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

Is Evolution Biblical

Is Evolution in any form compatible with Biblical Christianity?

Moderator - Not only is macro evolution not Biblical, it's one of the biggest fairy tales I have ever heard even if I was an atheist.

Join Our Free Singles and Take The Relationships Quiz
 ---jerry6593 on 10/3/14
     Helpful Blog Vote (1)

Post a New Blog



Trav, it is not true that educated people thought the earth was flat until a few centuries ago, as you claim.
---Warwick on 10/29/14

You are so busy rebuilding/defending your sand castle you never get to hunt for rocks to foundation or strengthen.
Shouldn't have to teach you history here. Eratosthenes, did not transform the world in their day. Was centuries later before a round Global world was accepted.
No one believed them. Very similar to now. We know it's round, can't believe anyone was crazy enough to think it was flat. You think the whole Globe was flooded. When weight of all evidence proves it wasn't. You can't change...it requires you losing face.
Saul/Paul would tell you Truth is better than face.
---Trav on 10/29/14


You have never supplied one doctrinal, biblical, historical and scientific fact witnesses against "global."
---Warwick on 10/28/14

You are(desperately) right. Not one but, many posted seeds. The (seed) facts were never for you as you passionately confess/testify. You don't search you defend, yourself.
Facts/seed are for those with "eyes" and "ears" validating. They grow. Who seek a matter out, freeing them from your circular, limiting, absent, witness and destroying doctrine.
Have not once sought your blind approval, none here ever need it.
Ironically, you having one thing wrong, are blind to all.
Psa_2:1-5 Why do the heathen rage...
Psa_33:10 The LORD bringeth the counsel ...
---Trav on 10/29/14


Trav, God says the rainbow (a world-wide phenomen) is "..the sign of the covenant that I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations." As the flood destroyed all mankind Genesis 7:21 (and of course land-dwelling animals) i.e. "Everything on dry land.." (vs. 22), this proves the flood was global, as "dry land" was not restricted to any locality.

The rainbow is only a sign if it can be seen wherever Noah's descendants have spread world-wide.

You have never supplied one doctrinal, biblical, historical and scientific fact witnesses against "global."
---Warwick on 10/28/14


Trav, it is not true that educated people thought the earth was flat until a few centuries ago, as you claim. For just one example Eratosthenes measured the earths diameter fairly accurately in the 3rd century BC.30. His calculation of the earth's circumference was done using geometry and he was accurate to within 3.5% of the correct figure. Faulkner, D., Creation and the flat earth: Columbus and modern historians, Creation Matters 2(6):1, 19971
---Warwick on 10/29/14


Rainbows are the sign that God will not flood the....
---micha9344 on 10/28/14

...."erets".
Understand since I was your position once.
For me and other searchers There are too many, doctrinal, biblical, historical and scientific fact witnesses against "global".
Gen 9:12 God said, This is the token of the covenant between me and you and every living creature that is "with you", for perpetual generations:

He hasn't totally killed Noah's kind or the, "with you" (above) animals since...anywhere. Rainbows are sign-ificant, where they are a sign. Locally. Where ever Noah's kind are found. Noah was perfect in his generations. His predecessors weren't. Gen_6:9
---Trav on 10/28/14




Rainbows can be seen almost anywhere on the Globe (Erets), but cannot be seen from 1000's of square miles away.
The promise was to all man and animal kind, not just a select few.
Phoenicians, Egyptians, Chinese, and others saw and see rainbows.
Rainbows are the sign that God will not flood the world, globe, earth, erets again. This is not a local promise since local floods of all magnitudes have occurred since then.
You are reading your witnesses/prophets wrong.
You're not listening to what they are saying, just what you want them to tell you.
---micha9344 on 10/28/14


-God must have lied if this was a local flood. Since God doesn't lie, this flood was not local.
Gen 9:13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth(erets-not 1000's of square miles).
---micha9344 on 10/27/14

GOD doesn't lie. Men do, ignorantly for lack of knowledge. Until a few centuries ago the most learned men thought the earth was flat.
At least you've looked. Most don't.
Gen 12:1 Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy "erets", (didn't leave the Globe). Num 22:5 .... Behold, there is a people come out from Egypt: behold, they cover the face of the "erets"...

A rainbow is seen locally when it occurrs not around the Globe.
---Trav on 10/28/14


/Hebrew word "erets" was a thousands of square miles large flood.\-Trav on 10/25/14
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth(erets-not 1000's of square miles).
Gen 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth(erets-not 1000's of square miles),
Gen 9:11 And I will establish my covenant with you, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood, neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth(erets).
-God must have lied if this was a local flood. Since God doesn't lie, this flood was not local.
Gen 9:13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth(erets-not 1000's of square miles).
---micha9344 on 10/27/14


Learner2 you are of course entitled to come and go as you choose. However it appears you want to bail out when your views are challenged. I asked you a simple question: What God says surely takes precedence over our opinions doesn't it? Is there some reason why you cannot answer this?
---Warwick on 10/26/14


Warwick, good luck. I used voice entry on my new Android and I did not proofread it well enough. I wish you peace and every blessing.
---learner2 on 10/26/14




Learner2 you wrote "Warwick and Marc, I will just leave you with your believes.I am not here to try to change anyone's mind about anything. If you think I am wrong about anything, just pray for me."

I have seen this very style of writing, along with the misspelling of 'beliefs' but not under the name you currently use. At the moment I cannot bring your previous name to mind, but I may. maybe some other blogger here will remember?
---Warwick on 10/26/14


Axey: "If the fossil record is a record of the Flood..."
... fossil layers are not in the same order worldwide. Missing layers (discontinuities) are frequent. Complex life forms appear in all layers ...
---jerry6593 on 10/25/14
If the fossil record is a record of the Flood, why do simpler life forms appear in lower layers, followed by more complex life forms higher up?
---StrongAxe on 10/24/14

You two underscored the 1,600 times, Hebrew word "erets" was a thousands of square miles large flood. Global flood is as false an ironic as evolution is. Truth is a "light" package, carries nothing unproven that doesn't support it.
Is no fossil evidence, scriptural or science supporting global.
---Trav on 10/25/14


Strongaxe,

1. Define 'simpler' and define 'complex'.

2. The fossil records (note the plural) don't really appear the way you idealistically think they do.
---Marc on 10/25/14


Warwick and Marc, I will just leave you with your believes.I am not here to try to change anyone's mind about anything. If you think I am wrong about anything, just pray for me.
---learner2 on 10/25/14


StrongAxe, Jerry has answered very well.

From my studies I have discovered that the fossil record as exhibited in text books does not occur in that way anywhere in the world, e.g.in some places the order is reversed.

I imagine the first creatures inundated by mud flows during the Flood would be those living on the ocean floors. And a Jerry says man and other mobile animals would escape the rising flood longer, only be seen in the upper layers.

Also no life form is composed of simple cells. Even so-called "simple" life forms are made up of amazingly complex cells and constructed by complex genetic programs.

Relevantly at Fossil Bluff (Tasmania) land and sea-dwelling fossils are jumbled together.
---Warwick on 10/25/14


Learner2, rather than concerning ourselves with what makes sense to us please show me where anything I have is not in line with Scripture.

What God says surely takes precedence over our opinions doesn't it?
---Warwick on 10/24/14


Read These Insightful Articles About Lead Generation


Learner,

If God CONTINUALLY were adding new genetic information in order to demonstrate evolution is the creative mechanism then (i) this contradicts Scripture at Genesis 2:1-3 in which it says God had completed the creation of all life in some point in the PAST.
(ii) The pagan has an argument that Nature is doing the creating, and not God, because Nature is able to produce the requisite novel information (it just pops into existence right in front of your eyes), and thus has an excuse before God (contra Romans 1)

With the creation finished (i.e. no novel info coming into being) we can say we are justified in claiming we KNOW God created.

Over to you!
---Marc on 10/25/14


Axey: "If the fossil record is a record of the Flood..."

Regarding the fossil record: The "geologic column" of life taught in universities is bumf! The fossil layers are not in the same order worldwide. Missing layers (discontinuities) are frequent. Complex life forms appear in all layers (e.g. the trilobite eye in the Cambrian). Uniform layers extend for hundreds of miles and gravel is sorted from course-to-fine within each layer - consistent with marine turbidite formation, but not with dry environmental erosion. Many layers are folded at extreme angles consistent with mud - but not with rock. Life forms are sorted by their ability to flee floodwaters, putting man near the top.

---jerry6593 on 10/25/14


Warwick,

If the fossil record is a record of the Flood, why do simpler life forms appear in lower layers, followed by more complex life forms higher up? One would expect them to be all mish-mashed together (and with man interspersed in there as well, since the Flood was created to kill man in the first place).
---StrongAxe on 10/24/14


Warwick, if what you say makes sense to you, then I would encourage you to continue to embrace it.
---learner2 on 10/24/14


Read These Insightful Articles About Mortgages


\\Marc, God can easily add the new genetic information as the evolution progresses.
---learner2 on 10/24/14\\

Precisely, learner.

This is why I have no problem with the idea of God working through natural processes that He Himself set up.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 10/24/14


Learner2 evolutionists consider the fossil record (a record of death, disease and suffering of animal and man,where man appears near the top) to be a record of the vast ages of evolution. All before man (Adam) appeared on the scene. This is incorrect Biblically speaking as death only came into the world because of and after Adam's sin. If the fossil record is a record of the Flood, there is no problem. What sort of God would evolve his creation over vast ages with such suffering then declare it all "very good" Genesis 1:31?

Further Jesus says (Mark 10:6) man was made at the beginning of this creation in which we live. If God evolved creation over long periods of time then Jesus, the Creator, has not told the truth.
---Warwick on 10/24/14


Marc, God can easily add the new genetic information as the evolution progresses.
---learner2 on 10/24/14


The Biblical "kind" of Genesis refers to what Linnean taxon: Kindom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, or Species?-Cluny on 10/24/14
This is a backwards question.
Since the "kind" is translated from the mosaic writings, approximately 3500 years ago, it cannot "refer" to something derived less than 300 years ago. Therefore one may ask which Linnaean taxon refers best to "kinds."
The simple answer is near "family."
But, since Linnaeus did not use the Bible as his reference, his classifications will vary.
Sometimes "order" or "genus" best suits "kind."
When a person is asked, "What kind?". the normal answer is near "family."
---micha9344 on 10/24/14


Send a Free Birthday Ecard


\\The answer, StrongAxe is "after their own kind."\\

And this brings up a question I've asked before.

The Biblical "kind" of Genesis refers to what Linnean taxon: Kindom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, or Species?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 10/24/14


The answer, StrongAxe is "after their own kind."
Your example is one of these.
Humans were created by God and then procreated by God's design to become ...da-ta-da... humans. It is evident in the Bible that God created all life this way.
There is no evidence whatsoever that any certain kind of animal switched to another kind.
If one would look at the popular evolutionary charts and take out all the "?"'s, it would be quite evident.
Confusing adaptation and natural selection, processes in which uses existing information, with evolution, a process that requires new information to be added, is a superficial understanding of each.
Gen 1:11,12,21,24,25 ...after his(their) kind...
---micha9344 on 10/24/14


\\I am confident you were also told that this "orderly and sequential development" occurred by natural selection and the retention of favourable mutations-absolutely no need, or place for God here\\

Your confidence is misplaces. I wasn't told this at all.

Try again.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 10/23/14


Marc:

You asked: How does God "create" by evolution?

A simpler, but related question - how does God create US? The Finger of God doesn't reach down and grab clay billions of times to make us all the way Adam was created. Rather, God has created a complicated and wonderful natural mechanism that allows one pair of human beings to create others without his direct intervention.

Why is it so hard to believe that, rather than God having to reach into the ground millions of times to create every single species on the planet, he might ALSO create an even more complicated and wonderful natural mechanism that allows one species to give rise to another? Anti-evolutionist Christians look to a God who is too small.
---StrongAxe on 10/23/14


Read These Insightful Articles About Personal Loans


No Learner, God does NOT create human beings using an evolutionary process i.e. foetus to baby. Evolution requires the addition, de novo, of genetic information. Contrary to this, an unborn baby has all the genetic information it will need for his or her entire life already present from the moment fertilisation occurred.
---Marc on 10/24/14


learner2: You have much to learn. Evolution, as discussed herein, is the fictitious process by which one type of organism produces a different type of organism over vast periods of time by miniscule changes in the characteristic DNA sequence of the organism. The development of a human fetus according to the pre-programed instructions of the human DNA is NOT Evolution. It is the marvelous outworking of the Creator's design.


cluny: "I merely said I have no problem with it."

What other anti-biblical, non-Orthodox doctrines do you "have no problem with"? It would seem that you suffer from cognitive dissonance, in that you believe two contradictory paradigms.


---jerry6593 on 10/24/14


God creates human beings using an evolutionary process -- from fertilized egg to full-term fetus -- over a period of nine months.
---learner2 on 10/23/14


Cluny, your intelligence fades when evolution is the subject.

I am confident you were also told that this "orderly and sequential development" occurred by natural selection and the retention of favourable mutations-absolutely no need, or place for God here. Evolution is entirely a naturalistic process, never supernatural.

BTW evolutionists propose the original life-form was similar to a bacteria, a highly complex organism, just as complex as a human. There is not one cell in our bodies more complex than this.

"Glory to Jesus Christ"-ironic as He is Creator, never evolver.

Sadly none of the above will change your mind as Scripture is not your ultimate authority.
---Warwick on 10/23/14


Read These Insightful Articles About Auto Insurance


Cluny: "Whether by theistic evolution or direct creation, God is still the instigator."

How does God "create" by evolution? No one - I repeat - no one has ever explained that to me. Maybe you can because you believe God could have.
---Marc on 10/23/14


\\Cluny, if Jerry's short description of evolution isn't a true description then can we please have your concise description of evolution?
---Warwick on 10/22/14\\

The theory of evolution was never touched upon until I was in college in freshman zoology.

There I was told that evolution is an orderly and sequential development from simpler to more complex form.

This is the pattern I see in Genesis 1.

And contrary to jerry's misrepresentation, I never said I embraced theistic evolution.

I merely said I have no problem with it.

Whether by theistic evolution or direct creation, God is still the instigator.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 10/23/14


The Theory of evolution does not deal with the emptiness of Space. But starts after life some how and there is currently no way known for it to happen nonliving matter became living. Then survival of the Fittest and the seeming unlimted ability to adapt given enough time turned single cell organisms into all that exists today.

I used to believe in Evolution. I have actually had to teach it in School.
---Samuelbb7 on 10/23/14


Aka, it means that Jesus died for my sins and that God loves me.
---learner2 on 10/22/14


Read These Insightful Articles About Holidays


Cluny, if Jerry's short description of evolution isn't a true description then can we please have your concise description of evolution?
---Warwick on 10/22/14


Clunity: "Of course, this is not the theory of evolution, but truth doesn't matter, does it, jerry?"

Of course, I didn't say it was, but the truth doesn't matter to you, does it cluny? It is however, the TRUTH of the atheist mindset by which posits that humans exist by means of natural, developmental processes. You have stated that you accept part of this lie, in that you embrace theistic evolution, and thus reject the TRUTH of the biblical Creation account.

Such doctrines are NOT ORTHODOX in origin.




---jerry6593 on 10/23/14


Learner...I caught one of your other posts that made me thinks differently. I cannot find it now.

When you say that you are a believer what does that mean?
---aka on 10/22/14


\\I agree with Cliff. I takes irrational, blind faith to believe in the development of rational, moral mankind by random chance from the empty vacuum of space\\

Of course, this is not the theory of evolution, but truth doesn't matter, does it, jerry?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 10/22/14


Read These Insightful Articles About Health Insurance


Not to worry, guys, I am a believer, but maybe not in the same way that you are. And I wish you all God's blessings
---learner2 on 10/22/14


Aka,

I think you mean Learner's sound like Atheist's.

I was posting when he was around.
---Marc on 10/22/14


Marc, if you were telling the truth, I would have no problem with that at all. But you are not telling the truth because you are responding to me, and therefore do believe that I exist.
---learner2 on 10/22/14


Learner, I believe that you don't exist. This makes me the most comfortable and the most sense to me.

---Marcon 10/22/14

Marc, we're you posting when someone called Atheist was posting? Learner's posts sound a lot like learner's.
---aka on 10/22/14


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Dating


Learner believes, "I encourage you to believe whatever makes you the most comfortable and makes the most sense to you."

Learner, I believe that you don't exist. This makes me the most comfortable and the most sense to me.
---Marc on 10/22/14


I am not saying anything one way or the other. I encourage you to believe whatever makes you the most comfortable and makes the most sense to you.
---learner2 on 10/22/14


Learner: "Life could easily evolve from nonlife if God had his hand in it."

That's an explanation-free, fact-free, logic-free assertion. Unless you tell everyone how God could make chance chemistry do its own thing by chance and not interfere and yet allow God to, as you put it, have his hand in it, then your proposition is on the same level as saying God could easily create a bachelor with a wife. Once God interferes it's no longer chance evolution but design, no matter how hard you wave the God-can-do-anything wand.
---Marc on 10/22/14


learner2: "Life could easily evolve from nonlife if God had his hand in it."

But He didn't! Evolution, as defined by Darwin, et. al., is a slow process of development requiring eons of time to accomplish. The Bible, on the other hand, records that each area of Creation was an instantaneous event, as:

Psa 33:9 For he spake, and it was done, he commanded, and it stood fast.

Are you saying that the Bible is wrong?


---jerry6593 on 10/22/14


Read These Insightful Articles About Health Treatments


Life could easily evolve from nonlife if God had his hand in it.
---learner2 on 10/21/14


Marc: So true! Life evolving from non-life is scientifically and mathematically impossible - yet it is believed by astute academics.

If animals did indeed evolve from each other, then from what did the animals of the Cambrian layer evolve?



---jerry6593 on 10/21/14


If evolution is true, then God is not the creator. Evolution says that matter and matter alone creates. Even if the theistic evolutionist says God used evolution - a nonsensical proposition in any case - then it still is non-God creating.

You either have God as direct creator or you have non-God. There is no middle ground.
---Marc on 10/20/14


"according to their kinds". Like the animal, God made us from the dust of the earth and like the animal "to dust all return". But God did not form us out of the animal. Mother Earth and dust we share, but we did not evolve from animals. Out of two humans come the human variety of every skin color, every eye color and every hair color. While there is variety within the human species, humans are still humans and everything is according to its kind.
---sin on 10/20/14


Read These Insightful Articles About Affiliate Program


Learner2, I always try to answer questions but I thank you for your sentiments.
---Warwick on 10/10/14


Warwick, thank you for your forthright and honest response.
---learner2 on 10/10/14


Learner2, as a nonChristian, I did not know if the Bible was Truth or not or if it mattered anyway. Over time (looking back is clear) I became increasingly aware that God was calling me to faith. By faith I committed my life to Jesus our Saviour. Since then I have read and re-read the Bible countless times and have come to understand that it is real, unchanging Truth.

I became a Christian still holding some evolutionary baggage but God was kind, leading me to people who showed me that the evolution idea was an ever changing belief, not based upon reality. I understand that even more so today. God has given me the privilege of seeing many people come to faith in Christ when they were shown the hopelessness of long ages/evolution.
---Warwick on 10/10/14


Warwick, why do you believe that?
---learner2 on 10/10/14


Read These Insightful Articles About Abortion Facts


Learner2, as I see it there are many truths which exist outside of the Bible. However anything which disagrees with God's word is not truth.
---Warwick on 10/10/14


learner2: "Does something have to be biblical to be true?"

Not necessarily. That computers exist is truth, although not biblical. But if something contradicts the biblical narrative, as in the case of Evolution, it is most certainly FALSE.


---jerry6593 on 10/10/14


Adaptation is a misnomer causing confusion as no one organism adapts. It is better to use 'natural selection.' For example: place 100 mice in extreme cold and another 100 in extreme heat. Heavier/fatter, hairier mice will more likely survive the freezing environment, and pass on their genetic characteristics to the next generation. This 'selection' process will continue until the light-haired thin gene is selected out.

The opposite will occur in the hot-spot until only short haired thin mice are present.

Not one mouse adapts as it is an already present genetic characteristic which gave certain mice the ability to thrive, and breed, in each of the extreme environments.
---Warwick on 10/9/14


Does something have to be biblical to be true?
---learner2 on 10/9/14


Read These Insightful Articles About Acne Treatment


My point exactly.
If one considers blindness and amputations are adaptations rather than mutations, one can easily see lamarckism.
And, so the confusion sets in between mutation and adaptation.
Dogs up north do not grow long hair to survive, the ones with long hair survive to produce long-haired offspring.
Adaption, not mutation.
Within the species, an actual loss of genetic information- dogs are still dogs.
---micha9344 on 10/9/14


Cliff: You are quite right. What Michael is proposing is known as Lamarckism - "the inheritance of acquired characteristics" or the theory that the genome can be altered by environment. It was thoroughly debunked by Wiesmann in 1891 by cutting off the tails of 19 successive generations of rats without the slightest impact on the tails of the following generations. What a wasted life! Also, 4000 years of Jewish circumcision hasn't altered the Jewish male foreskin one bit.

It is a little known fact that Charles Darwin, in his later book "The Descent of Man", abandoned Natural Selection as the motive force for Evolution in favor of Lamarckism. What a moron!





---jerry6593 on 10/9/14


Adaptation is never passed on from one generation to the next.
Blind parents would have blind children.
Amputee couples would have children with limbs missing..etc. It doesn't happen !
Size and appearance..yes, but it doesn't change the species !
---1stcliff on 10/8/14


Many people confuse "mutation" and "adaptation."
One is a genetic flaw, but the other is a genetic product.
One was not there before, but the other was built-in.
One breaks down the system, but the other is the system.
---micha9344 on 10/8/14


Read These Insightful Articles About Bad Credit Loans


Warwick: Very well said! If mutations were indeed the dynamic engine of positive evolutionary development that Cluny seems to imply, then we should have seen an army of superhumans emerging from the rubble of Hiroshima.


---jerry6593 on 10/8/14


Humans are plagued with c10,000 mutations, which cause diseases. Beneficial mutations are rare, and none have brought about an increase in useful genetic information as would be expected if evolution were true.

Most mutations increase the amount of DNA, but create nothing new. And Macroevolution (evolution of one kind of creature to another) needs new, specific, genetic information. For example mutations would have to provide completely new genes to (for example) produce feathers on creatures which (in the evolutionary story) did not previously have feathers.

The whole mutation story is consistent with an originally "very good" world followed by the fall and 6,000 years of cumulative physical degeneration. .
---Warwick on 10/7/14


\\ALL mutations are harmful,there's no benefit to man from mutations!\\

No, they are not.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 10/6/14


Some try to explain evolution by mutations, only one problem with this theory, ALL mutations are harmful,there's no benefit to man from mutations!
Would you believe that Webster's dictionary came from an explosion of a printing factory? That's how much you would have to swallow to believe in evolution!
---1stcliff on 10/6/14


Read These Insightful Articles About Bankruptcy


When I was an agnostic I believe in Evolution. Scientist at that time started with the assumption that all events are natural and there is no supernatural intervention.

But hearing only one side I had no doubts. Then a Engineering professor Loaned me some books on the problems with Evolution. They and all the study I have done since then show all the major problems that blind chance had to over come for us to be here.
---Samuelbb7 on 10/6/14


I was taught that a scientific idea is tested with experiments which can clearly prove or disprove the idea. Evolution has not been tested with experiments which clearly prove or disprove it.

There is a lot of explanation, though. I think this includes the idea that behaviors are evolved by development of DNA. But I think a lot of behaviors would need more than one gene working with each other. But it is said just one viable gene can take millions of years to appear. So, what are the odds of a number of needed genes showing together to produce just one complicated behavior?

And if all is produced by gene evolution, why do atheists have a problem with born-again Christian behavior having "evolved" (c:
---com7fy8 on 10/6/14


I agree with Cliff. I takes irrational, blind faith to believe in the development of rational, moral mankind by random chance from the empty vacuum of space. There are two singularities in this paradigm that require belief in that which is scientifically and mathematically impossible. They are: the origin of all matter from nothing (Big Bang) and abiogenesis (life from non-life). This is blind faith.


---jerry6593 on 10/6/14


There's only one valid (true) kind of Bible evolution: the gradual development of plants, animals, insects & humans specifically from a simple to a more complex form of life. In other words, from seed to fruition ~ from infancy to maturation/adulthood.
---Leon on 10/5/14


Read These Insightful Articles About Cash Advance


what cliff is saying, luke, is that the bible (and all the craziness of man that spawns from it) is far less nebulous than evolution is. therefore, it would take a deeper level of faith to believe in evolution.
---aka on 10/5/14


I agree with Cliff that it takes a lot of 'faith' to believe in evolution. In addition to that it seems that everytime something new is 'discovered' the 'experts' add a couple more noughts to the age they decide to give it. They used to discuss hundreds of thousands and now it's billions of years.

The tests performed to give things ages all depend on the accuracy of the original tests. Get one thing wrong and the theory is blown out of the water. They are all guesses - guesses made by those who do not wish to believe in a Creator God.
---Rita_H on 10/5/14


//It takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe the bible !//

1Cliff,
you are wrong, it takes more faith to believe in the Bible. Anyone who is lost can believe in evolution, but no one who is lost can believe in the Bible. Faith has to come from God, and only believers have that faith.
This is something you do not believe because you do not believe in the Word of God. as I said, only believers believe in the Word of God.
---Luke on 10/5/14


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