Can Christians believe in evolution? [Spirituality & Religion]

And he displays his ignorance once again.

@boopboop Stick around and you’ll see.

@LeopoldBloom I was, but it’s dropped more IQ points than I care to continue. You can have the last word now. Make it count.

@Carver OK.

"True SW members named Carver like to tell religious people that they're practicing their own religion incorrectly, because she is more of an expert than they are."

Since the Roman Catholic Church accepts the theory of evolution, I guess the Pope's not a Christian.

@LeopoldBloom

lol yup.
Love how she tried so hard to present herself as an intellectual and above it all while still trying to get the last word.
Unfortunately for her, her ploy was transparent and now she can't return to get the digs in that she so obviously craves.
Oh well lol

@hippyjoe1955 I mean you said before you're only doing this because you fear hell, which again goes back to that scenario I told you about where somebody puts a gun to your head and says "Do as I say or I'll shoot you". And then you go and fall in love with your captor.

@hippyjoe1955 Here's some of that logic for ya -

@Allelse Nice humanist point of view. Too bad it is so short sighted.

@ladycae

Yes, and as you say, they weren't stupid. They would recognize the difference between a man-made construction and a creature just as easily as you or me.
And yet they describe it as a chimeric animal and not a flying chariot with swords for wings and knives on its tail.

@Allelse because i addressed at some length in another threa.

@hippyjoe1955 Come on then, give us a reasoned, purely scientific explanation why, and what hypothesis you can offer in its place, that you have based on a vast and growing accumulation of genuine observations and experiments world-wide by many scientist of many different societies and religious beliefs.

Or, why you cannot accept that some unknown ancient scribe might have got it wrong. Only, he was wrong because he genuinely had no real evidence, expertise or experience available from anywhere to guide him.

@ArishMell The short version is that evolutionists use circular reasoning. The fossil is this old. How do you know it is found in this rock that is that old. How do you know the rock is that old? By the fossils we find in them. What is most interesting is that the recovering evolutionists is they all believe that someone else has done the science. When they go to find the data that backs up the theory they discover there is none. It is a house of cards built on sand. Just one minor example: We know that there is a discernible modification in the mitochondrial DNA every six generations. Nothing major. Not going to make a human or monkey or vice versa but if you peel away the changes you can discern a common female ancestor. Evolutionist use their infamous circular logic to to go back millions of years but if we take what we know and not what we are told we find the common female ancestors, there are three of them, about 5000 years ago. Strangely enough that coincides with the flood account we see in the Bible. Even more strange is that the three female ancestors are also found in the Bible. They are Noah's daughter in laws.

@hippyjoe1955 The reasoning I snot as circular as you think. Geologists do use particular fossil species as marker "zones" for correlating different exposure, but the dating of rocks themselves is by physics, not biology.

No-one claims the theory of evolution has all the answers due to gaps and statistical uncertainties but neither has anyone produced a satisfactory, genuine alternative. Trying to hide behind the Bible is at best escapist, to nowhere. Warping honest attempts to understand the natural world to make it fit one old religion's old books is absurd and pointless.

It also fails to admit that Christianity is not the only faith and can claim no monopoly of dogma. Whereas science comes from people of all faiths and none debating, reviewing and agreeing real-life observations of the real world.

As for the notion that we are all descended from a few incestuous siblings in a single family, well. Yet that is the logical outcome of claiming that because it's in the Bible, it must be true that our ancestors were one, unmarried couple sprung into being by a celestial conjurer.

The Biblical Flood is silly too. Many old religions have flood myths, but only reflecting their own, highly-superstitious societies genuinely knowing little or nothing about the world beyond their own regions. Anyway, there is just not the water on the planet for a Waterworld-style inundation; and the marine transgressions that are world-wide land drowning, do not come and go over just a month!

[There is an amusing side to that. Some try suggesting the flood myth was a hazy folk-memory of the rise in sea-level after the last glaciation, filling the Mediterranean. After all, it had formed the ria called the English Channel. Yet that was some 10000 - 12000 years ago, at least 7 millennia before the Hebrews started to form the definite society the OT identifies. Also such people have obviously not considered the sea depths, nor looked at maps clearly showing the major rivers entering the Mediterranean, Black and Caspian Seas! :-) ]

That "strange" coincidence is not that strange when you want to make it significant. The Bible is merely a collection of collated beliefs and fables set down by and for its own people within its own historical era. It is not dated, it is not correlated externally, and is easy to misuse by manipulators like Creationists.

It seems Creationism wants to reject both science - so why does it use the Internet? - and huge swathes of its own deity's work, because it is terrified of questioning the ideas of a few unknown men in one small tribal society some 2 to 3 millennia ago.

It's notable that Creationists and the followers of its bastard sect, "Intelligent Design", cannot explain why they are so determined that their cause must prevail and learning must be suffocated to suit. Some muscle in on running schools, but I think those have a deeper, darker motive than merely wanting everyone to believe silly old fables irrelevant to believing in God.

@hippyjoe1955 Lol. Any science book known to man. But someone came back to life. Right you stupid fuck

@Chevy454 Such as? I have been examining the science for 40 years and have yet to find any proof. If you have some I would love to see it.

@hippyjoe1955 you’re just a stupid ignorant fuck. I’m done with you. Asshole.

@room101 Pretty much ✌

@GodSpeed63

Please just share it here. Thanks.
What is the definition of a transitional form?

@Pikachu
Why do you need to hear it again? Do you believe now that all fossils do not have transitional form s in them?

@GodSpeed63


Because i do not recall your answer. So please, What is the definition of a transitional form?
A straight answer if you please🙂

@Lucia In my experience, the vast majority of Christians (and those of other faiths) are exactly as you say. Sadly, however, we get drowned out by the ill informed and basically crackpot few.

What's that saying..........empty vessels make the most noise?

@Lucia Nicely stated.

@hippyjoe1955 As opposed to someone falsly claiming the theory of evolution states things thing it in fact doesn't.

@NortiusMaximus Go back and read previous posts. I explained there.

@hippyjoe1955 Try reading the theory, you'll discover you're wrong (if you don't know already) but I know you'll never admit it.

@SStarfish Can you prove Santa doesn't live?

@Sharon Good point. Certain christians here claim the onus is on Atheists to prove god doesn't exist. By the same token, it must be for Santa deniers to prove he doesn't exist.

@SStarfish


Could i ask you what your main criticisms of evolution are? If you had to point out the three biggest reasons you think evolution is false, what would they be?

@Qwerty14 Good for you. Your opinion is not science of scientific. However if you take it and a few bucks you can buy a coffee at starbucks.

@hippyjoe1955 So I point out a flaw in your logic and you just become sarky? This is why people don't like talking with you

@Qwerty14 You have only pointed out your own foolishness.

@Sharon no coz it wouldn't burn...

Thought so

@TopCat Diamonds will burn but they don't make very good barbecue fuel. My point however is that someone who had just spent a few thousand on diamond jewellery would not tend to think of it as "just a bit of carbon".

@Sharon only if you're BBQ ran at 800℃. If yours does I would like to be at the next one you host. Ok, but that has no relevance to to the question that was asked and regardless of how they think of it, it is a lump carbon

@SW-User
Even if that were true about us being a minority, it still doesn't change the fact that we do have a young earth.

@GodSpeed63 Young earth creationism is pure foolishness. Not supported by any empirical evidence. It exists only as an after-the-fact justification of a particular interpretation of scripture.

@SW-User
Prove it.

@Chevy454 can't we discuss without insults. we are no better than politicians

@TheWildEcho

But you don't have to remove the creation bit. You just don't take it as a literal description.

It says God created everything. Nowhere does it say how.

@SW-User evolutionists? It's not like a political ideology

@SW-User Yes. Evolution isn't a competing religion.

@CopperCicada
And, they still got it wrong.

@GodSpeed63 I don’t know. I have actually done the experiment of demonstrating natural selection in antibiotic resistance. So it seems to work.

@CopperCicada
You're intelligence helped you perform that experiment, it didn't work by itself.

@Pikachu I don’t remember saying I believed in the Genesis story, the Bible is just a collection of stories written by people and not God especially the Old Testament. The New Testament may be based more on things that actually happened as it was written after Jesus, but its still only people 👍

@Ian123

Beg pardon. I didn't mean you specifically, i meant one need only disbelieve evolution if they take Genesis literally.

@Pikachu 👍

@Budwick That's true, but saying "It's in the Bible so no-one may question it or try to establish how God did it", as the more fervent creationists want, gains nothing and goes nowhere.

It ignores the fundamental difference between thinking God did it, and asking "how and when".

@ArishMell Oooo-k.

@hippyjoe1955 is there any point? If you do the same thing with it as you just did with mutation, I don't think there's any point

@ImperialAerosolKidFromEP I am simply pointing out that evolution doesn't work macro or micro. Yes creation was endowed with the ability to adapt to changing circumstances. That is part of its design. Brilliant design I would say.

@hippyjoe1955 I agree, God's creation is a pretty amazing thing. And I'd like to understand how He made it, but I'm not going to be able to do that if I blow off things that don't contradict the Bible but are backed up by good science