This group is exactly what the name implies. A group for people who are Christians. If you're a Christian then please join us. We're a place on ModDB for Christians to gather and talk. It's as simple as that.

Report article RSS Feed Christianity and the Evolution Theory

Discussing the validity of Genesis, and the non-compatibility of the evolution theory with Christianity. A response to 'Evolution and Christianity.'

Posted by Quagrunner on May 4th, 2014

This is mainly in response to the previous article by KnightofEquulei (who, I understand, is also a Christian, and whom I do not wish to offend in the least). I thought it would be easier to put it in an article than in a comment. I am NOT mocking anyone's intellectual powers, and my aim is NOT to Offend. I am simply Defending my position on a long-standing argument. I used common sense to write these replies, and I ask the viewer to do the same when reading.

Concerning Enuma Elish:

The Enuma Elish myth takes place almost solely in the realm of deities; which cannot be, and was never meant to be, validated, traced or proven in any way. The Torah, on the other hand, brazenly puts years, months and days on events so that they CAN be validated. And if the authors were as accurate as all that, why bother when they knew we evolved? Why not mention it?
Besides, the Enuma Elish myth is completely polytheistic and bloodthirsty. That Genesis is purely a 'slightly modified version' would be an understatement, to say the least. If any religion was taken from Enuma Elish, it was most certainly the Greco-Roman religions. I think the similarities there are a BIT more obvious. Even Norse mythology bears a remarkable resemblance, the main factor being polytheistic violence. How were the Hebrews the ONLY ones to come up with a monotheistic religion from this myth?

If Genesis was intended as myth, what purpose did a bunch of lengthy, specific genealogies serve? Who were these people supposed to be? What did these lists acheive? Besides, all over Genesis there are references to Jesus' coming: Gen. 18:18 - '...Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the Earth shall be blessed in him.' A pretty bold prediction for a poet or allegorist, not to mention: accurate. And as if that weren't enough, the lamb's sacrifice to clothe Adam and Eve is similarly predictive. And this is only in GENESIS, disregarding the rest of the Torah.

Concerning Light:

Light, as it stands, is still a little-understood concept, but for the purposes of this argument let's assume that the photon theory is true.
A rock thrown in water produces waves in the water. The rock is not the source of the water. The sun is likewise not the source of light. The heat from its numerous chemical reactions produces waves in [affects the frequency of] light. Colour is merely a reflection of filtered light. Everything we see is reflected or affected light. For the rock to produce waves in water, the water has to exist beforehand. For the sun to affect and produce a change in the frequency of light, LIGHT HAS TO EXIST BEFOREHAND. God knew what he was doing when he made light FIRST!

Concerning Theistic Evolution:

Picture this... God creates the universe and decides to make life. He creates a single-celled organism that can reproduce replicas of itself and its DNA, so evolution is a [big] improbability. But wait! All these organisms need food. Cannibalism? No, they'd all die out. So God makes half of the new organisms 'evolve' rapidly into something nourishing for the other cells.
Good.
In a few million years, defying all the odds of a poisonous atmosphere and a massive, young sun, the Earth is covered in identical single-celled organisms and their nourishment (which seems to be able to reproduce itself faster than it is consumed).
Now what?
It's a little boring, so God makes half the cells change into something completely different. He makes them change from asexual to sexual reproductive methods. That's great! Of course, He has to make half of these new organisms into females and the other half into males. Oh, no! The offspring of these new couples has DNA that is a combination of their parents'... there's not going to be a lot of difference. Bummer.
God realizes that these brainless organisms aren't about to develop brains any time soon. So, God speeds up the process and lets some advanced chemicals come into contact with the cells' DNA. Hooray! The DNA has been mutated.
In a few more years, despite the high chances of their DNA being mangled by the chemicals that affected them, the organisms have developed their first brains.
God smiles... Only 2.7 billion years to go...

Whom did Jesus have in mind when He died on the cross 2.7 billion years after He created life? Was it the plankton from the beginning? Humans and animals alike? Have animals committed sins that needed to be cleansed? If Genesis is allegorical, there was no original sin, and therefore there is no such thing as sin. Jesus lived for nothing... died for nothing... Did He rise again? If not, there is no point in being a Christian.

Conclusion:

With all due respect, quoting noted philosophers and scholars doesn't hold much weight coming from someone who believes that the Bible is a collection of spiritualistic metaphors and occasional good teachings. I could quote as much of Genesis as I liked, but you would say it's not to be taken seriously. Why should I put my faith in a bunch of scholars who might have been mentally unstable anyway? Why should I do anything at all?
Putting the evolution theory and Christianity together creates more problems than it solves. AND it creates more disharmony than I'm sure Jesus would have wanted. (Then again, why should anyone go by what Jesus wanted, if all He does is quote a load of myths?) Everything Christianity relies upon becomes null and void when the evolution theory is added to the mix. The two are not compatible without compromising one belief or the other.

I did read the Enuma Elish story and did some research on light to make my arguments valid, but the conclusions reached are by MY OWN common sense and deductive reasoning. If you ask me to prove something and I can't, I will answer honestly. If you ask me to answer something I don't know the answer to, I will say, "I don't know." If anyone can prove that I have made a mistake, I will amend it.
I would like to retain a level of honesty and integrity in any discussions that may follow.
Thank you.

Post comment Comments
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei May 4 2014, 12:35pm says:

My criticism of evolution and naturalism still stands:

Moddb.com

But as I said to CommanderDef last year

Quote:I still maintain it's a theory with more holes than Swiss cheese but there are undeniable facts about it. I've never been a strong advocate of creationism.

It's Intelligent Design I support (the two are two very different things) which is not something to be disregarded. Especially with all the recent revelations of gears existing in biology, the universe being fine-tuned and DNA being more complex than any computer code.

This has led to physicist Paul Davis saying the Goldilocks properties of our universe support the argument of God existing and head of human genome project, Francis Collins applying the same to DNA. I can ridicule both creationism and evolution.

Speciation, gene migration, genetic drift and natural selection are all explained by the law of inheritance really. These are parts of evolution explaining the variation of species.


When I say ID I don't mean ID in the tradition sense. I don't see ID as science but rather as a philosophy.

Archaeology shows that man came from the middle east. Jericho is the oldest city in the world. Middleeast.about.com

I do not deny Genesis. Just the idea of God creating the world in six days. There's a lot of archaeology supporting Genesis but none supporting a six day creation. My evolution would be better called deistic evolution rather than theistic evolution. Deistic evolution would mean that God programmed everything from the beginning rather than jumping in at intervals.

+3 votes     reply to comment
TheTriangulum
TheTriangulum May 4 2014, 2:50pm replied:

I thought human civilisation began in the middle east and man began in Africa?

+3 votes     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei May 7 2014, 8:40pm replied:
Quote:I thought human civilisation began in the middle east and man began in Africa?

That's the major theory. There are others. One says they could have came from the Middle East. (see: Io9.com) Another says from Asia ( News.sciencemag.org ), a hypothesis which later became the Multiregional origin of modern humans hypothesis.

Well regardless of where they started, human civilization begun in the Middle East exactly where The Bible placed it.

+3 votes     reply to comment
Quagrunner
Quagrunner May 5 2014, 4:09am replied:

That's actually an interesting thread. Shame it's locked.

I'm just a little bit confused. You both criticize and advocate evolution (disregarding the prefix, deistic, theistic, etc).

You are perfectly entitled to your beliefs, just as I am mine. I would agree with you that science and Christianity are completely compatible (just because I believe in a six-day Creation doesn't mean I think the Earth uses pixie-dust to orbit the sun). I'm simply arguing that evoultution and Christianity are complete opposites.

If that's what archaeology shows, then good. Jericho the oldest city? I can live with that. I can live with the idea that civilization began 20,000 years ago. But why did ****-sapiens (shudder) take 180,000 years to begin to become civilized? The last 4,000 years have had enough advancement of culture and technology. Can you imagine taking another 176,000 to achieve light-speed? Can you imagine the population problems?

I can't think of any evidence supporting a short Creation myself, although I can think of plenty for a young Earth. I also can't think of any evidence supporting anything more convincing. (Feel free to enlighten me.) Speciation, gene migration, genetic drift and natural selection may all be perfectly explained, but the evolution theory isn't just about variation; it says that, over time, a one-celled organism's DNA mutated and added to itself through many, many stages until it finally achieved the level of the modern human's DNA. That's not variation... that's creation of new, functional genes. No matter what the external factors affecting it, DNA cannot ADD to itself without adverse affects to the creature it inhabits.

I would love to debate this further, because I'm certainly not getting bored. If there is a forum for it that I've missed, I'd be delighted if someone could direct me to it.

+1 vote     reply to comment
TheTriangulum
TheTriangulum May 6 2014, 9:12am replied:

Evidence for young Earth? Can you elaborate?

+3 votes     reply to comment
Quagrunner
Quagrunner May 6 2014, 1:46pm replied:

With pleasure:

A: For starters, there's the lack of 2,000,000,000 years' worth of fossils and/or skeletons (in a word, dead stuff). Besides, think about the population problems of that length of population expansion. Even if we start 10,000 years ago, there would have to be a LOT of major epidemics/catastrophes to keep the population from growing to a point where we start measuring space in square millimetres.
Q: But archaeologists and miners often find 'mass graves' containing millions of fossils.
A: Yes. Millions. Try calculating how many people have lived in the last 1,000 years, at a generous rate of one birth per 5 minutes. The answer: 6.3 billion (obviously inaccurate, but generous)

Multiply that by 20,000 for all the Great Apes ever, 20 million years ago. The answer: 126 trillion
See where I'm headed? That's an understated estimate of all the man-apes that ever lived, not daring to include the number of other beasts that have ever lived OVER THE LAST 400 MILLION YEARS! Remeber, today we still have no idea how many animals are alive. The answer would be incomprehensible, incalculable and generally, unbelievably staggering.

And yet... we have trouble finding missing links...

Q: Decomposition?
A: That is one HELL of a lot of decomposition. Incidentally, when are humans supposed to have started burying their dead relatives, anyway?

(Sorry, I get pretty emotional. It's just my style.)

+1 vote     reply to comment
Quagrunner
Quagrunner May 6 2014, 1:47pm replied:

In passing, another piece of evidence would be the Earth's rotation. We all know that perpetual motion is an impossibility, which means Earth is slowing down. Logical conclusion: It can't have started spinning too long ago.

I am not blinded by my religious beliefs when I make come to these conclusions. Evolutionary scientists often respond to Creationists' surmises in the manner of lecturing a five-year-old. We are not idiots. We are not a lesser form of humankind, and therefore possess the same intellectual capacity as evolutionists, atheists, the lot.
I am also not mixing my personal beliefs with scientific observations. But, if a portion of the Bible (for instance) has been proven factual, quoting from that part of the religious work would be perfectly acceptable. Fact is fact.

Anyway, I'm done.

+1 vote     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei May 7 2014, 9:08pm replied:
Quote:But why did ****-sapiens (shudder) take 180,000 years to begin to become civilized? The last 4,000 years have had enough advancement of culture and technology. Can you imagine taking another 176,000 to achieve light-speed? Can you imagine the population problems?

Aye, another gap in the current theory of human evolution. There are many things wrong with the current evolution theory but that doesn't mean evolution didn't occur at all.

As I said, speciation, gene migration, genetic drift and natural selection are all very much observable things which show evolution. Genesis says all species were created all those years ago, something speciation, gene migration, genetic drift and natural selection debunk.

In this case, there's more scientific evidence arguing for evolution than creationism and this isn't just something "men in white coats" are saying either as the functions above can be observed by anyone, effectively debunking the creation account.

Outside of biology and we have the age of the earth to consider. Everything dates back further than 6,000 years and planets aren't formed in six days. You could argue the earth was a special case but why would that be?

God waiting billions of years is just as ridiculous as him creating everything in six days. Wouldn't an all-powerful god just create everything instantly? For this reason, it's best not to think on the mind of God. The Bible may be divinely inspired but that doesn't mean it gives us even a glimpse into the nature of God.

+3 votes     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei May 7 2014, 9:15pm replied:

Scientists recently discovered functioning mechanical gears in biology (in an insect to be precise).

Phys.org

Humans with their intellect created gears. I do not believe these gears could form by blind chance. When examined, evolution very much seems like a process with a set of scripts of what it can do and will do, imprinted from the beginning. Everything we observe is too "designed" to be mere chance without a plan. All the natural forces and laws seem like programs set in motion long ago by an intellect.

+3 votes     reply to comment
Quagrunner
Quagrunner May 8 2014, 6:16am replied:

This depends on your world-view. Either God created a set sequence/blueprint in accordance with which evolution would occur, or he created them to begin with.

+1 vote     reply to comment
Quagrunner
Quagrunner May 8 2014, 6:17am replied:

"Genesis says all species were created all those years ago, something speciation, gene migration, genetic drift and natural selection debunk."

Please, do give me an example of a new species evolving from another. When monkeys stop needing their tails, let me know. When we stop needing our appendix (which we do), or coccyx, give me a call.

"...can be observed by anyone,..."

I must be very obtuse. An example would be much appreciated.

"Everything dates back further than 6,000 years..."

How are you dating this?

"... and planets aren't formed in six days."

Although I don't think anyone has ever observed a planet being formed, and therefore had grounds upon which to base such a statement, I admit that it seems unlikely. The possibility, however, still exists.

"Wouldn't an all-powerful god just create everything instantly?"

That's logical thinking used, when shortly after you imply we shouldn't apply logical values to God. I agree, it's food for thought, but you just went against your own advice to prove your own viewpoint.

+1 vote     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei May 9 2014, 5:49pm replied:
Quote:Please, do give me an example of a new species evolving from another. When monkeys stop needing their tails, let me know. When we stop needing our appendix (which we do), or coccyx, give me a call.

Education.nationalgeographic.com

Numerous examples of speciation. Genesis says God created everything in those six days but we have speciation which refutes that.

Quote:How are you dating this?

Radiometric dating.

Quote:Although I don't think anyone has ever observed a planet being formed, and therefore had grounds upon which to base such a statement, I admit that it seems unlikely. The possibility, however, still exists.

They have.

Independent.co.uk

Quote:That's logical thinking used, when shortly after you imply we shouldn't apply logical values to God.

When did I say we shouldn't apply logical values to God? I said we cannot know the mind of God. The Bible may let us know the characteristics but as you cannot know my mind, so can you not know God's mind and how it he works.

+3 votes     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei May 9 2014, 6:09pm replied:

Also the general geological record of the earth shows that all species did not exist at the same time so an evolution must have occurred. I do agree with many of your criticisms but I think the whole dating and evolutionary mechanisms flaws will eventually lead to a new evolutionary model.

+1 vote     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei May 7 2014, 9:19pm replied:
Quote: But, if a portion of the Bible (for instance) has been proven factual, quoting from that part of the religious work would be perfectly acceptable. Fact is fact.

Such as what? A global flood? Six day creation? Creation of all species in those six days?

The Flood (according to geology) seems to be a local one. Why would it need to be a world-wide flood when humans hadn't even reached other continents for a while?

Genesis says all species were created all those years ago, something speciation, gene migration, genetic drift and natural selection debunk.

So the logic that we should accept the record before that as truth because other things in Genesis have been shown to be factual is not valid. Other things have been shown to be false.

The Bible is not God's written document so this certainly doesn't invalidate it. The Bible is human written so errors are to be expected.

+3 votes     reply to comment
Quagrunner
Quagrunner May 8 2014, 6:18am replied:

"A global flood?"
"The Flood (according to geology) seems to be a local one."

The Grand Canyon is a good example hinting against this, since the river couldn't have carved it out. Besides, I often find marine fossils on mountaintops. I know that this doesn't prove the Flood, but it doesn't disprove it, either.

"A six day creation?"

No more improbable than any other 'Where did we come from?' theory. You know that as well as I.

"Creation of all species in six days?"

Here, you seem to be confusing creation with evolution. Evolution of all species in six days? Never in six trillion days. Creation by God in six days? Perhaps just as fantastical, but also just as possible.

"Genesis says all species were created all those years ago..."

Where does it say that? I'm perfectly willing to argue that the variations in (e.g.) cats we see today (lions, leopards, domestic cats, etc.) came from an original cat. I'm not willing to argue that cats, dogs, camels and elephants came from an original tetrapod.

"So the logic that we should accept the record before that as truth because other things in Genesis have been shown to be factual is not valid. Other things have been shown to be false."

I wasn't saying that. I was saying the 'part' proven to be true can be quoted validly. Neither Creation, nor the Big Bang can be proven, so I avoid quoting from that section of Genesis except when I want to make a point.

"The Bible is human written so errors are to be expected."

A whole other topic. I won't go there.

+1 vote     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei May 9 2014, 5:56pm replied:
Quote:The Grand Canyon is a good example hinting against this, since the river couldn't have carved it out. Besides, I often find marine fossils on mountaintops. I know that this doesn't prove the Flood, but it doesn't disprove it, either.

And that can't just be evidence of the multiple floods hypothesis? Unless the fossils all date to the same time, there's nothing else suggesting that the flood was global (and according to Genesis, this wouldn't have been necessary unless humans had spread out across the whole world already).

Quote:Neither Creation, nor the Big Bang can be proven, so I avoid quoting from that section of Genesis except when I want to make a point.

Actually, creation and The Big Bang can be proven (and have been). If COBE and the expanding universe weren't enough proof of The Big Bang theory then the recently discovered primordial gravitational waves in March certainly are.

All opposing theories and hypothesizes have been pretty much debunked including the steady state theory (i.e eternal universe). We know the universe had a beginning and thus a creation.

+3 votes     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei May 7 2014, 9:31pm replied:
Quote:We are not idiots. We are not a lesser form of humankind, and therefore possess the same intellectual capacity as evolutionists, atheists, the lot.

Quite true and I'll even argue that many creationists I've met have been smarter than atheists who support evolution but don't know anything about it (other than the general information that species evolve).

Some atheists I've debated have literally thought evolution debunks God and/or explains the origin of life on earth. (I even met one who thought evolution somehow explained the origin of the universe, lol).

Although I completely disagree with this:

Quote:Everything Christianity relies upon becomes null and void when the evolution theory is added to the mix. The two are not compatible without compromising one belief or the other.

Jesus is prophesied throughout the Old Testament but belief in evolution hardly invalidates the idea of a redeemer.

Adam and Eve are not debunked by evolution. Just remember that Adam stands for "man" (as in mankind) and Eve means "to live". The metaphorical symbolism throughout the creation account in Genesis is quite over-powering. I don't see why Adam and Eve cannot refer to the first humans since we have Y Chromosome Adam and Mitochondrial Eve (although not the first humans, all living humans share them as ancestors).

(Not to mention Y Chromosome Aaron, who had been connected by scientists, as the Aaron of The Bible because of the special genetic lineage that Jewish priests share, with priest-hood passed down father to son as described in Exodus and this was proven with Y Chromosome Aaron being found in this lineage effectively confirming The Bible's account)

In truth, I hardly see how one's belief in the origin of species can interfere with their stance as a Christian since the core theme of Christianity isn't anything about the origin of man but the sin of man who had broken the covenant of Moses.

+3 votes     reply to comment
Quagrunner
Quagrunner May 8 2014, 6:18am replied:

"... belief in evolution hardly invalidates the idea of a redeemer."

It invalidates the NECESSITY of a redeemer.

"Just remember that Adam stands for "man" (as in mankind) and Eve means "to live"."

Okay. 'Mankind' lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name 'to put/compensation:'

"... the core theme of Christianity isn't anything about the origin of man but the sin of man who had broken the covenant of Moses."

Tut, tut. Christianity's theme is about the fact that we broke God's law in the Garden of Eden... not Moses' covenant. This precipitated our need for a supplementary sacrifice, namely Jesus. Christianity only works if we can know God. By your standards, we can't ever know the character of God, because what the Bible says isn't necessarily to be interpreted literally. 'Don't know a thing about Him, just trusting my eternal life to Him.' That's where the incompatibility comes in.

+1 vote     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei May 8 2014, 7:28pm replied:
Quote:It invalidates the NECESSITY of a redeemer.

Not really. Whether Adam and Eve evolved, were created or arose to life themselves by magic, I don't see how this invalidates the necessity of Jesus unless you care to explain?

Quote:Tut, tut. Christianity's theme is about the fact that we broke God's law in the Garden of Eden... not Moses' covenant.

The covenant of Moses was established because of what Adam and Eve did. Jesus came to fulfill those laws for us (Matthew 5:17).

Jesus was, in fact, the lamb once required by the Old Covenant to be sacrificed to cleanse sin. Not the sin brought into the world by Adam and Eve but the personal sins committed by us.

In fact when you research apologetics, you'll find Adam and Eve (and what they did) hardly enter the fray at all.

Rcg.org

Romans 5:12-21

Romans tells us that Adam brought death into the world. Christ (being the new Adam) brought life. Adam was the beginning. Christ was the end.

I don't see how evolution would invalidate that there was an original sin, a first sin and a rebellion against God that led to the establishment of the Old Covenant.

In truth, Adam and Eve explain the origin of sin and why no one is perfect. In theory, if one was perfect, they would get to heaven and not taste death as was the case with Elijah and Enoch.

+3 votes     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei May 8 2014, 8:00pm replied:
Quote:By your standards, we can't ever know the character of God, because what the Bible says isn't necessarily to be interpreted literally. 'Don't know a thing about Him, just trusting my eternal life to Him.' That's where the incompatibility comes in.

That's always been my views, evolution aside.

There's alot about my beliefs that are incompatible with mainstream Christianity, mainly that I follow arianism as opposed to Trinitarianism.

+3 votes     reply to comment
Quagrunner
Quagrunner May 9 2014, 5:34am says:

"... I don't see how this invalidates the necessity of Jesus unless you care to explain?"

I would care to explain, except:

"There's alot about my beliefs that are incompatible with mainstream Christianity, mainly that I follow arianism as opposed to Trinitarianism."

I don't mean to be rude, but you seem to be shifting the goal-posts. I assumed I was discussing the compatibility of what you call 'mainstream Christianity' with the evolution theory; not of Arian Christianity with evolution.

It would seem that our fundamental beliefs differ substantially, especially on the area of whether the Bible is literal or figurative.
I believe the Bible is divinely inspired by an almighty God, who was almighty enough to make sure the human authors didn't make any mistakes. I believe the Bible means what it says, and that the scientifically observable parts can be proven by scientific methods.

I would be happy to further discuss the accuracy of the Bible in what areas can be proven. I also think I have defended my claim pretty finally, as far as concerns evolution and mainstream Christianity. If you have any other questions, I'd be happy to offer an answer.

+1 vote     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei May 9 2014, 5:58pm replied:
Quote:I don't mean to be rude, but you seem to be shifting the goal-posts. I assumed I was discussing the compatibility of what you call 'mainstream Christianity' with the evolution theory; not of Arian Christianity with evolution.

I'm not shifting goal-posts, I was simply saying my views on God do not stem from evolution (this was in response to you saying "That's where the incompatibility comes in.") but rather my Christianity.

+3 votes     reply to comment
Quagrunner
Quagrunner May 9 2014, 6:46am says:

Sorry, just had to add this quickly.

"Jesus was, in fact, the lamb once required by the Old Covenant to be sacrificed to cleanse sin. Not the sin brought into the world by Adam and Eve but the personal sins committed by us."

Sin was already in the world in the Garden of Eden, it just hadn't been committed until Eve ate the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Death was brought into the world from then on. The covenant of Moses was set up because of sin, you're right. But because it is impossible to be perfect, and commit no sin, Jesus had to come and live a spotless life in order to be the perfect sacrifice for mankind. Now, anyone who believes on Him need not die (the penalty of Adam and Eve's sin). He revoked that penalty by taking everyone's sin upon himself and doing the 'dying' part for us.

I hope my arguments have been as professional and unbiased as yours have been. I have really enjoyed this debate.

+1 vote     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei May 9 2014, 6:15pm replied:
Quote:I hope my arguments have been as professional and unbiased as yours have been. I have really enjoyed this debate.

They have. You've given me much to think about. I'm still open minded but I'm more inclined to the theory of evolution than any other idea, although I think there will be a new model developed one day. I think the current model of evolution is wrong especially with human evolution and that a new model will be developed one day.

And obviously things like dating and radiometric dating are estimates. The dating says the world is over 4 billion years old but there's a possibility it could be wrong. I certainly think it's older than 6,000 years old though. Even when I was a complete creationist I was never a young earther.

But the fact the early church saints spoke about the Genesis creation account being metaphorical, at least to me, shows that it shouldn't be a problem if it wasn't a problem to the saints.

+3 votes     reply to comment
Quagrunner
Quagrunner May 10 2014, 3:58am replied:

I shall also remain open-minded, and I believe you have represented your side of the debate very thoroughly. This discussion has made me think a lot more about what I believe and why I believe it.

I think I have said all I can say on this topic for the time being. That being said, I'm always ready for a good, clean debate. :)

+1 vote     reply to comment
Quagrunner
Quagrunner May 9 2014, 6:48am says:

And to whomever is downvoting KnightOfEquulei's comments and upvoting mine, this isn't a democratic debate: a side doesn't win by having the most votes.

+1 vote     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei May 9 2014, 4:56pm replied:

I reckon its some of the atheists on this site who have an insane grudge against me. They normally vote down everything I post here and literally stalk me on every group. It's ironic at this point because I'm actually defending a theory that most of them hold to be true too.

+3 votes     reply to comment
Cervi_Messias
Cervi_Messias Jun 9 2014, 4:39pm replied:

well then I guess we have to fix that...

+1 vote     reply to comment
Yuribeard7
Yuribeard7 Jun 7 2014, 9:29am says:

You cannot serve two masters, because you will love one and hate the other. God and His word are one master, evolution and the world are the other. You are either a believer (who regards evolution as heresy) or you are a nonbeliever. You cannot mix the ungodly with the godly and expect it to remain godly. What I just said is taken directly from scripture. That doesn't matter to a fake believer who denies Jesus and denies God as creator, though.

+1 vote     reply to comment
KnightofEquulei
KnightofEquulei Sep 7 2014, 9:58am replied:

So believing in evolution makes me an atheist? LOL

Unlike the Darwinists and atheist evolutionists, I'm not serving evolution nor do I preach it.

+1 vote     reply to comment
Post a Comment
click to sign in

You are not logged in, your comment will be anonymous unless you join the community today (totally free - or sign in with your social account on the right) which we encourage all contributors to do.

2000 characters limit; HTML formatting and smileys are not supported - text only

Established
Feb 6, 2011
Privacy
Public
Subscription
Open to all members
Contact
Send Message
Email
Members Only
Membership
Join this group
Group Watch
Track this group
News
Browse
News
Report Abuse
Report article
Related Groups
Christians of Moddb
Christians of Moddb Hobbies & Interests group with 210 members