ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Embrace The Evolution Myth

Is there any reason why a Christian should embrace the Evolution myth in order to help explain Creation? If not, why do so many do it?

Join Our Free Chat and Take The Evolution Bible Quiz
 ---jerry6593 on 8/9/11
     Helpful Blog Vote (5)

Post a New Blog



Haz, you know I am talking of intentional sin.

Romans 5:20 Paul writes "...where sin increased grace increased all the more..." continuing in 6:1 "..shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?" He is talking about wilful continuance of sin. He continues "how can we live in sin."

Regarding 1 Peter 4:18(which is a quote from proverbs 11:31) Gill sums it up saying the righteous are not those righteous in human opinion "but who are made righteous by the righteousness of Christ imputed to them." The proverb then asks "what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?"

I wrote of another class: those who claim to be saved but continue in lives of wilful sin. What of them?
---Warwick on 9/4/11


I think biollogist will have the MOST FUN in the new earth. They will get to examine carnivarous plants and animals feed in their God given habitat.

A lion eating grass?
A snake eating...?
A lizard (croc or aligator) eating grass?
A bee without a stinger?
A spider drinking sapp?


Come on heaven is gonna be a biologist dream come true
---Francis on 9/4/11


Peter the evolutionist and the creationist both have the same evidence. This evidence is interpreted through the individuals world view. A good example concerns an evolutionist and a creationist standing at the rim of the Grand Canyon. The evolutionist says: look at what a small amount of water did over a vast time-period! Conversely the creationist says: look at what a massive amount of water did in a short period!

Now neither belief can be scientifically proved however the evidence favours the creationist view.

Added to that the creationist obviously follows the Creator and accepts His historical record of creation. And there is no other historical record.
---Warwick on 9/4/11


Jerry: your comment to Cluny 'confirming Evolution as a viable alternative' is a bit iffy.

If you ask someone who ALREADY believes in evolution, he/she will say there is plenty to 'confirm'.

We all rate evidence differently, mostly due to our prior views. If you already have decided that evolution is untrue (as untrue as 2+2 = 5) then no evidence provided by anyone will convince you. That is obvious.

That is the problem with evolution and creation. No one, I think, actually enters the discussion really wanting to look at the evidence and then use the evidence to make up his/her mind.

We all come in the opposite way: we look at the evidence, looking for only the evidence that will support our view.
---Peter on 9/4/11


Warwick:
I knew I'd find you here :)
Re the other finished thread where you commented on 1John3:6-9.

I disagree as these scriptures mean what they say, "those born of God CANNOT sin".

As 1Peter 4:18 says "If the righteous are scarcely saved, where shall the ungodly and sinner appear".
You can see 2 differnt groups here.
Group 1 Righteous
Group 2 Sinner.
You CANT be both.

Rom 6:1 even asks "HOW shall we that are DEAD to sin, live any longer therein?"

As John8:34-36 shows, Jesus truly set us free from sin. We are now servants of righteousness. Remember here we now see the new sinless creation in each other. The old man is dead.
---Haz27 on 9/3/11




Hey Cluny: Where did straw men come from? Straw monkeys? LOL

We're still waiting for you to produce even one single piece of scientific evidence confirming Evolution as a viable alternative to the Six-day Creation of the Bible. I suspect that we'll wait a great deal longer.
---jerry6593 on 9/4/11


Au contraire Cluny, people here do believe that life began as some supposed 'simple' organism and over vast periods of time evolved into all the kinds of creatures which have ever lived, and currently live. This is commonly called 'microbe to man evolution', to differentiate it from speciation/adaptation which some incorrectly call evolution.

Some say God controlled this microbe to man path over vast periods of time. This belief does not agree with the scientific model nor with the word of God.
---Warwick on 9/3/11


\\Jerry, I agree. In all the time I have been blogging here not one believer in microbe to man evolution has been able to provide good scientific evidence for their belief, let alone proof.\\

That's because nobody here believes it.

"Microbe to man evolution" is a straw man argument.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 9/3/11


Warwick: "Peer pressure perhaps?"

Exactly! But note just who are the peers of these Pseudo-Christians - the Atheists! They have the same pseudo-intellectual, anti-Biblical mind-set as our Atheist friend, but want to be "saved" anyway.
---jerry6593 on 9/3/11


It is one thing to say than man evolved from aother creature, and quite another to say that there have been major changes in some plants and animals since the flood
---Francis on 9/2/11

Gen 1 Man & Woman was made by GOD. Adam was made by GOD.
Flood area was a very large, where everything in the area perished.
Living things outside of Noah's "Erets",land,country area, remained unchanged other than adaptations as it had since creation. Which possibly was thousands of years before Adam.
Gen 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him, male and female created he them.
Gen 2:5
...God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
---Trav on 9/3/11




Jerry, I agree. In all the time I have been blogging here not one believer in microbe to man evolution has been able to provide good scientific evidence for their belief, let alone proof.

I have noticed how Atheist has ridiculed we believers in Genesis creation. However you have continually challenged him to provide one thing about evolution which he knows to be true-silence.

But why would any Christian believe in the evolutionary hypothesis when it lacks proof and is contradicted by Scripture? Peer pressure perhaps?

---Warwick on 9/2/11


Just what do you think these physical changes, all added up over time, are called?
---Cluny on 9/2/11


Descent with Modification
---francis on 9/2/11


\\Yes we can all agree that there are physical changes in both plants and animals, and even in humans.\\

Just what do you think these physical changes, all added up over time, are called?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 9/2/11


It is one thing to say than man evolved from aother creature, and quite another to say that there have been major changes in some plants and animals since the flood
---Francis on 9/2/11


Cluny, referring to Genesis 1:27 Jesus said ".at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female' Mark 10:6. It is easy and right to believe the Creator knew he made man, on the 6th day of the creation week. He calls this "the beginning of creation" which it effectively is. Who knows better than Him?

However if (as some BiblioSceptics claim) the world is x billion years old man has appeared at the end of creation, and Jesus got it wrong!

Jesus has spoken to such sceptics who will not believe what He says about the past (John 3:12) "I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe, how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?" John 3:12
---Warwick on 9/2/11


Gordon: "I find it hard to believe any true Christian would dare believe in the Evolution Myth"

I agree. Ask Cluny and others why they do - why they insist on perverting the interpretation of the Bible to allow sufficient time for Evolution. You would think that they were educated scientists that had some compelling scientific evidence for such a stance. But alas, they are not. Nor have they ever presented any such evidence here.
---jerry6593 on 9/2/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Lasik Surgery


--Warwick on 9/1/11
Yes we can all agree that there are physical changes in both plants and animals, and even in humans.
I would have to say that man also has undergone some physial changes.
The environment has surely taken it's effects on man. It shows is skin colour, hair type, eye shape, muscle size, nose shape.
But it shows mostly in carnivarous animals, which have adapted to eat flesh only, where as before the fall they were adapted to eat plant life.
---Francis on 9/2/11


\\Genesis 3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee, and thou shalt eat the herb of the field,

Why would God tell Adam that the ground would produce thorns if there was already thorns in eden.\\

You don't actually think this means there were no thorns on roses before the Fall, or that thistles are post-lapsarian thistles, do you?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 9/1/11


\\ Jesus says there are no long-ages before man but he would not even believe Jesus.\\

BCV, please, from the Holy Gospels where Jesus actually said this.

Glory to Jsus Christ!
---Cluny on 9/1/11


Cluny, the point is that the man claims to be a Christian but will not believe what God's word says. Jesus says there are no long-ages before man but he would not even believe Jesus. Do you?

BTW the Bible gives only one 'view', that the world is thousands not billions of years old. But the Bibliosceptic will not accept that, preferring the ever-changing untestable ideas of man.
---Warwick on 9/1/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Bullion


Francis, the fall introduced physical changes, God says so.

A question: Is man the same as Adam and Eve were when created?
---Warwick on 9/1/11


Can't get any more easy to understand than John 1:1-3 puts it.You either believe God's word or you believe a lie. Nothing more, nothing less. "In the beginning was the Word, & the Word was with God, & the Word was God.The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, & without Him was not anything made that was made."
---Reba on 9/1/11


Genesis 3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee, and thou shalt eat the herb of the field,

Why would God tell Adam that the ground would produce thorns if there was already thorns in eden.

Thorns are an evolutionary trait to deal with water conservation
---Francis on 9/1/11


Jerry, What do you mean by "embrace"? Do you mean to try to "understand" the Evolution Myth (which is what it is, a MYTH)? Or, do you mean to "believe and accept" the Evolution Myth? The reason I ask what you mean is because I find it hard to believe any true Christian would dare believe in the Evolution Myth, when the Scriptures are clear that GOD created all in 6 literal 24-hour days. The only "evolution" in existence is any cross-breeding done with certain animal species, like dogs and cats, etc.
---Gordon on 9/1/11


Send a Free Winter Ecard


\\and there were no thorns before the fall\\

How do you know that? Have you seen any pre-lapsarian roses?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 9/1/11


Then i considered some plants.
The rose and the cactus.
Since God ended all his work before the fall, and there were no thorns before the fall i consider thorns a descent with modification. A means by which plants conserve water and not an original part of creation.
...the various animal digesting plants like the flytrap. Plants eating animals in Eden?
---Francis on 9/1/11

Consider that Perfect Eden was local,(Erets Heb), as was the Flood.
Consider while here of these specific,unique species of multi thousands, surviving 5miles of brutal saline water pressure for most of a year during the flood. Scripture will begin connecting with what we know. Instead of the 2% milk we were are promoted with with blind pastors.
---Trav on 9/1/11


Francis the things you cover are all consequences of the fall. ---Warwick on 9/1/11

So then we are in agreement. there have been some physical changes since the fall, both to plants and animals.
---Francis on 9/1/11


\\A Christian I know approached me and said he believed in long-ages/evolution. I quoted many Scriptures which contradict this view. He had nothing Biblical to support his view.\\

You can reverse this and talk about the man who believed in the young earth theory, but had no scientific evidence to support this view.

What purpose is served?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 8/31/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Menopause


They are not Christians.
---Eloy on 9/1/11


Francis the things you cover are all consequences of the fall. God said His creation was "very good" not involving killing, and suffering.

You assume creatures today are still as they were when God created them. Is man the same as Adam and Eve were when created? No!

You make a second assumption namely that if you cannot imagine what certain teeth did before meat eating occurred then they didn't have another purpose.

Fruit bats have teeth similar to those of carnivores but they use them not to kill, but to tear hard fruit apart.

You also need to know that many carnivores can exist well upon vegetables. For example in some asian countries where meat is prohibitively expensive dogs are fed on vegetables.
---Warwick on 9/1/11


Then i considered some plants.
The rose and the cactus.
Since God ended all his work before the fall, and there were no thorns before the fall i consider thorns a descent with modification. A means by which plants conserve water and not an original part of creation.
Then there are the various animal digesting plants like the flytrap. Plants eating animals in Eden?
---Francis on 9/1/11


I took a look at a few snakes recently. I had to ask myself:
1: What type of plant life or dirt did a snake eat in Eden
---Francis on 8/31/11

Just a thought....but, all things from dirt go back to dirt. Most snakes eat dirty little things. Ha.
My wondering leans to what the heck did the serpent look like before it's curse? I'm glad they're not running around on two legs, freaking us out.
Come to think of it I've enountered some of these too though.
Isa 59:5 They hatch the eggs of vipers
and spin a spiders web.
Whoever eats their eggs will die,
when one is broken, an adder is hatched.
---Trav on 9/1/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Penpals


I took a look at a few snakes recently. I had to ask myself:
1: What type of plant life or dirt did a snake eat in Eden or a few days after the fall that required a snake to open it's jaws 180 degrees?
2: What type of plant and dirt required niddle like teeth which curve backwards in order to keep food from coming out of it's mouth.
3: Considering the boa, what type of plant or dirt required a snake to wrapp around it and squeeze it like a boa does.
4: what type of plant or dirt did a spitting cobra encounter which required it to spit vemon on order to eat that food?
---Francis on 8/31/11


I quoted many Scriptures which contradict this view. He had nothing Biblical to support his view. ...said words to this effect-Warwick has given you many Scriptures which prove your view is contrary to, and contradicted by Scripture. But you aren't interested, why?
He had no sensible answer.
---Warwick on 8/25/11

It has to be your overwhelming humility. That shut him up. He would know your type would never post about his foolishness and your Solomonic wisdom.
Hmmm.
An answer to your teaching dilema will surely "evolve".

1 Sam 2:3 Do not keep talking so proudly
or let your mouth speak such arrogance,
for the LORD is a God who knows,
and by him deeds are weighed.
---Trav on 8/28/11


Jerry, I wonder why Atheist is so coy about answering a straight-forward question? Is there some shame in him believing one or the other?

As regards Christians who believe evolutionary nonsense I recently attended a creationist talk given by a scientist friend. A Christian I know approached me and said he believed in long-ages/evolution. I quoted many Scriptures which contradict this view. He had nothing Biblical to support his view. Unbeknown to me the minister of this Anglican church was listening to us. He approached the man and said words to this effect-Warwick has given you many Scriptures which prove your view is contrary to, and contradicted by Scripture. But you aren't interested, why?

He had no sensible answer.
---Warwick on 8/25/11


Warwick: "Which is it?"

The atheist answer to this question (origin of matter) is the same as the atheist answer to the origin of life - MAGIC!

I can understand why an atheist could believe this rot. He's got nothing else. But why do Cluny, StrongAxe, and other "Christians"?
---jerry6593 on 8/24/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Accounting


A theist: You still have not substantiated your claim that I "stated outright that I cannot believe in the theory of evolution BECAUSE that would deny the history that the Bible portrays."

No, no, no! I do not believe in the religion of Evolution because it is scientifically vacuuous - not because it doesn't agree with the Bible. Yes, I believe that REAL scientific dating methods confirm the Bible's chronology. For example, accelerator mass spectrometer C14 dating method shows that ALL fossils are about 4,500 years old -- the age of the biblical flood.

Show me your science to the contrary, and we can discuss the flaws in it.
---jerry6593 on 8/21/11


Atheist, you are a legend. You will not answer questions, I believe because you have no answers. Your grip on science is minimal but nonetheless you continue to blog!

My question to you is very relevant. Thinking naturalistically, as you do, I ask you where did matter come from? Either it is eternal or it popped into being by uncaused causes. Which is it?

---Warwick on 8/21/11


Warwick,

"where did matter come from, is it eternal or did it create itself? "

An example of the fallacy of "either or", aka false dilemma. Not biting.

"Creation or evolution cannot be scientifically tested as both are past events." Therefore we will never be able to use science to do anything but make your race car faster.


Jerry,

I thought you believed the Bible and the earth was only 6000-10000 years---an impossibly short time for evolution theory to work. Seems if you believed in evolution theory you could not "believe scripture." I suppose you can believe that the earth is both 6000 years old, and much older, and not accept evolution theory for other reasons.
---atheist on 8/20/11


I don't see why we need to compromise God's word with evolution. Evolution is contrary to the bible in most respects. Like creation, evolution is a world view wherein one must have FAITH that it happened, therefore, it is religious. We weren't there to observe it and it can't be reproduced. I think the reason why some Christians rely on evolution is because they have been indoctrinated from a very young age and have believed the lie. The bible clearly states how ALL life arose and it didn't take millions of years to do it.
---Jason on 8/19/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Fundraisers


Atheist, where did matter come from, is it eternal or did it create itself?

Scientifically speaking something can only be considered proven if it can be tested while observed, and retested. This is not an opinion but what is called operational science. You exhibit scant knowledge of the scientific method. Conversely I have worked in the field and know how it works.

Creation or evolution cannot be scientifically tested as both are past events. We have evidence (most of which supports creation) but evidence is not proof. that is why Christianity is called a faith! Hebrews 11:3 "By faith we understand that the universe was formed at Gods command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible."
---Warwick on 8/18/11


A theist: You have not substantiated your claim that I "stated outright that I cannot believe in the theory of evolution because that would deny the history that the Bible portrays."

Please have the integrity to show my comment or admit your error.
---jerry6593 on 8/18/11


I never said that nothing made everything. You said I said it. I have made no comment on the subject other than there are things I just don't know.

In fact, since our perceptual abilities are limited, "nothing" and "everything" are just concepts themselves derived from those limitations, and may have little or no correspondence with the physical reality of the universe. Nothing, everything, start, end, and infinity are ideas.

So your premise is that we can know nothing of the past, since it cannot be tested by your view of operational science? Therefore any mythology is true, including your own. Absolutely brillant!
---atheist on 8/17/11


No Atheist, we have covered this situation before however you appear to have short-term memory lapses.

As I have said many times before the scientific method (operational science) can only be carried out in the present. It is all about testable, observable, repeatable experimantation. And obviously the past cannot be tested no matter whether we believe in supernatural creation or naturalistic evolution. Therefore no matter what we believe about the untestable past it is just that, a belief.

You have ducked my question because you know Scripture is not proven wrong by the methods of operational science.

But you just cope (cop?)out and say nothing made everything, as though that explains anything.
---Warwick on 8/17/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Ecommerce


A theist: "Jerry, you state outright that you cannot believe in the theory of evolution because that would deny the history that the Bible portrays."

Oh really? Can you show the specific quote where I said that? Or am I to conclude that 100% of the atheists on this website are liars?

The fact of the matter is that I disbelieve Evolution because of its total lack of scientific evidence, and the plethora of science that disproves it. Can you name anything about Evolution that you know is scientifically provable?
---jerry6593 on 8/17/11


No Warwick. That is not how it is done.

The question is what science supports scripture.

You need evidence for, and as you remind me so often a testable hypothesis to substantiate the "And God said, Let there be light, and there was light" Theory of Light Creation.

So far you have presented none. Which makes it mythology. Introducing a "god" really explains nothing.

Science, if you need to give it an anthropomorphic embodiment, is not at any point afraid to say, "I do not know yet."

But you just cope out and say "god" did it, as though that explains anything.
---atheist on 8/16/11


Atheist you are an interesting case. You constantly make inaccurate swipes at Christianity, convinced at the truth of your belief. I remember when you said Christianity was the cause of evil. However when challenged you had nothing intelligent with which to back up your story.

Further when challenged to give proof of microbe to man evolution you have nothing to say.

BTW I know of nothing from operationbal science which supports MTM evolution and nothing which disproves the Bible. However you obviously disagree so how about you enlighten us: What 'science' contradicts Scripture?
---Warwick on 8/16/11


\\It is YOU, not Jesus who denies the flood, and this derives from your stated belief in Theistic Evolution. Now try to follow along:\\

But I never denied the flood, as you claim I do.

And I never said that Jesus didn't believe it either, as you claim I did.

Here are two untrue things you posted about me

**You believe that Jesus was wrong to believe in the universal flood of Noah and the "great fish" of Jonah.**

You did so on 8/10/2011 on the blog "Do you follow Jesus."

Why did you post falsehood about me, jerry?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 8/16/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Jewelry


"....to believe in any form of Evolution is to deny the flood of Noah.

Any questions?---jerry6593





Fundamentalist Christians are afraid of the theory of evolution-including Jerry.

Jerry, you state outright that you cannot believe in the theory of evolution because that would deny the history that the Bible portrays. You cherry pick you science to deny evolution. You do fear evolution.
---atheist on 8/16/11


Blogmeister, I wrote in reaction to what I thought you were saying, without any intention of misrepresenting you. However on reading your post again (twice) I still think I have reacted to what you have written. I do of course accept (because you have told me) that I have missed your point.
---Warwick on 8/16/11


Cluny: "And where did you derive that I believe that Jesus denied the story of Noah's flood"

It is YOU, not Jesus who denies the flood, and this derives from your stated belief in Theistic Evolution. Now try to follow along:

Evolution requires long ages for species development.

Long ages imply slow, gradual fossil bed development.

The flood implies quick fossil deposition.

Ergo, to believe in any form of Evolution is to deny the flood of Noah.

Any questions?
---jerry6593 on 8/16/11


Warwick said: "Blogmeister, what you have written about is speciation or adaptation and it is the opposite of the the NeoDarwinian evolution. Adaptation to changing conditions 'selects' certain creatures which have features which confer survival value. It 'selects' from what is already there in reality deleting genetic information from the genome.

For one kind of creature to evolve into a completely different kind of creature massive amounts of new specific genetic information is needed How can this arise by naturalistic (as opposed to supernatural)causes? Not from adaptation."

That is MY point. I said that Darwin was wrong, and that his hypotheses was not provable, therefor not a theory.
---Blogmeister on 8/16/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Furniture


\\I only post things about you that are derived from your own words. It was not me who said that you were named after a cat and live in Middle Earth!\\

And where did you derive that I believe that Jesus denied the story of Noah's flood or Jonah and his sea creature?

You claimed I think so, and this is untrue.

Glory to Jesus Christ.
---Cluny on 8/15/11


Consider this:

The whole self-consistent act of creation was preparing for the Incarnation.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 8/15/11


Cluny: "Why do you post untrue things about me, jerry, attributing things to me I neither say nor think?"

That's untrue, cluny. I only post things about you that are derived from your own words. It was not me who said that you were named after a cat and live in Middle Earth!
---jerry6593 on 8/15/11


Blogmeister, what you have written about is speciation or adaptation and it is the opposite of the the NeoDarwinian evolution. Adaptation to changing conditions 'selects' certain creatures which have features which confer survival value. It 'selects' from what is already there in reality deleting genetic information from the genome.

For one kind of creature to evolve into a completely different kind of creature massive amounts of new specific genetic information is needed How can this arise by naturalistic (as opposed to supernatural)causes? Not from adaptation.
---Warwick on 8/14/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Laptops


Warwick,

Thanks to Richard Dawkins I know of an experiment that proves evolution. He said, on tape, that if you had a time machine and went back 200 million years ago you would see an amphibian change to a reptile. I agree, that would prove it. But first, how do we make a time machine? Maybe one of the evolutionists can offer a suggestion?
---Marc on 8/14/11


I do have fear regarding microbe to man evolution. I write microbe to man evolution (MTME) to separate it from variation, within a kind or adaptation which some erroneously call evolution.

I fear what happens to people who are indoctrinated into believing MTME is fact.

As these pages show, no one has been able to demonstrate anything about MTME which is scientifically proveable fact.

No one argues about gravity or boiling point of water because they are proveable by experiment. Conversely evolution cannot be proved but countless millions have been indoctrinated into this antiGod, nihilistic religion.

Anyone can prove me wrong by proposing a repeatable experiment which proves microbe to man evolution true.
---Warwick on 8/14/11


A theist: "Fundamentalist Christians are afraid of the theory of evolution."

I asked for something TRUE!

I'm a fundamentalist Christian, and I'm not afraid of Evolution - so your statement is false. I've studied Evolution, and once "believed" in it. But continued study of it has shown me that it is a "house of cards" or "the king's new clothes". It is nothing but a conjecture propped up by fraud and justified by denegration of all scientific questioning of its tenets.

Sixteenth request:

Can you name one thing that you know that is TRUE about Evolution (not about me)?
---jerry6593 on 8/13/11


Evolution is simply an ordered form for living organisms. It shows that an organism goes from a simpler form to a more complex form by adapting (that is the correct spelling, btw) to changes in the environment.

Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" spells out a way that any environment will eventually be dominated by the fittest. However, this hypothesis has a few holes in it, as it does not recognize the actions of God.

Note, I do not call it a theory--it is simply a hypothesis. He never provided a proof that man came from a lower species of ape.
---Blogmeister on 8/11/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Lawyer


\\Cluny & Atheist:

Fifteenth request:\\

Eighteenth request:

Why do you post untrue things about me, jerry, attributing things to me I neither say nor think?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 8/11/11


Scott1: "Some parts of evolution are true."

Ok, the birds on the Galpagos islands. The islands have two different types of vegetation on them. Some have lots of flowers with nector and the other islands have lots of seed based plants. The birds on the seed based islands have big strong beaks. The birds on flower islands have long skinny beaks, like humming birds. Due to the fact that the birds are the same physically everywhere else and gene testing shows the same genes except a few. A good explanation is evolution.
---Scott1 on 8/11/11


Fundamentalist Christians are afraid of the theory of evolution.

Fifteenth answer...
---atheist on 8/11/11


Scott1: "Some parts of evolution are true."

OK, name one!


Cluny & Atheist:

Fifteenth request:

Name a single thing that you personally know about Evolution that is true.
---jerry6593 on 8/11/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Dedicated Hosting


evolution myth is a title given by anti- evolutionists as the anti creationists keep calling creation the fantasy of creation.
---andy3996 on 8/10/11


Would Christians believing untrue things about what the theory of evolution actually says, and spreading them be embracing evolution myths?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 8/10/11


Donna,

It's the creation myth vs. the theory of evolution.

Leslie, CAPITALIZING words in sentences do not make the sentences TRUE.
---atheist on 8/10/11


jerry no true believer in Christ Jesus should ever embrace the evolution myth..that's why it's called a myth, it's not true.

In the beginning GOD created....that's the story of evolution...God created everything in the beginning. Amen?
---Donna5535 on 8/10/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Online Marketing


no that would be natural selection because the short neck giraffes dying died because they had a genetical defiance and could therefore no longer grow big enough for the lion not to eat him, and for the shortneck giraffe to eat the right leaves. a specie selected upon this is not evolved, it is lucky since the two species had the same ancestry, the specie with the least defiances survived. an idea that actually goes just as well with creation as with evolution. but then again in such a case theyre called races and not species.
(as the african dog and the european wolf)
---andy3996 on 8/10/11


yet of course it could be that the same shortneck giraffes are brought or reach a place where there are no lions, and where the trees aren't as big as they supposed to be, so these shorneck giraffes produce well in that area, is this evolution? no this is being lucky rather, since they ghot chance that inspite of their genetical disfunction, they where in an area they can survive.
---andy3996 on 8/10/11


Scott here you confuse adaption with evolution,

So after 10 generations of all of the short neck giraffes die and the longer neck giraffes live such that all giraffes have long necks. Would that not be MICRO evolution.
---Scott1 on 8/10/11


Scott here you confuse adaption with evolution,

everything biological adapts to their environment, eg. a third and fourth white southafrican is better adapted to African environment then a greenlanders, who is better adapted to the lack of sunshine. this is adaption NOT evolution.
---andy3996 on 8/9/11


Read These Insightful Articles About VoIP Service


NO part of evolution is true, if you think it is, you have bought into a LIE.
---Leslie on 8/9/11


Some parts of evolution are true. The bible does not try to explain scientific principles. Example gravity is not mentioned in the Bible therefore it is not Biblical so scientist and engineers should ignore gravity when building stuff. Similiarly we should ignore evolution even though we have documented proof of micro evolution in bacteria. The 3 and 4th generations of some bacteria will change slightly to better fit gaseous environment they are placed in. Please read the other 15 or so blogs about this question.
---Scott1 on 8/9/11


No there is NOT any reason to embrase a LIE if you are a Christian. Most "Christians" embrase this LIE because they have been taught this lie, and then just believe it as truth, instead of checking with the Bible to see if it is truth or not - like the WISE Bereans. Most "Christians" would rather live in DUMB IGNORANCE and be FOOLS than follow the TRUTH. After all ignorance is bliss.
---Leslie on 8/9/11


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.