establish dominion over all the earth, THEN it says He looked at all He created and saw that it was good.

          If humans had free will at that point, just as Adam and Eve and Cain all illustrate in Gen 3 and 4, there's no way they could have carried out such an elaborate set of commands that would take numerous generations to carry out. These humans were different.

          In the time period in which Genesis 2 forward is set according to ages given and locations and civilizations listed, this story coincides with a dramatic shift in how humanity lived. Humans began to forge tools and develop methods and build structures that made life more convenient. They began writing at first to track goods sold and labor worked.

          Humans before this are believed to have traveled extensive trade routes and worked with other tribes of humans to get what they needed for many thousands of years. Yet it's here in Mesopotamia that humans needed to invent a way to account for work done or goods traded. And it was only here that humans invented things that suggest a level of individual accountability. Like government and laws. A desire to understand like astonomy/astrology. The humans before went from stone tools to tools made of sticks and stones over the course of 2 million years. But in just a couple of thousand years, especially in this region specifically, you've got an explosion of invention.

          I suggest this indicates the introduction of an individual free will that wasn't there before. This is what I believe Genesis is describing. For example, right after 'the fall', when it says the 'eyes of both of them were opened', Adam and Eve immediately were aware of their nakedness. While humans had been wearing clothes for functional purposes for tens of thousands of years, I believe it's here that humans became bashful like no other species of animal and began covering themselves. There are tribal cultures to this day that still aren't so concerned. Mainly in those regions largely unaffected and untouched by civilization. And mainly amongst those that never procreated outside of their ancestral roots.

          This age also marks a notable increase in human violence. The dawn of weaponized battles. Slavery. This could be evidence of free will. A free will wants no limitations. It wants to go where it wants when it wants to do whatever it wants. But when you've got numerous people, all with free wills of their own, you get conflict. Conflict can be found in nature too, and can even be found in early humans. Homo sapiens pushed Neanderthals out of existence, for example. But only here did conflict give rise to inventing new ways of achieving what one desires at such a rapid pace. And humanity has never been the same, and has never stopped fighting, since.

          1. Randy Godwin profile image94
            Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You are simply grasping at straws now.  It is entirely possible the neanderthal species of hominids were annihilated by the more agile cro-magnon species, much like the Europeans did to the Native Americans.  There is nothing whatsoever to show violence between humans started to occur all at once.  Geez,  I give up trying to make sense of your ramblings caused by your obvious lack of science, geology, history, and archaeology!  Indoctrinated baptist, no doubt!  lol


                                                        http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

            1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image87
              HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              "There is nothing whatsoever to show violence between humans started to occur all at once."

              I didn't just make that up. And I didn't say it 'started to occur all at once'. I said it increased significantly. I even acknowledged human on human violence before that. Homo Sapien or Cro-Magnon is irrelevant. Increased violence following the aridification of northern Africa and the Middle East is an established idea. Not just me grasping at a straw.

              1. Randy Godwin profile image94
                Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                "An established idea"?  lol  What an insignificant, as well as, unhelpful claim.  Indoctrinated as a child Baptist?  lollollol  The coveted triple LOL!  I'm through with this guy!  tongue

                                                               http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

                1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image87
                  HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Okay. I'm not sure why you would dismiss a noted increase in violence in that region that's considered one of the key catalysts to the establishments of the first dynasties in both Egypt and Sumer as 'insignificant'. Are you denying it happened? Or are you suggesting I'm being dishonest?

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image94
                    Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    And I'm not sure why you have avoided my questions about your indoctrination and which cult you are a member of.  Want to count back and see how many times you've done so?  Naw, me neither!  lol

                    And where are the statistics you claim show a sudden increase in violence in the mentioned area?  I wasn't aware there were police records or any other kind which accurately kept numbers showing the yearly crime reports.  And what about the rest of the world?  Did "free will" only take place in the middle east and not anywhere else? 

                    Remember, this was thousands of years after America had been populated by humans who seemed to have no problem establishing agrarian societies without the benefit of your particular god.  They invented their own gods with no help from yours in the least.

                    Despite your wanting to believe the silly novel so much, there were no people to keep records of exactly when or where the first cities were formed.  Unless of course, you believe writing was the first thing on the agenda of non-nomadic tribes.  I don't think even you would suggest such, but I could be in error as your seem to invent your own suppositions.  Nothing would surprise me at this point.  Unless you answer my repeated questions concerning your cult, this will be my final response to your flawed reasoning concerning known facts and history.

                                                          http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

  23. Druid Dude profile image60
    Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago

    God proved to me that he is present. Maybe if you ask really nice...and mean it, he might reveal his presence to you, too. It does say "Seek and you will find, ask, and it will be opened to you." It does work.

    1. Randy Godwin profile image94
      Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I did the same for the pink unicorn.  Sure enough, right after a few shots of tequila and a hit of mescaline, he told me the meaning of life.  We are so lucky to be able to communicate with these beings.  What did yours look like?  Tall, short, did he have a beard like in all of the movies about him?  Really, give us the scoop!  yikes

                                                http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

  24. Druid Dude profile image60
    Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago

    He looked like you.

  25. habee profile image91
    habeeposted 4 years ago

    Most Christians I know believe in evolution (I do). How can they not? There's just too much evidence, and it's not all old evidence, either. Humans are still evolving. I read in a couple of medical journals that women's pelvises are gradually getting narrower, for one thing. Humans are also getting taller.

    1. Trish_M profile image88
      Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Hi smile

      Yes, I have heard of some interesting recent evolutionary changes too.

      Thanks for responding to the question smile

  26. baronhertzog profile image84
    baronhertzogposted 4 years ago

    evolution of a specific species within itself sure...BETWEEN species eh no

    1. Trish_M profile image88
      Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Hi, welcome. smile

      The thing is, while organisms are evolving, it is only, in effect, within species, but with all of the changes, over thousands of years, those changes result in new species.

  27. getitrite profile image81
    getitriteposted 4 years ago

    P (X=k)= God through his son Jesus Christ is creator



    N=6×5×4×3×2=Goddunnit


    (3×2)⁢(3×2)⁢(0.125×0.125)=0.3125=The Bible is True


    This math is complicated, but I'm starting to get quite good at it. lol

    1. aka-dj profile image78
      aka-djposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Repentance + Faith + Jesus Christ = Salvation = Eternal LIFE

      Not hard at all!

      1. getitrite profile image81
        getitriteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Very simple...but since these moronic atheist can't understand simple math, their brains are too primitive to grasp the irrefutable fact that math proves that God, through His son, Jesus Christ, is the Creator.

        I suggest they take an immediate remedial Math class, if they know what God can do...before it's too late! http://i399.photobucket.com/albums/pp73/ezgoin_photos/Scared.gif

        1. aka-dj profile image78
          aka-djposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Well, I guess that settles that then. smile

          1. getitrite profile image81
            getitriteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Yes sir.  You can count on me anytime, to help you with your....War on ATHEIST! http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f96/gwenny415/smiley/smiley-mean.gif

            1. Jenna Pope profile image61
              Jenna Popeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              As a Catholic Christian, I don't really have a developed position on evolution. Where it does not contradict my faith, it is not an issue for me.  Evolution is the realm of science, not faith and morals. We (Catholic Christians) do believe in the creation of the universe ex nihilo (out of nothing), the special creation of our souls, and monogenism (descent from one original set of first parents). That's as far as I have ever speculated.

              1. Trish_M profile image88
                Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Hi smile
                Yes, I was quite surprised when I discovered that the pope accepts evolution and that it was Roman catholic priest who came up with the idea of the'big bang'.

                1. Dubuquedogtrainer profile image61
                  Dubuquedogtrainerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I was not aware of that, but then Catholocism does not meet my definition of Christianity. I was educated in the sciences (natural and medical) and have a degree in natural science as well as an extensive background in the medical field but have since abandoned my belief in evolution, at least macroevolution. I believe in microevolution because science backs it up, but macroevolution, the transfoforming of life forms into completely different species and the evolution of complex organs and organ systems just does not make sense.

                  1. Trish_M profile image88
                    Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    But Catholicism is Christianity and it is the version from which most of the others evolved.

                    That is surprising. Most scientists seem to accept it.

                    Well, I don't have a science degree, but I disagree. Macroevolution is, in effect, just a build up of microevolution, over thousands of years ~ just as the evolution of complex organs has developed slowly over many, many, many years.

                  2. A Troubled Man profile image60
                    A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    And yet, if you actually knew anything about evolution, which appears that you don't, you'd understand that the process that produces microevolution is exactly the same as what produces macroevolution, the only difference being the spans of time.

                    And, you say you're educated in science? lol

  28. BecauseIloveyou profile image60
    BecauseIloveyouposted 4 years ago

    Evolution in the Darwinian sense could have never taken place, which can be proved with computer easily. Too bad Darwin had no computer, else he would not have made a fool out of himself and we all ( especially many school children)  could have been spared his nonsense.
    There is an "evolution"  of sorts taken place according to the Bible, because the further we get from God's original creation, the worse matter gets, like mutations, decay, desease ect.
    I am not a scientist, not really a Christian- more a child of God according to John 1, reading my Bible, talking with God all day, like that, I have not much use for religion per se.
    I know many Christian, who believe in theory of time laps =gap theory, which COULD have been taking place- only God know.
    The bottom line is though: it makes NO difference What we believe, but WHO we believe. I prefer to believe God.
    Pray and God might give you a better answer than I did.
    I just started to do blogs and have no clue about internet stuff, but you might find some answers to your questions here in my blog: http://adifferenceforyourlovedones.wordpress.com
    Blessings to you.

    1. Trish_M profile image88
      Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      And yet modern scientists do have computers and they haven't proven that evolution did not occur ~ quite the opposite.

    2. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      lol Evolution, ie. natural selection and diversity of species is a fact of nature, not computers.



      We can see who is making a fool of themselves and it certainly wasn't Darwin.



      Ah, I see the problem now, you know nothing about evolution, but are rejecting it based on the Bible.



      And yet, you have religion, by definition.



      Yes, maybe your God knows, because we humans understand that as nonsense.



      It makes a huge difference when believers like yourself come on to public forums and fabricate lies about things they now nothing about and only do so in order to defend their irrational beliefs.



      Sorry, but your imaginative invisible super being does not talk.



      Horrible blog. Lots of garbage there.
      Blechings to you, too.

    3. getitrite profile image81
      getitriteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      In other words, you prefer to maintain a closed mind, while deceiving us, with these outright lies about the Theory of Evolution.

      Morally, this is questionable.

      1. BecauseIloveyou profile image60
        BecauseIloveyouposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I am so glad God gives us the choices as to what we believe. Fact is: I hate religion, since God hates religion. If you choose to believe in fair tales , by all means do so. There is no room in heaven for mysticism, because TRUTH is synonymous with reality. Always was and always will be. Truth is an absolute, not a theory, regardless of hat you choose to believe.

        1. getitrite profile image81
          getitriteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          And what you choose to believe is NOT the TRUTH, but rather a childish fairytale, based upon nothing but primitive ignorance.

          The Theory Of Evolution is based upon years of research and experimentation.

          1. BecauseIloveyou profile image60
            BecauseIloveyouposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            May be so, may be not , but I prefer my "fairy tail" since it is logic. Your fair tail has too many gaps for me, since you can't prove a darn thing. However the biblical creation is confirmed more and more as science progresses, since the Bible is app. 400 years old and humans finally get the hint about DNA, micro organisms, healing ect. Praise God of the universe for choice!!!!

            1. A Troubled Man profile image60
              A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              lol Unbelievable dishonesty.

  29. 60
    finewordsposted 4 years ago

    actually in my opinion Christianity  neglected and cursed the theory of evolution.Because they could not refuse the 6 days theory of the innovation of god . But now a days people think logically and believe in the theory.

    1. BecauseIloveyou profile image60
      BecauseIloveyouposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Finewords:Amen: Logic always wins! However Christianity might have rejected evolution for a good reason.. But than: God is not a Christian and HIS word, the Bible, proves accurate about science in many now discoveries: DNA, 4 species, elements, fossils and many more. Look at the geological evidence like carbon dating: Perfectly plausible that the world could have been created in 6 days, since one can "manufacture coal in a lab in 7 hours, versus million of years. Noah's flood perfectly explains cataclysmic forces, fossils and the distinction of the dinosaurs. I am not a scientist. i just seek truth and hate it when I am lied to by people who don't have their life together, while God confirms my life every turn I take. Thank you for your good comment!

      1. janesix profile image61
        janesixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        God is responsible for the distinction of the dinosaurs? Amazing!

        1. mischeviousme profile image61
          mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          lol lol You're so overt with your sarcasm... +1

          1. janesix profile image61
            janesixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Yeah, i cant let an opportunity like that go to waste

            1. mischeviousme profile image61
              mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              The target on that one was huge...

            2. BecauseIloveyou profile image60
              BecauseIloveyouposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I am glad you entertaining in thinking!

      2. Trish_M profile image88
        Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I really don't see how the Bible is particularly accurate about scientific discoveries ~ unless in an allegorical way.

        1. BecauseIloveyou profile image60
          BecauseIloveyouposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The Bible is the first historical account of all life. Nothing else an give you a more accurate understanding on HOW and WHY we live. Whatever the subject matter: the Bible has the foundation. Not enough time to write, but just look at Psalm 23. it has all components of modern psychology: Security, love, significance, certainty/ security, variety. the book of Genesis origins, the book of job Anatomy, Physiology and pathology. I am sorry the Christian religion messed things up. But than God never intended Christianity to be a religion, since God hates religion.

      3. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, like so much other sciences that make any religion like Christianity look utterly ridiculous, unfounded and childish.



        lol Believers will say anything, no matter how dishonest to support their beliefs.



        Yet, here you are attempting to align science with myth.



        Yet, here you are filling your posts with lies. Curious behavior.

        1. BecauseIloveyou profile image60
          BecauseIloveyouposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Amen!!!! I am not sure who lies, but it is perfectly acceptable to the majority of people, very common in the nature of fallen humanity.

          1. A Troubled Man profile image60
            A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Lying seems far more common in the belief of religions than the nature of humans.

            1. BecauseIloveyou profile image60
              BecauseIloveyouposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Agree, because they have to validate their opinion.

    2. Trish_M profile image88
      Trish_Mposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Some do! smile

 
working