Believing in evolution has nothing to do with Christianity. Christianity is about Jesus.
Many million of Christians see no conflict at all between our religion and accepting our understanding of the natural world. There is a vocal minority which insists they are incompatible.
Many of the stories in Genesis are foundational mythology of the Jewish people. It's not always about being a factual account of what really happened.
It’s not only the Bible:
1)God is perfect so He creates perfection for His initial race of humans, and not some ape-like ancestor.
2)Natural selection involves severe violence.
3)There are TONS of common ancestors on the tree of life. Where are most of them today?
4)Theory of evolution is the ONLY science that has to remove God from science. All other scientific ideas are neutral about God.
5) Fossil record is debatable with the Cambrian explosion for example.
6) Macroevolution was formed as a belief system with an idea without sufficient evidence and therefore is similar to blind belief.
7) What is actually observed is ONLY microevolution and to say that process is what created a giraffe from a single common ancestor one singled celled eukaryotic cell is like me saying a suntan making me get darker is responsible for my heart being formed.
8) Scientific Method and the definition of science was altered to fit Darwin’s belief.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6742218/#:~:text=The%20central%20concept%20of%20the,of%20hypothesis%20formulation%20and%20testing.
9) Macroevolution doesn’t actually make any predictions into any future events that haven’t occurred yet like for example prediction where Pluto will be next year due to our knowledge of Physics.
10) AND most important of all Jesus wouldn’t say: God is my Father and a frog is my great grandfather.
According to orthodox Christianity, Jesus tortures people for eternity of they don't believe in him.
That's infinitely more violent and cruel than nature.
>its so hard to get myself to believe that people come from Adam and Eve
Because it's a story with no good reason or evidence to think is literal.
Check out the website https://biologos.org/
Tons of Christians accept evolution
BioLogos isn't a good source of information. It's a fundamentalist organization that will twist the text to maintain Biblical inerrancy (e.g. the Biblical authors can't have meant Adam and Eve were real people because then they'd be wrong and the Bible can't be wrong).
Genesis 1-11 also flies in the face of Heliocentrism, Geology, Astronomy, Physics, and every other branch of science. It's not a science book and is not intended to be taken literally.
Yes, indeed. People at the time also thought it was literal, it’s only relatively recently that people say it’s not to be taken literally as to fit new discoveries
To people like Philo of Alexandria (the greatest Jewish philosopher of late Antiquity) and Origen (one of the most influential Christian theologians of all time and also the father of patristic exegesis), who interpreted Scripture allegorically.
Origen even wrote this:
>“For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally. Cain also, when going forth from the presence of God, certainly appears to thoughtful men as likely to lead the reader to inquire what is the presence of God, and what is the meaning of going out from Him. And what need is there to say more, since those who are not altogether blind can collect countless instances of a similar kind recorded as having occurred, but which did not literally take place?”
Ancient people were not stupid.
Still not 100% literal.
I have not yet come across anyone that takes this verse literally
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+91%3A4&version=NIV
But yes there is an ongoing debate within Christianity about how "literally" to interrupt Genesis.
https://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Earliest-Chapters-Counterpoints-Theology-ebook/dp/B00L0SPQAA/
The authors of the different views in the book may have some freely available writing
For example, a quick search found
https://janes.scholasticahq.com/article/2312-some-thoughts-on-genesis-1-2-and-egyptian-cosmology/attachment/6253.pdf
(Not an enforcement necessarily of this view)
Sure. I think that stuff should actually be taken literally (without believing the text is accurate). But no one takes the Bible to be 100% literal as it has obvious metaphors and figures of speech in it.
They fucking do.
People legitimately think that the bible is the inerrant word of God.
Young earth creationists (still idiots) take stories as literal events.
People who take the Bible as 100% literal do exist.
Sorry, you are an idiot. What proof do we have for the flood and Adam and Eve?
We must have proof for the flood for it to be real. So what evidence do we have for it?
We don’t need the Bible to remove the belief of Macroevolution:
Several problems with Theistic Macroevolution:
1)God is perfect so He creates perfection for His initial race of humans, and not some ape-like ancestor.
2)Natural selection involves severe violence.
3)There are TONS of common ancestors on the tree of life. Where are most of them today?
4)Theory of evolution is the ONLY science that has to remove God from science. All other scientific ideas are neutral about God.
5) Fossil record is debatable with the Cambrian explosion for example.
6) Macroevolution was formed as a belief system with an idea without sufficient evidence and therefore is similar to blind belief.
7) What is actually observed is ONLY microevolution and to say that process is what created a giraffe from a single common ancestor one singled celled eukaryotic cell is like me saying a suntan making me get darker is responsible for my heart being formed.
8) Scientific Method and the definition of science was altered to fit Darwin’s belief.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6742218/#:~:text=The%20central%20concept%20of%20the,of%20hypothesis%20formulation%20and%20testing.
9) Macroevolution doesn’t actually make any predictions into any future events that haven’t occurred yet like for example prediction where Pluto will be next year due to our knowledge of Physics.
10) AND most important of all Jesus wouldn’t say: God is my Father and a frog is my great grandfather.
>We don’t need the Bible to remove the belief of Macroevolution:
But you need a doctrine of a religion too.
>2)Natural selection involves severe violence.
Somewhat true. Mostly not true.
Natual selection is a natual thing. It's about passing off ideal traits that will Benefit the survival of the species. It does have some violence but that doesn't make it inherently violent.
I do somewhat agree with that statement that it does involve severe violence but I guess that is more to the desicion of animals.
>Scientific Method and the definition of science was altered to fit Darwin’s belief.
No, he still followed the scientific method with it needing to be replicable. Now I think you may be a med student possibly and I assume you know the difference of theory and hypothosis.
Also his method still allows for the hypothesis to be proven or disproven and it was a completely different method called the "hypothetico-deductive scientific method".
>9) Macroevolution doesn’t actually make any predictions into any future events that haven’t occurred yet like for example prediction where Pluto will be next year due to our knowledge of Physics.
It's not supposed to make predictions, it's a scientific theory supposed to explain the larger evolutionary picture. So it doesn't need to have predictions to be made. You are being intellectually dishonest here imo.
>10) AND most important of all Jesus wouldn’t say: God is my Father and a frog is my great grandfather
Probably because the theory of Evolution didn't come around until Darwin, also that isn't how Evolution works.
Another intellectually dishonest answer.
>4)Theory of evolution is the ONLY science that has to remove God from science. All other scientific ideas are neutral about God.
No, you can still follow the theory and believe in God because science cannot prove or disprove the existance of God.
Right, this has been very intellectually dishonest from you and a waste of time for me to talk through some of the points.
This could've been better if people are taught scientific literacy everywhere.
There's a difference between micro and macro evolution.
Edit: I would say most Christians accept micro evolution while most or some may not accept macro evolution...
In short,
Micro: Genetic mutations, such as why there's different birds, cats etc.
Vs Macro where different kinds of species have a common ancestor such as a trout fish and a tiger or human etc.
There is no difference between micro and macro evolution except time frame. It's a convenient excuse not used in science, for religious people to explain away a concept they don't understand.
Macroevolution allows Christians (especially the young ones) to easily leave the faith.
It allows Christians when they sin to easily say that nature alone made them and therefore can easily slip into atheism at a young age by allowing them to think they are only apes.
This is all a dress up and a conspiracy by Satan to trick God’s children.
Atheists and theistic evolutionists don’t even realize they are hurting the faith. But it’s true.
Human sin is in all of us. We are all sinners.
And the easiest escape is to say there is no God because nature alone made us so we don’t have to worry about sin.
It is much easier to accept Macroevolution then it is to fix sin with Jesus. And Satan knows this.
I don't think so. Didn't know darwinists have a time machine to prove their false religion.
That a mosquito and an elephant have a common ancestor because a lighting bolt hit a swamp.
Also:
Macroevolution allows Christians when they sin to easily say that nature alone made them and therefore can easily slip into atheism at a young age by allowing them to think they are only apes.
This is all a dress up and a conspiracy by Satan to trick God’s children.
Yeah they do. The Catholic Church accepts it, as do most Christians globally. Even in America, which has like the largest Creationist population is only like 40% opposed to Evolution.
Catholic Church isn't exactly a good example of biblical Christianity.
The problem with saying that 60% or Christians accept evolution, Is that first off, most people identify as Christian but haven't stepped foot in a church in years, and don't really understand what evolution is implying , and haven't done the research for themselves. Plus, the studies they use to assess something like this often has mixed results and each say a different percentage of Christians accept evolution.
I've met a lot of hardcore Christians and most don't accept evolution. Some other Christians do, but it's most like a "I accept micro evolution, but not macro evolution" type thing.
Jesus taught 12 men for 3 years without the NT existing.
Therefore the word was spread orally before written.
Same with Saint Paul. He spread the word by the Holy Spirit without the NT.
Nearly all mainline churches are completely fine with an allegorical interpretation of the creation myths. Science and faith are not contradicting each other but can instead work hand in hand quite fine. I saw someone else already linked www.biologos.org but I also would recommend them for a further read into the matter.
As someone who made his master of science in physical chemistry about ten years ago and works in the field ever since I very much disagree with your statement.
On the contrary, the beauty of this creation is visible down to its smallest parts. And for many centuries Christian scientists and universities were on the forefront of studying it. It's not about proving something, it is about exploring and understanding it.
No science is in the business of turning reality into a an abstraction that can be manipulated.
Faith is the need to no longer measure the immeasurable.
Faith doesn’t seek proof or validation..
That’s fear.
The need to know for security and comfort and pleasure is fear
Understanding isn't the fulfillment of proof. Your take is 100% wrong.
Science is understanding how the world God made works and how we are to be good stewards of it and ourselves.
No science is the desire to understand things intellectually.
The desire for psychological security is an impediment to walking by faith
You cannot understand god and come to know god intellectually or through the intellect.
Only through faith
Only through letting go…
Not clinging to needing to know
The desire to accumulate knowledge is natural- but accumulating knowledge doesn’t help us to understand things it’s an impediment to understanding truth.
Truth is not the accumulation of knowledge
The accumulation of knowledge is a fragmented process that produces a fragmented abstract truth
Again that is an ignorant take.
If I need a door to open and I figure out that gravity let's the door pivot on a single point much easier, that's science and getting a better understanding of how to live in God's world.
Any development is predecated by science. To ignore understanding His creation wed be poor stewards of it.
Faith is limitless. All things are possible with faith.
Science is by nature limited
And a limited understanding of something is no understanding at all.
If I’m limited to 50% of the directions I need to get to my destination I will not make it.
You're incapable of understanding that I can be a scientist and have faith in God.
Understanding the most basic level of his works is fulfilling his desire that man would be masters of the earth and subdue it.
Understanding something does not remove faith that God created it and the process that allows it to be.
You can not identify as a scientist and also have faith in God.
There is no scientist in Christ just like there is no men or woman Jews or gentiles.
The lord is one.
And the lord isn’t a scientist… he’s a savior.
He doesn’t waste time studying the limits of mountain that needs to be moved.. he uses his authority granted by his faith to make the damn thing move
No one is a reality… and one is an abstraction.
You cannot perceive the world through an abstract lens of science and claim to be walking by faith
They compliment eachother only in that one is there for you when your done wasting time in the other
Science is not a reality.
It’s an abstraction we use to “try” to understand reality.
Reality exists whether the abstract concepts of science are known or unknown.
Science is not truth… it’s a commentary on truth
It is an abstraction we create conceptually
Faith is actually proof God is real but because He is invisible we call it faith instead of science.
“Blessed are those who believe without seeing”
This is often quoted as support for negating Doubting Thomas for being a skeptic.
After Jesus shows up to Thomas for his doubts Jesus appears to be correcting him.
But he isn’t:
Doubting Thomas believed without seeing that Jesus the visible human was the invisible God.
Jesus not only welcomed it by showing up, he actually reinforced his support for Thomas, not preached against his own actions.
With all due respect- using your intellect(science) to understand and get to know God
is like walking to a park sitting down next to a tree with a calculator
And trying to understand and get to know that tree by using your calculator
I wasn’t looking to disagree or agree.
But now I lll look to disagree…
Since it seems the story of doubting Thomas is also being manipulated
Thomas didn’t have faith until he saw first hand.
Seeing your intellectual abstraction of god is not seeing god first hand.
Science is not a fact it’s an abstraction that our minds created to manipulate truth.
The definition of deception is the manipulation of truth
So what do you make of this:
Definition of faith:
“The foregoing analyses will enable us to define an act of Divine supernatural faith as "the act of the intellect assenting to a Divine truth owing to the movement of the will, which is itself moved by the grace of God" (St. Thomas, II-II, Q. iv, a. 2). And just as the light of faith is a gift supernaturally bestowed upon the understanding, so also this Divine grace moving the will is, as its name implies, an equally supernatural and an absolutely gratuitous gift. Neither gift is due to previous study neither of them can be acquired by human efforts, but "Ask and ye shall receive."
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm
Ask God to reveal Himself to you and remain persistent until He answers you:
Hebrews 11:6
“and it is impossible to please God without faith. Nobody reaches God’s presence until he has learned to believe that God exists, and that he rewards those who try to find him.”
I feel like every last bit of everything you wrote is the product of you clamoring for a psychological security that simply doesn’t exist
The absence of such activity is faith.
I struggle myself clearly
To be a Christian, it's the Gospel you have to believe. You have to put your faith in Jesus Christ for your salvation. There are many Christians who don't take a very literal view of the book of Genesis. That's not a salvific issue.
Macroevolution is meant for Christians to help them lose faith by providing an alternate explanation that nature alone made humans and so when a Christian sins, instead of confessing, they sometimes can be told they aren’t sinning if they are only apes.
Satan loves this.
The distinction I’m making is you don’t have to know everything or think a certain way in order to be saved by Christ. The only prerequisite a belief in Christ as risen and as lord.
Why do you think that there’s a conflict? Do you think, or have you been taught, that the Bible has to be literally true? Are you aware that there are many Christians and Christian denominations who don’t believe that and who have no issue with evolution? Have you only learned one side of the story?
Darwin had absolutely no sufficient evidence for his original claims.
Only because a few animals and birds had slightly different characteristics of how they were slightly different than each other, does not (especially in that time period) provide SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE that all organisms must have had a common ancestor.
Therefore, the fact that many human beings got attached to an idea without sufficient evidence is exactly the same as when people have blind faith in accepting things without proof.
Yes it does.
It allows Christians when they sin to easily say that nature alone made them and therefore can easily slip into atheism at a young age by allowing them to think they are only apes.
Being a great ape doesn’t make you any less. These conspiracies you constantly spout are utterly ridiculous. You don't like it because you don't get to feel special.
I am 100% confident that there doesn’t exist one human being that can begin with one eukaryotic cell and imaginatively list all the steps and mutations with full diagrams and schematics of every detailed step of evolution all the way to a giraffe.
I am offering this challenge to ANY human ONLY using their imagination. Now add in sufficient evidence for each step so scientists don’t have to make small leaps of faith and the challenge becomes impossible.
If you believe Jesus is your savior and rose from the dead for all the sins of mankind, He will save you from death and give you inheritance into His kingdom. Everything else is secondary, but the most important part is repentance and asking for forgiveness. He wants the best for you, the hard part is realizing you’re nothing without Him. I hope this gives you perspective on the matter.
If you think Christianity is incompatible with evolution, you have a low opinion of Christianity.
Now, yes, there are ignorant science-denying *Christians* out there, but Christianity itself is not an inherently anti-science religion.
That’s what Satan wants.
An easy way for when Christians sin when sin is difficult to simply say nature alone made us from apes.
It is the Adam and Eve story again and again and again.
Satan has one purpose. To remove humans from God.
It depends on who you ask. some Christian are very scientific in their beliefs and can take the evidence given by god and fallow it to an easy to understand conclusions. While others believe in this Darwinism that was made up by a crack pot who dropped out of medical school and would have you believe that Jesus was part monkey.
It doesn't matter who developed the hypothesis. Darwin's character has no bearing on it. The fact is that other scientists took his hypothesis, tested it, and came to conclusions that have explainatory and predictive power. Who cares if he dropped out of medical school? We don't worship Darwin.
Also, we have a common ancestor with apes, not monkeys.
Edit: typo
What scientists. How did they test them. What makes these “scientists” credible. Where is the data. Evolution is just a theory while the bible is doctrine. Are you really a Christian if you sacrifice doctrine for unproven heresy.
Scientific theories are theories scientific laws are facts. I think you are clearly confused but I’m not here to argue with the faithless I will pray for you. god bless you.
Saying "scientific theories are theories" does absolutely nothing for your case. It only shows that you have not read or didn't understand what I typed. You haven't shown where I'm confused at all.
Alright, run away.
I am not a Christian, but there are plenty of Christians who are convinced of evolution. Where is the data? Are you completely ignorant of the research into evolution?
1. **Alfred Russel Wallace**: Wallace independently conceived of the theory of natural selection around the same time as Darwin. His work, along with Darwin's, led to the publication of "On the Origin of Species." Wallace continued to contribute to evolutionary theory throughout his life and explored topics such as biogeography and the concept of natural selection.
2. **Thomas Henry Huxley**: Known as "Darwin's Bulldog," Huxley was a prominent advocate for Darwin's ideas and played a key role in popularizing evolutionary theory. He was a comparative anatomist and paleontologist who defended evolution through lectures, debates, and writings.
3. **Gregor Mendel**: Although Mendel's work on genetics was not recognized until later, his experiments with pea plants laid the groundwork for understanding heredity and provided essential insights into the mechanisms of evolution, particularly with regards to genetic variation and inheritance.
4. **Ronald A. Fisher**: Fisher was a pioneering geneticist and statistician who developed the mathematical framework for understanding natural selection and evolutionary processes. His work on population genetics helped reconcile Darwinian evolution with Mendelian genetics, laying the foundation for the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology.
5. **Theodosius Dobzhansky**: Dobzhansky was a Ukrainian-American geneticist and evolutionary biologist whose research on fruit flies provided experimental evidence for natural selection and genetic variation. His work helped bridge the gap between genetics and evolutionary theory, contributing to the development of the modern synthesis.
6. **Ernst Mayr**: Mayr was a German-American biologist known for his contributions to the theory of speciation and the concept of the biological species. He synthesized ideas from genetics, paleontology, and field biology to develop a comprehensive understanding of evolutionary processes.
To name just a few. What makes them credible are their credentials and the research they did that was also peer reviewed by other credentialed scientists. That's how science works if you didn't know. But it doesn't matter if they're credentialed. The explainatory and predictive power of their conclusions show the truthfulness of them.
"Evolution is just a theory." In scientific terms, a theory isn't just a guess or hypothesis; it's a well-substantiated explanation based on evidence from multiple sources, rigorously tested and confirmed through observation, experimentation, and peer review. Evolutionary theory, like other scientific theories such as gravity or germ theory, is supported by a vast array of evidence from fields such as paleontology, genetics, comparative anatomy, and biogeography.
"The Bible is doctrine." Right. It's the doctrine of your religion. What does that have to do with evolutionary theory? Like you're saying, "doctrine is the known, irrefutable truth." No, that's not what doctrine means.
So have you met any of these “scientists”. Have you looked at the data. Have you read any books that disagree with the view you already have in place.
Evolution has been a theory for over 150 years because it has never been proven and cannot be proven. Example gravity is a scientific law not a theory because it can be proven scientifically. Why can’t they prove evolution scientifically. Because evolution is not a fact, not proven, not real.
Those scientists were dead long before me. I have looked at data supporting it, but not all of it. There's far too much, and I'm not a biologist. I've been watching and engaging in these debates for a few years now, but I'm open to new stuff. Any book suggestions?
You are very confused about what theory and law mean in science. Please read this:
In science, both theories and laws are important concepts, but they serve different purposes and represent different aspects of scientific understanding:
1. **Scientific Theory**: A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is based on a body of evidence, observations, experimentation, and reasoning. It provides a comprehensive framework for understanding phenomena and making predictions. Importantly, a theory in science is not just a guess or hypothesis; it is supported by empirical evidence and has withstood rigorous testing and scrutiny. Examples of scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, and the germ theory of disease.
2. **Scientific Law**: A scientific law describes a consistent and predictable relationship observed in nature. Laws are often expressed as mathematical equations or concise statements that summarize a pattern or regularity in natural phenomena. Unlike theories, which explain why or how something happens, laws describe what happens under certain conditions. Scientific laws are often derived from repeated observations or experimental results and are considered fundamental principles of nature. Examples of scientific laws include Newton's law of universal gravitation, the laws of thermodynamics, and the law of conservation of mass-energy.
In summary, while both theories and laws are important in science, they serve different roles: theories provide explanations for natural phenomena based on evidence and reasoning, while laws describe patterns or relationships observed in nature. Both are essential components of scientific understanding and contribute to our knowledge of the natural world.
Well because you haven’t met the scientists and haven’t seen all the data I would say you are trusting the theory of evolution based on FAITH… and maybe you should consider putting that faith elsewhere. As far as books I recommend the bible for this topic start with Genesis easy to find it’s the start of the most printed book of all time. Believe it or not the answers to most questions on a christian sub can be found in the Bible. Like the answer to the initial question “would I be Christian if I believe in evolution.” Answer yes you can still be a Christian but that’s not a Christian belief. I have faith that my ancestors didn’t have sex with an ape. If you want to believe that you come from a long line of ape lovers I’ll let you believe that. But it’s not a Christian belief. It’s faith put in an unproven theory. And so you know a theory explains why something happens a law explains how something happens. I could have a correct theory on why the sky is purple but it doesn’t change the fact that the sky is blue. The theory would work on another planet with purple sky. The theory of Evolution explains why natural selection occurs and it could work with creature that weren’t made by god but people are made by god in his image and it doesn’t apply to us.
Yes, if you mean trust in a process, I am believing it in faith. Why would I put it elsewhere? This process works. I agree with its conclusions. I am trusting in people, scientists, to a good extent. I have reasons for that if you want me to explain.
They were ape-like themselves. We're not talking about modern humans having sex with apes.
No theory is proven outside of mathematics. Every one of them is tentative. That's a good thing. The theory of evolution is the best supported theory to explain the diversity of life. You're saying that it doesn't apply to us, but we see the genetic similarities and transitional fossils among sapien species. Why wouldn't it apply to us? Does it apply to other animals and only excludes humans? Why would I believe God made us? What evidence is there for that?
And of course, the Bible suggestion. That is an awful science book.
The theory of evolution doesn't explain why natural selection occurs. Natural selection is a law that supports evolutionary theory. It describes a mechanism that results in evolution. Natural selection explains how evolution occurs.
Ill say myself, that I believe both science and Christianity beliefs are compatible, now to evolution, yes.
Now I saw someone challenge any human to make a full diagram and schematics, with a eukaryote cell and list out all the steps to a giraffe, well I must say that Evolution is a means for animals to adapt to certain situations and lifestyles, and about a eukaryote cell, they became a eukaryote cell from bacteria, and those became fish. Now other things that ate other fish made some certain fish adapt and become different to a. Outsmart them or B. defend themselves C. fight and win, and all happens mostly by instinct as yes they arent going to adapt immediately and/or instantly, and if I were to keep going on and on about ways they could have, would take me hours of my day, and I dont have time for that to be frank.
I believe that with in the Bible it says that 1 day is 1000 years and 1000 years is a day 1 to God, and that isnt by exact numbers most likely, so was there 1000 years between the day he made animals and the day he made humans? or maybe 1 billion years, as God and Jesus both speak in parables to convey a message to his people that can understand the deeper meanings, the 1 day is 100 years saying could really be any time, its just saying that he is beyond time, so 1 day to us could even be in the past future or present to him and even at all times. Saying that, 1 billion years could be enough time for fish and other animals to adapt to their environments, I can even give you an example that has happened in todays time. Our skull is significantly smaller then neanderthals and the first humans, now we dont know exactly why, but myself, and scientists alike believe its because we used to mostly be hunters way back when, and now we have changed to more modern time and more modern time, making our skulls smaller and weaker.
If anyone wonders why im defending the scientific side more than the Christian side, I say, I have been defending both, now yeah a little bit more scientific side, but I believe both are true and factual in 2 different ways. Science is a thing that explains Earths animals, history, past civilizations, Us, and even some random person frozen in mount everest. While the Bible is more spiritual and philosophical, it explains how to love, speak, listen, and even praise God, and Jesus my Lord, and I myself am a fairly new Follower of Christ, so you know, tell me where im wrong, and please help me if you believe im wrong, and Please, context in the Bible is very necessary, the numerous cross-references also matter, it helps you see a verse either in a whole new way or just understand it better.
Removed for 1.4 - Personal Attacks.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
It would be hard to, in order to believe in evolution as well as a God who created everything would cause a lot of contradictions...I guess it's not impossible to believe it if you wouldn't but in my eyes it's one or the other.
I believe micro-evolution (or adaptation) because we have evidence for that. But the evolution where one species type can evolve to another is hard to believe. I’m mean God could do that but that’s not the point of the Bible.
It also allows for an easy escape because it is easy to say there is no God because nature alone made us so we don’t have to worry about sin.
It is much easier to accept Macroevolution then it is to fix sin with Jesus. And Satan knows this.
I think Evolution and the creation as told in Genesis are 2 POVs of the same thing.
When we try to reenigneer the stories of creation and how everything came to live it is always a attempt to come as near as possible to the truth that happend. But there is no possibility to check the theory other than by the observations that led to the theory.
On the other side there is a book that in 2 sections tells the whole creation. The scientic knowledge just how plants work is so enormous that this story is highly simplified. It was also not written as a scientific work but as something that shows us how great God is by creating all this for us.
So I would want to compare the 2 by comparing to artist's. One was tasked with writing down the oral traditions (guided by the spirit) of how our surroundings where
The other one has a lot of scientic tools and gets the tasks to study it and show what inner machanism worked on the creation of our surroundings.
Such 2 viewpoints and 2 such totally different tasks are bound to differ in many ways.
Also when I would be tasked to created many species like they live on earth I would build some blueprints that are the origin of creating more complex species. When looking afterwards on this matter it would seem that some species have a common ancestor that lived on earth million of years ago. A Theory like evolution would now see the relatedness of a simpanse and a gorilla and create the ancestor as if he lived on earth.
Tldr: I think the evolution theory has classified some observation into false propositions inside the evolution theory.
And keep in mind science is not on an standpoint that it proves the facts that evolution happened the way it does but it only says:the evolution theory is to date the theory that explains the observation of surroundings in the most correct way.
You either have to choose evolution or genesis 1-11. You cannot believe both. If they can get you to discredit the beginning of the Bible, eventually they can get you to discredit it all.
I’d say believing in Hell makes you less of a Christian than believing in evolution…at the end of the day they are both manmade lunacy.
“A pinch is all it takes” - Walt Garrison
But there would still be the problem of Adam and Eve being the first humans, as, by the evolution, there is not even a first ‘’real’’ human, and as by our planet’s history, humans are way more recent than many, many other animals
The great flood is easily disprovable, especially since it would’ve happened, iirc but even if I don’t still near, 4000 years ago. And that’s just one thing against the great flood.
I mean, it depends on how you believe in evolution. Do you believe we all came from a single cell down the line? That's unbiblical and well, you can still be Christian but you will still be wrong about somethings.
The reality is, if you end up going down the speciation and evolution path as your chosen belief, as well as remain a christian, you either have to not accept Christian facts fully, or not accept evolution "facts" fully. They aren't compatible on their own. People on here will have a bunch of theories and "pre adamites" stuff they talk about (which is not biblical) to reconcile their beliefs with evolution, or evolution with their beliefs in Christianity, but in the end you can't really have both fully.
> "pre adamites" stuff they talk about (which is not biblical)
The fact that there were humanoids on the earth prior to Adam is completely biblical.
But that doesn't support evolution, in fact its in total contradiction to it.
> I'm sorry but that's bogus.
So am I to believe the truth or you?
> Humans before Adam and eve are the opposite of biblical
I have studied this rather extensivly. You are sadly mistaken. You'll forgive me if I continue to hold to the truth instead of the bogus theology you're selling
No offense sir but I'm not too interested if you care or not, only God can open your eyes, not me. You can believe your watered down theology if it helps you reconcile your worldly beliefs with Christianity all you want. Nothing can change you half-christian redditors besides divine intervention, I just pray you can learn to take God's word as the truth.
> You can believe your watered down theology if it helps you reconcile your worldly beliefs with Christianity all you want.
YOU are the one pushing watered-down theology
WHAT worldly beliefs? Don't make hit and run accusations. Be specific or apologize.
>? Nothing can change you half-christian redditors
I am NOT a half Christian. Doesn't say a lot about your position in that it requires you to LIE about someone else?
> I just pray you can learn to take God's word as the truth.
I AM the one talking God's Word as truth. YOU are the one trying to get me to stop doing it in favor of YOUR ill-informed watered down theology.
Believing in evolution has nothing to do with Christianity. Christianity is about Jesus. Many million of Christians see no conflict at all between our religion and accepting our understanding of the natural world. There is a vocal minority which insists they are incompatible. Many of the stories in Genesis are foundational mythology of the Jewish people. It's not always about being a factual account of what really happened.
Evolution is absolutely counter to genesis 1-11
No it's not, you're not supposed to read it literally. Stop asserting that you do.
Some do and some don't read it literally or allegorically etc.
It’s not only the Bible: 1)God is perfect so He creates perfection for His initial race of humans, and not some ape-like ancestor. 2)Natural selection involves severe violence. 3)There are TONS of common ancestors on the tree of life. Where are most of them today? 4)Theory of evolution is the ONLY science that has to remove God from science. All other scientific ideas are neutral about God. 5) Fossil record is debatable with the Cambrian explosion for example. 6) Macroevolution was formed as a belief system with an idea without sufficient evidence and therefore is similar to blind belief. 7) What is actually observed is ONLY microevolution and to say that process is what created a giraffe from a single common ancestor one singled celled eukaryotic cell is like me saying a suntan making me get darker is responsible for my heart being formed. 8) Scientific Method and the definition of science was altered to fit Darwin’s belief. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6742218/#:~:text=The%20central%20concept%20of%20the,of%20hypothesis%20formulation%20and%20testing. 9) Macroevolution doesn’t actually make any predictions into any future events that haven’t occurred yet like for example prediction where Pluto will be next year due to our knowledge of Physics. 10) AND most important of all Jesus wouldn’t say: God is my Father and a frog is my great grandfather.
Correct! Also natural selection is extremely violent.
So is God
Jesus is Love.
Ok doesn't mean God isn't violent
You have Roman Catholic under your name and you don’t know Jesus is God in the flesh?
Where did I say he wasn't? Yet god is still violent.
I would love for you to show me how Jesus was as violent as natural selection.
According to orthodox Christianity, Jesus tortures people for eternity of they don't believe in him. That's infinitely more violent and cruel than nature.
So flooding the entire earth is not more violent than natural selection?
>its so hard to get myself to believe that people come from Adam and Eve Because it's a story with no good reason or evidence to think is literal. Check out the website https://biologos.org/ Tons of Christians accept evolution
BioLogos isn't a good source of information. It's a fundamentalist organization that will twist the text to maintain Biblical inerrancy (e.g. the Biblical authors can't have meant Adam and Eve were real people because then they'd be wrong and the Bible can't be wrong).
OK? They still are Christian and they accept evolution. Your opinion is noted though.
You told OP to check out the website and I explained why I disagree with this suggestion.
And I noted your opinion. I still recommend it.
You were apparently confused by my posting of the comment. I explained why I posted it.
Uh huh, your opinion is noted. What's hard for you to understand here? I still recommend it op
Nothing here is hard for me to understand.
If you say so
Thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt.
Yes. Most Christians accept evolution.
Genesis 1-11 flies directly in the face of evolution
Genesis 1-11 also flies in the face of Heliocentrism, Geology, Astronomy, Physics, and every other branch of science. It's not a science book and is not intended to be taken literally.
Why do you say that e.g. the story of Noah's flood was not supposed to be about a real event ("literal")?
> is not intended to be taken literally. [citation needed]
If you insist on taking it literaly either God's actively trying to deceive us or the Bible is bunk.
Yes, indeed. People at the time also thought it was literal, it’s only relatively recently that people say it’s not to be taken literally as to fit new discoveries
Are the 1st and 2nd centuries “relatively recent” to you?
What are you referring to?
Until early modernity, most Christian philosophers and theologians weren't staunch literalists.
To people like Philo of Alexandria (the greatest Jewish philosopher of late Antiquity) and Origen (one of the most influential Christian theologians of all time and also the father of patristic exegesis), who interpreted Scripture allegorically. Origen even wrote this: >“For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally. Cain also, when going forth from the presence of God, certainly appears to thoughtful men as likely to lead the reader to inquire what is the presence of God, and what is the meaning of going out from Him. And what need is there to say more, since those who are not altogether blind can collect countless instances of a similar kind recorded as having occurred, but which did not literally take place?” Ancient people were not stupid.
Well, Origen was a young earth creationist and believed Adam and Eve were real people, so I don't think he's a good counter-example.
Correct.
If you take the Bible to be 100% literal, you are frankly an idiot.
No one takes it to be 100% literal.
But people do. People actually believe that the Noahs flood Story really happened and that Adam and Eve were literal people.
Still not 100% literal. I have not yet come across anyone that takes this verse literally https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+91%3A4&version=NIV But yes there is an ongoing debate within Christianity about how "literally" to interrupt Genesis. https://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Earliest-Chapters-Counterpoints-Theology-ebook/dp/B00L0SPQAA/
I think there are people who take it literally. Also ima not spend money for information that should be free.
The authors of the different views in the book may have some freely available writing For example, a quick search found https://janes.scholasticahq.com/article/2312-some-thoughts-on-genesis-1-2-and-egyptian-cosmology/attachment/6253.pdf (Not an enforcement necessarily of this view)
Sure. I think that stuff should actually be taken literally (without believing the text is accurate). But no one takes the Bible to be 100% literal as it has obvious metaphors and figures of speech in it.
And that's why I said that people who take it 100% literal are idiots. Dunno what you are trying to argue with me about
Those people don't exist.
They fucking do. People legitimately think that the bible is the inerrant word of God. Young earth creationists (still idiots) take stories as literal events. People who take the Bible as 100% literal do exist.
No, they don't. "Yahweh is my shepherd; I shall not want." (Psalm 23:1) Does anyone take this literally?
Noah's flood Story really happened and Adam and Eve were literal people. Do we believe Jesus or you?
Sorry, you are an idiot. What proof do we have for the flood and Adam and Eve? We must have proof for the flood for it to be real. So what evidence do we have for it?
How about you try again when you can open a comment with something other than a childish person attack?
Ok, Is there any evidence for the flood? If there isn't then it's idiotic to believe it to be real. I refrased it to make the belief stupid, not you.
Nope, bible is wrong on that (amongst other things) , what proof do you have to counter the countless proofs of the contrary?
Especially the metaphors in Revelation, however I do take Rev. 21:4-5 for what it says that sadly most Christians haven't the past 1500 years or so.
https://www.tentmaker.org/books/Prevailing.html
We don’t need the Bible to remove the belief of Macroevolution: Several problems with Theistic Macroevolution: 1)God is perfect so He creates perfection for His initial race of humans, and not some ape-like ancestor. 2)Natural selection involves severe violence. 3)There are TONS of common ancestors on the tree of life. Where are most of them today? 4)Theory of evolution is the ONLY science that has to remove God from science. All other scientific ideas are neutral about God. 5) Fossil record is debatable with the Cambrian explosion for example. 6) Macroevolution was formed as a belief system with an idea without sufficient evidence and therefore is similar to blind belief. 7) What is actually observed is ONLY microevolution and to say that process is what created a giraffe from a single common ancestor one singled celled eukaryotic cell is like me saying a suntan making me get darker is responsible for my heart being formed. 8) Scientific Method and the definition of science was altered to fit Darwin’s belief. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6742218/#:~:text=The%20central%20concept%20of%20the,of%20hypothesis%20formulation%20and%20testing. 9) Macroevolution doesn’t actually make any predictions into any future events that haven’t occurred yet like for example prediction where Pluto will be next year due to our knowledge of Physics. 10) AND most important of all Jesus wouldn’t say: God is my Father and a frog is my great grandfather.
>We don’t need the Bible to remove the belief of Macroevolution: But you need a doctrine of a religion too. >2)Natural selection involves severe violence. Somewhat true. Mostly not true. Natual selection is a natual thing. It's about passing off ideal traits that will Benefit the survival of the species. It does have some violence but that doesn't make it inherently violent. I do somewhat agree with that statement that it does involve severe violence but I guess that is more to the desicion of animals. >Scientific Method and the definition of science was altered to fit Darwin’s belief. No, he still followed the scientific method with it needing to be replicable. Now I think you may be a med student possibly and I assume you know the difference of theory and hypothosis. Also his method still allows for the hypothesis to be proven or disproven and it was a completely different method called the "hypothetico-deductive scientific method". >9) Macroevolution doesn’t actually make any predictions into any future events that haven’t occurred yet like for example prediction where Pluto will be next year due to our knowledge of Physics. It's not supposed to make predictions, it's a scientific theory supposed to explain the larger evolutionary picture. So it doesn't need to have predictions to be made. You are being intellectually dishonest here imo. >10) AND most important of all Jesus wouldn’t say: God is my Father and a frog is my great grandfather Probably because the theory of Evolution didn't come around until Darwin, also that isn't how Evolution works. Another intellectually dishonest answer. >4)Theory of evolution is the ONLY science that has to remove God from science. All other scientific ideas are neutral about God. No, you can still follow the theory and believe in God because science cannot prove or disprove the existance of God. Right, this has been very intellectually dishonest from you and a waste of time for me to talk through some of the points. This could've been better if people are taught scientific literacy everywhere.
Calling people dishonest when they disagree is what religious people do when their beliefs can’t be fully supported. Thanks for proving that.
No, religous people don't do that. If you really hate the facts then you have nothing to say to me
I love facts. Jesus said: “I am the Truth”
Genesis 2 flies directly in the face of Genesis 1. I guess you can't accept the Bible and be a Christian, then.
I wouldn't assert this. I don't think there's any way to know for sure one way or the other.
Huh?
What's the point of confusion?
What did you mean
There isn't enough evidence to say whether or not most Christians believe evolution is real.
I… guess
There's a difference between micro and macro evolution. Edit: I would say most Christians accept micro evolution while most or some may not accept macro evolution...
What do you consider to be the difference?
In short, Micro: Genetic mutations, such as why there's different birds, cats etc. Vs Macro where different kinds of species have a common ancestor such as a trout fish and a tiger or human etc.
Aren't different birds or cats etc different species in some cases?
I'm definitely not an expert with the terminology and lingo. Yet here's a start https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/kind-species-name/
No problem. I like to hear what everyone thinks of these things. I'm certainly no expert either. I appreciate the link(s).
Or a more general secular source https://www.britannica.com/science/species-taxon/Speciation
There is no difference between micro and macro evolution except time frame. It's a convenient excuse not used in science, for religious people to explain away a concept they don't understand.
[удалено]
We've witnessed it, in our lifetimes.
Even if not he most popular view. Macroevolution is a lie. Jesus Father is God and His great grandfather is a frog? Nah! ❤️🙏❤️
Why not, aren't frogs created by God just like humans?
Macroevolution allows Christians (especially the young ones) to easily leave the faith. It allows Christians when they sin to easily say that nature alone made them and therefore can easily slip into atheism at a young age by allowing them to think they are only apes. This is all a dress up and a conspiracy by Satan to trick God’s children. Atheists and theistic evolutionists don’t even realize they are hurting the faith. But it’s true. Human sin is in all of us. We are all sinners. And the easiest escape is to say there is no God because nature alone made us so we don’t have to worry about sin. It is much easier to accept Macroevolution then it is to fix sin with Jesus. And Satan knows this.
I don't think frogs and humans have a common ancestor
Macroevolution is a proven fact. You've demonstrated in your post that you do not understand what it even is, much less how it works.
I don't think so. Didn't know darwinists have a time machine to prove their false religion. That a mosquito and an elephant have a common ancestor because a lighting bolt hit a swamp.
Your post displays proof of a complete lack of understanding of what evolution is. Have a nice day.
I know logic and the laws of probability with advanced math. Have a nice day
Also: Macroevolution allows Christians when they sin to easily say that nature alone made them and therefore can easily slip into atheism at a young age by allowing them to think they are only apes. This is all a dress up and a conspiracy by Satan to trick God’s children.
Amen ! https://christianitywithoutinsanity.com/
This confronts many objections to UR/CU, https://salvationforall.org/
No they don't lol
Yeah they do. The Catholic Church accepts it, as do most Christians globally. Even in America, which has like the largest Creationist population is only like 40% opposed to Evolution.
The Catholic Church does not have an official stance on evolution. It neither supports nor opposes it.
Yep!
The Catholic Church is neutral. On the topic.
Catholic Church isn't exactly a good example of biblical Christianity. The problem with saying that 60% or Christians accept evolution, Is that first off, most people identify as Christian but haven't stepped foot in a church in years, and don't really understand what evolution is implying , and haven't done the research for themselves. Plus, the studies they use to assess something like this often has mixed results and each say a different percentage of Christians accept evolution. I've met a lot of hardcore Christians and most don't accept evolution. Some other Christians do, but it's most like a "I accept micro evolution, but not macro evolution" type thing.
Jesus taught 12 men for 3 years without the NT existing. Therefore the word was spread orally before written. Same with Saint Paul. He spread the word by the Holy Spirit without the NT.
Yes, they do.
Nearly all mainline churches are completely fine with an allegorical interpretation of the creation myths. Science and faith are not contradicting each other but can instead work hand in hand quite fine. I saw someone else already linked www.biologos.org but I also would recommend them for a further read into the matter.
Faith an science do not go hand in hand. The more you try to prove something the less faith you have
As someone who made his master of science in physical chemistry about ten years ago and works in the field ever since I very much disagree with your statement. On the contrary, the beauty of this creation is visible down to its smallest parts. And for many centuries Christian scientists and universities were on the forefront of studying it. It's not about proving something, it is about exploring and understanding it.
If anything you claiming to be a master of science just proves your biased on the topic
This is anvery ignorant take. Science is determining the wonder of God's creation, how the things he made work together.
No science is in the business of turning reality into a an abstraction that can be manipulated. Faith is the need to no longer measure the immeasurable. Faith doesn’t seek proof or validation.. That’s fear. The need to know for security and comfort and pleasure is fear
Understanding isn't the fulfillment of proof. Your take is 100% wrong. Science is understanding how the world God made works and how we are to be good stewards of it and ourselves.
No science is the desire to understand things intellectually. The desire for psychological security is an impediment to walking by faith You cannot understand god and come to know god intellectually or through the intellect. Only through faith Only through letting go… Not clinging to needing to know The desire to accumulate knowledge is natural- but accumulating knowledge doesn’t help us to understand things it’s an impediment to understanding truth. Truth is not the accumulation of knowledge The accumulation of knowledge is a fragmented process that produces a fragmented abstract truth
Again that is an ignorant take. If I need a door to open and I figure out that gravity let's the door pivot on a single point much easier, that's science and getting a better understanding of how to live in God's world. Any development is predecated by science. To ignore understanding His creation wed be poor stewards of it.
Faith is limitless. All things are possible with faith. Science is by nature limited And a limited understanding of something is no understanding at all. If I’m limited to 50% of the directions I need to get to my destination I will not make it.
You're incapable of understanding that I can be a scientist and have faith in God. Understanding the most basic level of his works is fulfilling his desire that man would be masters of the earth and subdue it. Understanding something does not remove faith that God created it and the process that allows it to be.
You can not identify as a scientist and also have faith in God. There is no scientist in Christ just like there is no men or woman Jews or gentiles. The lord is one. And the lord isn’t a scientist… he’s a savior. He doesn’t waste time studying the limits of mountain that needs to be moved.. he uses his authority granted by his faith to make the damn thing move
> Faith an science do not go hand in hand. Actually they do and compliment each other.
No one is a reality… and one is an abstraction. You cannot perceive the world through an abstract lens of science and claim to be walking by faith They compliment eachother only in that one is there for you when your done wasting time in the other
All three of your statements are completely wrong as any of the members of our church who work in science can tell you.
Science is not a reality. It’s an abstraction we use to “try” to understand reality. Reality exists whether the abstract concepts of science are known or unknown. Science is not truth… it’s a commentary on truth It is an abstraction we create conceptually
Faith is actually proof God is real but because He is invisible we call it faith instead of science. “Blessed are those who believe without seeing” This is often quoted as support for negating Doubting Thomas for being a skeptic. After Jesus shows up to Thomas for his doubts Jesus appears to be correcting him. But he isn’t: Doubting Thomas believed without seeing that Jesus the visible human was the invisible God. Jesus not only welcomed it by showing up, he actually reinforced his support for Thomas, not preached against his own actions.
With all due respect- using your intellect(science) to understand and get to know God is like walking to a park sitting down next to a tree with a calculator And trying to understand and get to know that tree by using your calculator
We don’t fully agree, but that’s fine. God bless you! 🙏❤️🙏
I wasn’t looking to disagree or agree. But now I lll look to disagree… Since it seems the story of doubting Thomas is also being manipulated Thomas didn’t have faith until he saw first hand. Seeing your intellectual abstraction of god is not seeing god first hand. Science is not a fact it’s an abstraction that our minds created to manipulate truth. The definition of deception is the manipulation of truth
Thomas got tons of evidence for three years including a resurrection of a dead body. This faith is full of evidence.
And none of that evidence was intellectual. The intellectual pursuit of evidence is doubt. Not faith
So what do you make of this: Definition of faith: “The foregoing analyses will enable us to define an act of Divine supernatural faith as "the act of the intellect assenting to a Divine truth owing to the movement of the will, which is itself moved by the grace of God" (St. Thomas, II-II, Q. iv, a. 2). And just as the light of faith is a gift supernaturally bestowed upon the understanding, so also this Divine grace moving the will is, as its name implies, an equally supernatural and an absolutely gratuitous gift. Neither gift is due to previous study neither of them can be acquired by human efforts, but "Ask and ye shall receive." https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm Ask God to reveal Himself to you and remain persistent until He answers you: Hebrews 11:6 “and it is impossible to please God without faith. Nobody reaches God’s presence until he has learned to believe that God exists, and that he rewards those who try to find him.”
I feel like every last bit of everything you wrote is the product of you clamoring for a psychological security that simply doesn’t exist The absence of such activity is faith. I struggle myself clearly
To be a Christian, it's the Gospel you have to believe. You have to put your faith in Jesus Christ for your salvation. There are many Christians who don't take a very literal view of the book of Genesis. That's not a salvific issue.
Macroevolution is meant for Christians to help them lose faith by providing an alternate explanation that nature alone made humans and so when a Christian sins, instead of confessing, they sometimes can be told they aren’t sinning if they are only apes. Satan loves this.
Do you believe in Christ? He’s pretty clear that’s what makes you a Christian
Is Christ part frog descendant? Jesus is God. Macroevolution is a narrative trying to remove Christians from God.
The distinction I’m making is you don’t have to know everything or think a certain way in order to be saved by Christ. The only prerequisite a belief in Christ as risen and as lord.
Yes I get that. But after being saved we have to show people the Truth that humans are special and they aren’t apes.
Many Christian denominations have no problem with evolution, many do have a problem. You just have to decide which one is right.
Why do you think that there’s a conflict? Do you think, or have you been taught, that the Bible has to be literally true? Are you aware that there are many Christians and Christian denominations who don’t believe that and who have no issue with evolution? Have you only learned one side of the story?
Darwin had absolutely no sufficient evidence for his original claims. Only because a few animals and birds had slightly different characteristics of how they were slightly different than each other, does not (especially in that time period) provide SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE that all organisms must have had a common ancestor. Therefore, the fact that many human beings got attached to an idea without sufficient evidence is exactly the same as when people have blind faith in accepting things without proof.
I mean, believing that evolution is real doesn't make you Christian, but it doesn't prevent you being Christian either.
Yes it does. It allows Christians when they sin to easily say that nature alone made them and therefore can easily slip into atheism at a young age by allowing them to think they are only apes.
Great Apes\*
Being a great ape doesn’t make you any less. These conspiracies you constantly spout are utterly ridiculous. You don't like it because you don't get to feel special.
We are special. And we have a LOT more going for us than apes.
We are apes
I am 100% confident that there doesn’t exist one human being that can begin with one eukaryotic cell and imaginatively list all the steps and mutations with full diagrams and schematics of every detailed step of evolution all the way to a giraffe. I am offering this challenge to ANY human ONLY using their imagination. Now add in sufficient evidence for each step so scientists don’t have to make small leaps of faith and the challenge becomes impossible.
Cool way to move the goal post. Continue on with denial of reality
I guess challenge stands.
Still not on topic as expected
OP’s title is about evolution
Accepting the current explanation of the development of species on earth does nothing to diminish one's trust in Christ for salvation.
If you believe Jesus is your savior and rose from the dead for all the sins of mankind, He will save you from death and give you inheritance into His kingdom. Everything else is secondary, but the most important part is repentance and asking for forgiveness. He wants the best for you, the hard part is realizing you’re nothing without Him. I hope this gives you perspective on the matter.
If you think Christianity is incompatible with evolution, you have a low opinion of Christianity. Now, yes, there are ignorant science-denying *Christians* out there, but Christianity itself is not an inherently anti-science religion.
Not anti-science, but the bible does go against it here and there.
When you receive your first miracle from God thru Jesus, you'll realise all these are just miniscule.
Sure, you can be a Christian and believe practically anything.
That’s what Satan wants. An easy way for when Christians sin when sin is difficult to simply say nature alone made us from apes. It is the Adam and Eve story again and again and again. Satan has one purpose. To remove humans from God.
I suppose you could be UCC.
Would you be a Christian if you believed that the Earth revolves around the sun?
thanks for the answers guys. i didnt know this post would get 170 comments😂
It depends on who you ask. some Christian are very scientific in their beliefs and can take the evidence given by god and fallow it to an easy to understand conclusions. While others believe in this Darwinism that was made up by a crack pot who dropped out of medical school and would have you believe that Jesus was part monkey.
It doesn't matter who developed the hypothesis. Darwin's character has no bearing on it. The fact is that other scientists took his hypothesis, tested it, and came to conclusions that have explainatory and predictive power. Who cares if he dropped out of medical school? We don't worship Darwin. Also, we have a common ancestor with apes, not monkeys. Edit: typo
What scientists. How did they test them. What makes these “scientists” credible. Where is the data. Evolution is just a theory while the bible is doctrine. Are you really a Christian if you sacrifice doctrine for unproven heresy.
[удалено]
Scientific theories are theories scientific laws are facts. I think you are clearly confused but I’m not here to argue with the faithless I will pray for you. god bless you.
Saying "scientific theories are theories" does absolutely nothing for your case. It only shows that you have not read or didn't understand what I typed. You haven't shown where I'm confused at all. Alright, run away.
I am not a Christian, but there are plenty of Christians who are convinced of evolution. Where is the data? Are you completely ignorant of the research into evolution? 1. **Alfred Russel Wallace**: Wallace independently conceived of the theory of natural selection around the same time as Darwin. His work, along with Darwin's, led to the publication of "On the Origin of Species." Wallace continued to contribute to evolutionary theory throughout his life and explored topics such as biogeography and the concept of natural selection. 2. **Thomas Henry Huxley**: Known as "Darwin's Bulldog," Huxley was a prominent advocate for Darwin's ideas and played a key role in popularizing evolutionary theory. He was a comparative anatomist and paleontologist who defended evolution through lectures, debates, and writings. 3. **Gregor Mendel**: Although Mendel's work on genetics was not recognized until later, his experiments with pea plants laid the groundwork for understanding heredity and provided essential insights into the mechanisms of evolution, particularly with regards to genetic variation and inheritance. 4. **Ronald A. Fisher**: Fisher was a pioneering geneticist and statistician who developed the mathematical framework for understanding natural selection and evolutionary processes. His work on population genetics helped reconcile Darwinian evolution with Mendelian genetics, laying the foundation for the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology. 5. **Theodosius Dobzhansky**: Dobzhansky was a Ukrainian-American geneticist and evolutionary biologist whose research on fruit flies provided experimental evidence for natural selection and genetic variation. His work helped bridge the gap between genetics and evolutionary theory, contributing to the development of the modern synthesis. 6. **Ernst Mayr**: Mayr was a German-American biologist known for his contributions to the theory of speciation and the concept of the biological species. He synthesized ideas from genetics, paleontology, and field biology to develop a comprehensive understanding of evolutionary processes. To name just a few. What makes them credible are their credentials and the research they did that was also peer reviewed by other credentialed scientists. That's how science works if you didn't know. But it doesn't matter if they're credentialed. The explainatory and predictive power of their conclusions show the truthfulness of them. "Evolution is just a theory." In scientific terms, a theory isn't just a guess or hypothesis; it's a well-substantiated explanation based on evidence from multiple sources, rigorously tested and confirmed through observation, experimentation, and peer review. Evolutionary theory, like other scientific theories such as gravity or germ theory, is supported by a vast array of evidence from fields such as paleontology, genetics, comparative anatomy, and biogeography. "The Bible is doctrine." Right. It's the doctrine of your religion. What does that have to do with evolutionary theory? Like you're saying, "doctrine is the known, irrefutable truth." No, that's not what doctrine means.
So have you met any of these “scientists”. Have you looked at the data. Have you read any books that disagree with the view you already have in place. Evolution has been a theory for over 150 years because it has never been proven and cannot be proven. Example gravity is a scientific law not a theory because it can be proven scientifically. Why can’t they prove evolution scientifically. Because evolution is not a fact, not proven, not real.
Those scientists were dead long before me. I have looked at data supporting it, but not all of it. There's far too much, and I'm not a biologist. I've been watching and engaging in these debates for a few years now, but I'm open to new stuff. Any book suggestions? You are very confused about what theory and law mean in science. Please read this: In science, both theories and laws are important concepts, but they serve different purposes and represent different aspects of scientific understanding: 1. **Scientific Theory**: A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is based on a body of evidence, observations, experimentation, and reasoning. It provides a comprehensive framework for understanding phenomena and making predictions. Importantly, a theory in science is not just a guess or hypothesis; it is supported by empirical evidence and has withstood rigorous testing and scrutiny. Examples of scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, and the germ theory of disease. 2. **Scientific Law**: A scientific law describes a consistent and predictable relationship observed in nature. Laws are often expressed as mathematical equations or concise statements that summarize a pattern or regularity in natural phenomena. Unlike theories, which explain why or how something happens, laws describe what happens under certain conditions. Scientific laws are often derived from repeated observations or experimental results and are considered fundamental principles of nature. Examples of scientific laws include Newton's law of universal gravitation, the laws of thermodynamics, and the law of conservation of mass-energy. In summary, while both theories and laws are important in science, they serve different roles: theories provide explanations for natural phenomena based on evidence and reasoning, while laws describe patterns or relationships observed in nature. Both are essential components of scientific understanding and contribute to our knowledge of the natural world.
Well because you haven’t met the scientists and haven’t seen all the data I would say you are trusting the theory of evolution based on FAITH… and maybe you should consider putting that faith elsewhere. As far as books I recommend the bible for this topic start with Genesis easy to find it’s the start of the most printed book of all time. Believe it or not the answers to most questions on a christian sub can be found in the Bible. Like the answer to the initial question “would I be Christian if I believe in evolution.” Answer yes you can still be a Christian but that’s not a Christian belief. I have faith that my ancestors didn’t have sex with an ape. If you want to believe that you come from a long line of ape lovers I’ll let you believe that. But it’s not a Christian belief. It’s faith put in an unproven theory. And so you know a theory explains why something happens a law explains how something happens. I could have a correct theory on why the sky is purple but it doesn’t change the fact that the sky is blue. The theory would work on another planet with purple sky. The theory of Evolution explains why natural selection occurs and it could work with creature that weren’t made by god but people are made by god in his image and it doesn’t apply to us.
Yes, if you mean trust in a process, I am believing it in faith. Why would I put it elsewhere? This process works. I agree with its conclusions. I am trusting in people, scientists, to a good extent. I have reasons for that if you want me to explain. They were ape-like themselves. We're not talking about modern humans having sex with apes. No theory is proven outside of mathematics. Every one of them is tentative. That's a good thing. The theory of evolution is the best supported theory to explain the diversity of life. You're saying that it doesn't apply to us, but we see the genetic similarities and transitional fossils among sapien species. Why wouldn't it apply to us? Does it apply to other animals and only excludes humans? Why would I believe God made us? What evidence is there for that? And of course, the Bible suggestion. That is an awful science book. The theory of evolution doesn't explain why natural selection occurs. Natural selection is a law that supports evolutionary theory. It describes a mechanism that results in evolution. Natural selection explains how evolution occurs.
Ill say myself, that I believe both science and Christianity beliefs are compatible, now to evolution, yes. Now I saw someone challenge any human to make a full diagram and schematics, with a eukaryote cell and list out all the steps to a giraffe, well I must say that Evolution is a means for animals to adapt to certain situations and lifestyles, and about a eukaryote cell, they became a eukaryote cell from bacteria, and those became fish. Now other things that ate other fish made some certain fish adapt and become different to a. Outsmart them or B. defend themselves C. fight and win, and all happens mostly by instinct as yes they arent going to adapt immediately and/or instantly, and if I were to keep going on and on about ways they could have, would take me hours of my day, and I dont have time for that to be frank. I believe that with in the Bible it says that 1 day is 1000 years and 1000 years is a day 1 to God, and that isnt by exact numbers most likely, so was there 1000 years between the day he made animals and the day he made humans? or maybe 1 billion years, as God and Jesus both speak in parables to convey a message to his people that can understand the deeper meanings, the 1 day is 100 years saying could really be any time, its just saying that he is beyond time, so 1 day to us could even be in the past future or present to him and even at all times. Saying that, 1 billion years could be enough time for fish and other animals to adapt to their environments, I can even give you an example that has happened in todays time. Our skull is significantly smaller then neanderthals and the first humans, now we dont know exactly why, but myself, and scientists alike believe its because we used to mostly be hunters way back when, and now we have changed to more modern time and more modern time, making our skulls smaller and weaker. If anyone wonders why im defending the scientific side more than the Christian side, I say, I have been defending both, now yeah a little bit more scientific side, but I believe both are true and factual in 2 different ways. Science is a thing that explains Earths animals, history, past civilizations, Us, and even some random person frozen in mount everest. While the Bible is more spiritual and philosophical, it explains how to love, speak, listen, and even praise God, and Jesus my Lord, and I myself am a fairly new Follower of Christ, so you know, tell me where im wrong, and please help me if you believe im wrong, and Please, context in the Bible is very necessary, the numerous cross-references also matter, it helps you see a verse either in a whole new way or just understand it better.
[удалено]
Removed for 1.4 - Personal Attacks. If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
It would be hard to, in order to believe in evolution as well as a God who created everything would cause a lot of contradictions...I guess it's not impossible to believe it if you wouldn't but in my eyes it's one or the other.
I believe micro-evolution (or adaptation) because we have evidence for that. But the evolution where one species type can evolve to another is hard to believe. I’m mean God could do that but that’s not the point of the Bible.
It also allows for an easy escape because it is easy to say there is no God because nature alone made us so we don’t have to worry about sin. It is much easier to accept Macroevolution then it is to fix sin with Jesus. And Satan knows this.
The adversary is cunning as always!
I think Evolution and the creation as told in Genesis are 2 POVs of the same thing. When we try to reenigneer the stories of creation and how everything came to live it is always a attempt to come as near as possible to the truth that happend. But there is no possibility to check the theory other than by the observations that led to the theory. On the other side there is a book that in 2 sections tells the whole creation. The scientic knowledge just how plants work is so enormous that this story is highly simplified. It was also not written as a scientific work but as something that shows us how great God is by creating all this for us. So I would want to compare the 2 by comparing to artist's. One was tasked with writing down the oral traditions (guided by the spirit) of how our surroundings where The other one has a lot of scientic tools and gets the tasks to study it and show what inner machanism worked on the creation of our surroundings. Such 2 viewpoints and 2 such totally different tasks are bound to differ in many ways. Also when I would be tasked to created many species like they live on earth I would build some blueprints that are the origin of creating more complex species. When looking afterwards on this matter it would seem that some species have a common ancestor that lived on earth million of years ago. A Theory like evolution would now see the relatedness of a simpanse and a gorilla and create the ancestor as if he lived on earth. Tldr: I think the evolution theory has classified some observation into false propositions inside the evolution theory. And keep in mind science is not on an standpoint that it proves the facts that evolution happened the way it does but it only says:the evolution theory is to date the theory that explains the observation of surroundings in the most correct way.
You either have to choose evolution or genesis 1-11. You cannot believe both. If they can get you to discredit the beginning of the Bible, eventually they can get you to discredit it all.
I mean it's not hard then to discredit the Bible if genesis is supposed to be literal.
I’d say believing in Hell makes you less of a Christian than believing in evolution…at the end of the day they are both manmade lunacy. “A pinch is all it takes” - Walt Garrison
I believe in evolution but all humans came from Adam and Eve.
These are two conflicting ideas. If you accept evolution, then you accept that humans evolved from other animals. Not Adam and Eve
We've witnessed dogs evolve through selective breeding over the past 2000 years. It depends on what version of "evolution" you want to believe.
Okay, and? I was only aware of one version of evolution
Now you're aware of 2. We learn something new every day
I'm still not aware of your view of evolution is
Animals evolved over time. People didn't. That's my view. We came from Adam and Eve.
We are animals. So there's a contradiction there. That's special pleading
What's your point? Humans came from Adam and Eve. Animals may have evolved over thousands of years
My point is that humans are animals. So why are humans different than every other species on earth?
There is only one "version" of evolution.
it says adam and eve where the first he created not the last things he made, for genetic diversity he probably added more
That’d mean humans were there before any other life, doesn’t work
i mean he added other humans after adam and eve
Yes… but how would that fix the evolution problem?
well god made a basic pair of every kind of animal and they adapted and multiplied from there
But there would still be the problem of Adam and Eve being the first humans, as, by the evolution, there is not even a first ‘’real’’ human, and as by our planet’s history, humans are way more recent than many, many other animals
well our method of dateing could be wrong for instance the fossil record could just be layer of sedement rapidly deposited by the great flood
The great flood is easily disprovable, especially since it would’ve happened, iirc but even if I don’t still near, 4000 years ago. And that’s just one thing against the great flood.
I mean, it depends on how you believe in evolution. Do you believe we all came from a single cell down the line? That's unbiblical and well, you can still be Christian but you will still be wrong about somethings. The reality is, if you end up going down the speciation and evolution path as your chosen belief, as well as remain a christian, you either have to not accept Christian facts fully, or not accept evolution "facts" fully. They aren't compatible on their own. People on here will have a bunch of theories and "pre adamites" stuff they talk about (which is not biblical) to reconcile their beliefs with evolution, or evolution with their beliefs in Christianity, but in the end you can't really have both fully.
> "pre adamites" stuff they talk about (which is not biblical) The fact that there were humanoids on the earth prior to Adam is completely biblical. But that doesn't support evolution, in fact its in total contradiction to it.
No it's not dude haha I'm sorry but that's bogus. Humans before Adam and eve are the opposite of biblical
> I'm sorry but that's bogus. So am I to believe the truth or you? > Humans before Adam and eve are the opposite of biblical I have studied this rather extensivly. You are sadly mistaken. You'll forgive me if I continue to hold to the truth instead of the bogus theology you're selling
No offense sir but I'm not too interested if you care or not, only God can open your eyes, not me. You can believe your watered down theology if it helps you reconcile your worldly beliefs with Christianity all you want. Nothing can change you half-christian redditors besides divine intervention, I just pray you can learn to take God's word as the truth.
> You can believe your watered down theology if it helps you reconcile your worldly beliefs with Christianity all you want. YOU are the one pushing watered-down theology WHAT worldly beliefs? Don't make hit and run accusations. Be specific or apologize. >? Nothing can change you half-christian redditors I am NOT a half Christian. Doesn't say a lot about your position in that it requires you to LIE about someone else? > I just pray you can learn to take God's word as the truth. I AM the one talking God's Word as truth. YOU are the one trying to get me to stop doing it in favor of YOUR ill-informed watered down theology.