As a Christian, do you believe in evolution? What made you skeptical about Christianity?

[Anonymous]

After learning about evolution, I became very skeptical about Christianity. Evolution says we evolved from single celled organisms while Christianity says Adam was made from the dust of the earth, how is it possible? And why is evolution not taught in many schools?

[OfDeath]

I started off as what you would call a Christian but I never really decided whether I was Catholic or Protestant. I honestly never doubted evolution but I was interested to see what the evidence actually is so I looked into it. What I found is that it has certainly been empirically proven that Darwinian evolution does occur in nature. So what do we get from that? Does that mean the Bible is wrong? Yeah, it sort of does. However, it has also been empirically proven that all matter in the universe (other than hydrogen and a small amount of other fundamental elements which came from the big bang) is a product of the processes of stars and is essentially star dust. So you could indeed say that Adam was made from the dust of the earth since everything on earth is made from the same stuff. Adam in this case never actually existed and is just a fictional character but at least all living things on earth are made of same stuff which makes up stars. Evolution is actually taught in most schools including religious schools in western society. The Middle East and regrettably some schools in the United States are not as keen to teach empirical evidence as opposed to superstition.
Does that answer the question? Feel free to ask any further questions you have.

[Asker]

But by quoting the story of Adam and Eve, aren't they denying evolution? I understand what you meant by Adam being created from the dust that came as a result of big bang but evolution states that we evolved from prokaryotes. And I don't think Christians believe in the big bang or any scientifically proven theories for that matter. Thank you for your opinion

[OfDeath]

Some of the Christians are denying evolution. Fundamentalists outright deny evolution and take the verbatim book of Genesis to be gospel truth. The Catholic church moves the denial one step back. The official stance is that they accept evolution but maintain that it is still the handiwork of God. So to them, the book of Genesis is merely "symbolic" but is nevertheless the divine word of God. The same position is maintained when it comes to the big bang and the evolution of eukaryotic organisms from prokaryotes nay as a result of transduction between different types of prokaryotic organisms which is a leading theory. Regardless, it all required Darwinian evolution no matter how it happened. That is to say the evolution of living organisms anyway. The big bang is still a mystery. That's why I'm not so vexed by those who want to imagine god set off the big bang. I find that very unlikely though.

[Asker]

If they claim that the first eukaryotic organism to 'exist' is God, from where others started to exist, I would have accepted. But about Adam and Eve, I feel it's just nonsense. I'm glad at least some of them understands the concept of evolution. There's a flat earther under this question, I guess he's one of those 'fundamentalists' whom you're talking about 😬

[OfDeath]

Yes he is a regular wack job on this site. His name is MOUNTAINTOPD2 and you should report him. I've explained to him the proof of the Earth's core many times. He is just an obdurate lunatic. His profile was a fake female one before and it was changed back to male just recently. He has had other accounts in the last too.

[OfDeath]

Past

[Asker]

Gosh, he's such a nut-case. He thinks helium balloons float cause gravity is a lie. Wth. I was trying to explain to him but I guess it is futile.

[Kaneki05]

Science and religion do not mix. Therefore if you accept both as true it would be hypocritical so religious people i assume just see Evolution as a false and made up. Or they see adam and eve as a metaphor since they can always just say that about anything in the bible.
But either way trying to accept both they will always run into contradictions. Heck hawkings proved that god don't exist. So yeah...
That's why you have to just ignore facts and evidence and science if your religious. Which just confuses me.

[CindersFire]

I think you might be overestimating you're understanding of religious people. While it is true a book written 2000 years ago isn't factually accurate you'd be hard pressed to find one written even 50 years ago that is with how much society and science has developed. For me and I think most Christian's the bible is a guide on how to act in the world.

[Kaneki05]

@CindersFire that just kinda follows when i made the point about it's just a metaphor, or as you would like to put it a guide. There is a reason most scientists are not religious, there is a reason most aren't Conservative, there is a reason as science became more relevant religion becomes less cause they simply don't mix. You kinda have to pick one or the other, or just come up with excuse it's just metaphor or guide.

[CindersFire]

That's not true at all, or at least not necessarily, although having met some people that take religious texts too seriously it is understandable that people view it that way. Science really incapable of guiding humanity simply due to the inhumane thought patterns one is required to implement in order to pursue it. Even now it is practically impossible to be up do date on current information even for professionals and humans dont generally like it when our 'rules are changed' which is the value of religion. It offers a standardized set of rules for people to operate under to allow society to function.

[Kaneki05]

@CindersFire you literally just said the reason why science and religion don't mix yourself lmao

[Kaneki05]

Scientists say science can guide us. Religious say no religion can. Then conflict happens between the both especially when science keeps contradicting things in there own religious beliefs.

[CindersFire]

Not at all. You're assuming because things are different and offer different things that people have to choose one or another. All that does is breed resentment and anger for the other side which is all to easy to see if you spend any time in this thread. Each side as value and something they offer to humanity and one without the other is not a society I think you would want to live in.

[Kaneki05]

I think your really missing the point that, hawkings disproved the need for god and his existence and then lots of other science disproving and discrediting what people see as the words of god. It's kinda like saying we proved aliens exist, but then lots of people going nah cannot exist cause i don't believe in them.
The people who simply don't believe in what is proven and the evidence of science cannot just simply say ah yes but i don't think aliens exist if they have tons of evidence of proof of them smh.

[Kaneki05]

Then expect to get along with the ones that factually have evidence of these aliens.

[Kaneki05]

It's like flat earther's and scientists... They do not mix at all. One is simply just crazy to those who don't believe, just like how religion is to most scientists.

[Kaneki05]

If you think a world can exist, with flat earthers and scientists getting along... then maybe your the craziest one.

[CindersFire]

Okay I'm not sure how you got to the point of equating people who follow the dictates of thousands of years of wisdom acquired through generations to flatearthers whose views were disproved in the 1500s (citation needed). As to the Hawkings study I'd be interested in reading it but cannot comment on it due to lack of knowledge. However I am happy to accept God's nonexistence for the purpose of this conversation as his/its/ their existence doesn't have any real impact on religions value as we have a few millenia of history displaying the value of religion to create unity, respect, and prosperity within its practitioners. Now you could say that science is the religion of the future to which I would ask how its followers are going to know how/why they shouldn't lie/steal/cheat/murder/etc. To get ahead in life. Sure game theory and economics can sort of answer that but not in a way a child can understand.

[Kaneki05]

Well flat earthers is a belief system just like all belief systems. Don't really matter how old they are or what they are or how accepted they are by more people.
Science just on principle don't mix with a belief system like that. Science pulls it apart and points out all it's flaws and makes a joke out of it. Therefore people who are in that belief system are not ever gonna be happy with that. So again they really don't mix.
And the argument of people don't have morals without religion is not even a point i would even attain an answer to, because simply that's just a really significant gap in logic especially when kids are actually the ones who mostly get confused by religion and ask a ton of questions cause they know themselves it don't even make sense but eventually the religion gives up and just say's God works in mysterious ways or that's just the way god wants it be.

Ah well hawkings basically proved that since causes need time to exist in, which before are universe time didn't exist no cause could exist, aka God since God would still be a Cause. This was a thing he concluded after all his work with black holes. And pretty much just tells us, things just exist cause they can sorta we created ourselves which makes a ton more sense when you add we can control are own thoughts, are own evolution, are own mental state granted with adverse effects from are surroundings and things that limit us due to are lack of understanding to fully grasp it but for sure evident proof we have control of way things go Not God.

[Not_Average]

So the catholic church completely contradicts genesis by claiming god made evolution and the big bang. Evangelical Christians strictly base their beliefs off of only the bible. Evolution is simply a series of varying theories with four main ones, and there's a lot of holes within those theories. It's a belief just as creationism from god is a belief. Some things are just beyond human comprehension. A lot of the old testament isn't meant to be taken literally but rather spiritually. It's easy for atheists to quote verses out of context to solidify their point. The intricacies of the human body inside and out is truly remarkable in every way. The odds of this just happening by chance is a hard pill for me to swallow personally.

If you're interested in learning more, I'd recommend learning how to read the bible properly. There's a lot of rich depth to every word in there. Also take a physics class. I'd recommend that to anyone as it helps you understand the world a little better. I'm an engineer so I was forced into these classes lol. Then you can do some research on evolution leading to us, and the four main theories supporting it.

At that point, it would be wise to compare and contrast the two and make a decision based on your own beliefs. Man-kind have been debating this for many years. You're not going to solve it based on a couple of articles. Even Elon Musk has prayed to god before.

The most challenging part of this will be to look at both sides from an unbiased perspective. I can see what side you already lean. Try to stray away from that because only then will you be able to see the complexities of this question with clarity.

[Asker]

You haven't answered the question!

[KneeDragger]

Evolution says animals change. This is a simple fact. Darwin (a Catholic by the way) studied finches on the Galapagos Islands and he showed how beak size changed over a period of time, the size changed relative to the nuts available, in other words the diet of the birds. Something that was never pointed out to me though, the beaks constantly changed in size; they got bigger then smaller, then bigger and then smaller again. The beaks were constantly changing, but nothing else and it was never a permanent change. Am I making my point, an honest question?

Something else, if we evolved from the great apes, why do the great apes have more chromosomes? We have 46 while the great apes have 48, in addition evolution doesn't skip generation or anything like that. Where are the fossils to support evolution? Where is documented proof that chromosomes even change?

Evolution is a theory, an estimate or best guess about something, nothing more. Evolution is not a law like they have in physics.

Yet, everything from biology to physics takes something to start something. There always has to be an initial start.

The Bible is over two-thousand years old. We cannot understand GOD because He is infinite while we are finite. It is a true grace to have faith in Him, hence it is a cardinal virtue. If you have questions though moving forward, please ask.

[OfDeath]

You're making your point but it is not a valid point. Evolution is a very slow process. Inconsistency of beak change among finches is perfectly explainable by fluctuations in diet, environment and a diverse breeding pool. Nevertheless, the type of evolution you're dismissing as having had occured in finches, indeed has been observed within the human time frame. You can see one such example here: www.google.com/.../lizard-evolution-island-darwin
You're alo confused. We didn't really evolve FROM the great apes but we in fact ARE a species OF great ape. We share a common ancestor with the other great apes. Chromosomes are subject to genetic mutations just like the rest of all living organisms and fusion and splits occur. This has been observed in human time in plants which you are free to read about here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17036078/ and the historical DNA evidence that chromosome fusion occured in humans has been discovered and confirmed. You are welcome to read about it here: www.pbs.org/.../l_073_47.html

[KneeDragger]

@OfDeath - The first article is from The National Geographic. Anything from a single group of doctors in a peer-reviewed study? Secondly, just because lizards are shown to exhibit a certain type of genetic behavior, that is zero correlation to mammalian genetics who do not compare genetically to lizards. Maybe birds because of their genetics are closer but there is a huge gap between lizards and mammals, HUGE in your type of writing

So, we are a species of great apes? You are not explaining why all the great apes have more chromosomes than us. Evolution doesn’t allow one segregated population to remain different, separate and better while everywhere else they continue to evolve, yet never actually improve who and what they are. If that was the case, a trained domestic dog would pass the learned behavior onto the offspring of the future generations. That isn’t the way biology worked/s. Great apes can’t pass on their learned behaviors either, they die and if the next generation doesn’t learn a given behavior from the other apes and that particular “evolution” is lost unless it is taugt to the younger generation. Your cited study talks about using the tail end of a genome in fish, why do you suppose that is? It has been twenty years since I was in college but the genes at the end of the double strand helix are not really all that important. Hell, even just one point in one gene isn’t going to change things that much, if even at all. It takes hundreds if not thousands of changes in the genes to notice a difference. Hence why a domestic dog (any of the breeds) is so inbred despite being 99.998% identical to the wolves of Canada, Husky’s might be closer but not from what I learned.

[KneeDragger]

@OfDeath - Second page; Your last cited source is from PBS who I am going to guess they went into the start of writing their article trying to find evidence to support their given claim. This isn’t how science, especially not how the scientific method works. Have you ever wondered why physics is so rife with laws in the field, yet biology has a vast number of theories? By no means do I know most of the people in either field, but this became abundantly clear when I was in college.

Some scientists want you to believe them because they drew a certain conclusion on the data they found and show in their respective papers. Gravity is a law because it doesn’t change whether you are on the Atlantic versus the Pacific coast, unless you explain the change when one is found. It changes when you are on different points of the earth, hence it is known how things change; it is therefore a law.

And finally, where is your fossil proof supporting your claim? Sure, you have theories, but theories are just a best guess and nothing more, especially not until things like laws are written.

[OfDeath]

It was a peer reviewed study from the University of Massachusetts which took place over multiple decades. The FISH stands for fluorescence in situ hybridization you idiot! 😂Your obduracy is embarrassing. Go and read it again. I haven't seen such embarrassing stupidity for quite a while. Fossil record? Are you serious? The fossil record is full of basically nothing but evidence for evolution. Go and look at it! If you are going to demonstrate wilful ignorance, you're not worth the time of day.

[KneeDragger]

@OfDeath – Please inform me what species of animal Arabidopsis belong to. Or explain how plants prove the evolutionary traits of mammals. Your call, or you can make me humble by doing both.

Something tells me neither will happen, but I could be wrong.

[OfDeath]

It is a plant. Related to cabbages. The point was to show that chromosome fusion can be observed in human time (plants have them too) and that point was proven by the example given. Mammals have a much longer breeding cycle so the mutations and duplication of that until the change became permanent would take too long to do with humans. Fortunately there are other ways to ascertain whether or not this has or hasn't happened which I have already linked for you to read. Now fuck off. I don't have time to become your personal geneticist. If you want to remain voluntarily ignorant, that is your own choice.

[KneeDragger]

@OfDeath – Thank you for thinking I cannot read and understand simple biological language, but “employing fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH)” tells me we aren’t talking about animals with gills, where instead in the article they “use Arabidopsis tert-/- mutants as a model system for analyzing terminal chromosome fusions.” The best part, you believe that because the Arabidopsis mutants use their genes in certain ways that proves that animal genes act the same way. Where is your evidence or is this just a theory to help you understand simple biology?

Sorry OfDeath you are way off the mark. Do you recall Dolly the sheep? She was a lamb that was cloned back around the mid-nineties, I don’t recall the exact dates. However, she only lived something like six years if I remember correctly. However, I do recall just a few years after she was born, she had all sorts of health problems within the first years of her life, she was euthanized but numerous questions were never answered. Want to guess why, there are all sorts of theories but at the end of the day the genome of a mammal is huge and incredibly complex. Sure, the genes can be mapped but all the information in one cell of any part of the body plays a very specific role to play. If a scientist thinks they understand genes so well they can predict what happens after each and every gene is mapped and the role every nucleotide plays, they are idiots, and their opinion proves how ignorant they are. A degree is nothing more than a piece of paper showing a person paid tuition at a university, *my mother-in-law has a doctorate from an on-line college and she is dumber than my nine-year-old!!* where they eventually graduated; nothing else.

[KneeDragger]

@OfDeath - Sure, pea plants are pretty well understood but even in the genes of a pea plant there is DNA that cannot be taken out without adversely effecting the plant. Yet you want me to believe plants, and lizards all prove we evolved separately from a branch of the great apes, all the while great apes developed more chromosomes with ZERO actual evolutionary benefit to the animals? Seriously, go back to the college where you got your degree from and take more classes, or get your money back. When I was in college, I never took the four and five-hundred level genetics classes, but this isn’t inorganic chemistry versus organic chemistry where almost everything between the two fields is wrong, all this is four nucleotides we’re talking about. Keep It Simple Stupid, I’m not calling you stupid it’s just something I use to remind me that sometimes we can all over-think things in life.

[OfDeath]

Look, you clearly didn't read the article I sent you or you wouldn't have made such an embarrassing statement about fish tail DNA. If you're offended that I pointed that out to you, it is entirely your own fault. You didn't read it and you have nobody other than yourself to blame for that. As I already explained to you, the point of that link was to demonstrate that chromosomal fusion may be observed and occurs in nature. This is proof of evolution. Special pleading your case that I didn't provide an example of it occuring in mammals was also in vain since I did exactly that and one step further. I showed you that it can and has indeed happened, not just in any mammals but in humans. If you did any research (which I linked for you and you didn't really even have to do anything), you would know that chromosome two in humans is an obvious fusion of two pairs found in the other great apes, hence the explanation for why humans have one less pair. Chromosomes 2 contains, not only vestigial telomeres in a place which they would realistically be due to the occurrence of chromosomal fusion in the past, but it also contains a vestigial centromere. This is in a type of chromosome which should only contain one. A further indication that fusion has occured. So this is proof - stark, obvious and simple to conform to your personal creed, proof that this process was part of the process of evolution and resulted in humans obtaining stasis as its own species. It can't be explained anymore simply than that. If you still don't understand, it is because you either choose not to or something is wrong with you.

[OfDeath]

Dolly the sheep? She died of lung cancer which was found to be caused by a virus known to cause it in sheep. The virus commonly infects sheep kept indoors which dolly was in order to protect her due to her controversial status. Other sheep where she was housed (who weren't clones) also died of the disease due to the outbreak of the virus. She was otherwise healthy and her death wasn't a result of her being cloned. Did you know there is already meat circulating in the market which comes from slaughtered cattle which are clones? Cloning has come a long way since Dolly. What exactly is your point? Clearly nothing but an attempt to deflect the evidence I have provided by changing the subject.
It is ironic that you asked for peer reviewed studies (despite having been provided with exactly that) but then you go head and attempt to discredit the competency of such qualified professionals by dismissing the actual qualifications as "just pieces of paper". That is nothing but shameless, deliberate vacillation and an obvious and failed attempt to salvage whatever intellectual integrity you began with.

[OfDeath]

You're still very confused about the evolutionary relationship between apes and humans (which are actually a species of great ape). They did not "develop extra" chromosomes. As I already explained, chromosomal fusion occured in the human line since the split from our common ancestor with the other great apes. All evolutionary changes also don't result in benefit. It only appears that way because natural selection has historically weeded out disadvantageous mutations. It should also be mentioned that animals like gorillas and chimps are much more adapted to surviving in the jungle than humans are. So your lack of benefit argument is irrelevant and nothing more than obdurate deflection. You are also forgetting the multitude of now extinct human ancestors which were very much more like us than the other surviving great apes. An argument often bemoaned by creationists is the absence of the "missing link" which infact is not missing. Discoveries of multiple intermediary species between modern humans and our ape like ancestors have been made over the years and the proof of the direction we evolved is glaring. Evolution occurs in nature and has lead to the animal you and I are. The evidence is overwhelming. So rather than vilifying your mother in law, attempting to discredit those who have dedicated their lives to discovering the science behind evolution and requesting I return to university, I suggest you do some research of your own and come up with a legitimate alternative for biological history to evolution. If you manage to do so, you will be the first person in history since creationism certainly doesn't hold a candle to the evident veracity for evolution.

[KneeDragger]

Never once have I claim evolution doesn’t exist @OfDeath and I never will. You go off and explain lots of things and I appreciate your time and energy in trying to explain your thinking. However, you still don’t seem to be understanding my point though. Rather than go point in trying to explain what I’m trying to show you, I’ll keep things simple.

Please explain why evolution is just a theory after all these decades, while other fields of science have a multitude of laws?

[OfDeath]

Lol, this is not my thinking. This is what confirmed evidence tells us. Ok, I will answer your question but you must read carefully this time. Before I start, I have to risk offending you and kindly point out to you that the fact you have asked that question demonstrates ignorance in regards to the scientific use of words like "theory" and "law". But don't be offended. Ignorance is not something to be ashamed of. Everyone is ignorant about a lot. So don't be insulted by what you are about to read. Firstly, evolution is not "just a theory". You are using the word "theory" in a different sense from the one scientists use. I'll explain it for you. Here are the two definitions of the word theory from the Oxford English dictionary:
Theory, (1): A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.
Theory, (2): A hypothesis proposed as an explanation; hence, a mere hypothesis, speculation, conjecture; an idea or set of ideas about something; an individual view or notion.

[OfDeath]

Evolution is a "theory" in the first sense of the word I gave. To put it better, it is a scientific theory which does not mean the same thing as what laypeople think when they hear the word theory which is sense number 2. Notice the phrase "that has been confirmed" which is used in sense 1. Evolution is a scientific theory which has been confirmed. A theory is also different in science to a hypothesis, whereas laypeople such as yourself think of these words to mean the same thing. In science, a hypothesis is like a theory but with a less in depth explanation. In a sense a theory is one step above a hypothesis in science. "Above" is probably the wrong way to put it though, because a theory never changes into a law after more experiments and equations, they are just words explaining different things. Although, I do think a hypothesis can gain theory status after confirmation. Most biologists are so satisfied by the confirmation of evolution through evidence that they wouldn't hesitate at all to state it as fact. Which it is. You could disregard all other evidence and simply look at the geographical distribution of animals around the world and they appear exactly where they would be expected to if evolution was a fact. And it's because it is.

[OfDeath]

Your understanding of the way terms are used in relation to science is inchoate. In science, a "law" is a description of an observed phenomenon. A law doesn't explain what causes that phenomenon. The "theory" is the explanation of that phenomenon. Theories don't become laws after more research and confirmation, it doesn't work like that. To use an example for you, take the Law of Independent Assortment. This is the observation that different traits are passed from parent to offspring but not the explanation for why. It is the theory (in the scientific sense of the word) of chromosomal inheritance which provides the explanation and that is part of the explanatory depth of the theory (scientific use of the word) of evolution. I suggest you find yourself a copy of a book called "The Greatest Show On Earth". It is written by Richard Dawkins who is proficient science communicator and knows how to explain things simply and accurately to obstensible people such as yourself who have a hard time letting go of their hostility towards science due to inculcated religious bias. I'm sure his book will answer your questions better than I can.

[KneeDragger]

@OfDeath - First off, please understand I am by no means trying to talk down to you or belittle you or anything like that. You have discussed things with me and at times you swore at me, but you have stuck with me through this interaction, and I appreciate that.

Your example even proves that first things are theories and if those theories makes sense and are never proven wrong, they become a law. To say otherwise just doesn't make logical sense.

Well to be completely honest I had a reply typed out and I was ready to post it when it clicked in my mind. Of all the different fields of the various sciences, they each have laws and they all have even more theories.

In physics we have the law of thermodynamics where it describes how energy cannot be created nor destroyed, simply transferred. There is also a theory of unified field theory where there is an attempt to describe all the fundamental relationships between elementary particles and their fundamental forces.

In the field of biology, we have Gause’s law where he described how two species competing for the same resource in nature, they cannot coexist in their respective population value. One of the species will drive the weaker species to extinction or the weaker species will have a behavioral or evolutionary shift towards another ecological niche. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory of the origin of species of plants and animals.

There is no law of evolution, in fact there never will be because there are huge areas that cannot be explained. For example, where did the mammalian eye evolve from and where is the evidence? Where does the human soul come from, no other animal in the world is aware of the entire world like we are?

As for reading a book written by Richaard Dawkins, well I have many more books in front of the line that actually relate to my life and the things in them, plus they interest me. When I have the time to read “The Greatest Show On Earth” I will read his book with an open mind.

[OfDeath]

No. You have misunderstood. Theories don't become laws after further research, you're still not understanding the word theory in the scientific sense even though I provided the definition from the dictionary. I can't really be kind to you about that. That is a demonstration of nothing but obduracy. Either that, or perhaps just lamentable benightedness.
How the mammalian eye evolved is not a gap. That is perfectly explainable using the theory (once again, in the scientific sense of the word) ​of evolution and has been done so. In fact, that is one of the most asked questions and the answers are readily available from a prolific quantity of credible sources to you online. There are plenty of examples of different stages of eye development still existing in nature and the human eye isn't the most efficient in the animal kingdom either. For example, birds can see more colors and in greater detail than humans.

Lol, there is no such thing as a soul. Souls are an imaginary concept and other animals are consciously aware. There were other animals like Homo sapiens who would've been very close to having as high brain functions as Homo sapiens but the last of those went extinct about 40,000 years ago.

[OfDeath]

You have asked quite a lot of the questions common to people ignorant to the rudimentary details of evolution. It is evident you have been mislead by someone you looked up to, who was ignorant to the facts and trying to protect religious bias. I suggest you do more research before responding again. That book I mentioned needs to be put to the top of your list because you are in dire need of an objective, scientific explanation of evolution by a reputable scientist.
Recognise that your original gripe you had was with chromosomes and I emphatically dismissed your doubt with confirmed evidence. All of your attempts to mention various laws and theories in science in order to create a straw man argument to rescue your opinion are futile. They are futile because you are basing your arguments off of an inchoate understanding of the way scientific terms are used. You have a lot to learn. I also notice that you place your proverbial chips on supernatural nonexplanations whenever you encounter what you think is a gap (which usually isn't as demonstrated in the case of chromosomes and the eye) in scientific knowledge. Be aware that has been the practice of the pious for centuries and those gaps have followed a steady trend of disappearing. So instead of having blind faith in something which is not based on anything to do with reality and is purely from human imagination and even asserting you know the features of this imaginary thing despite having no frame of reference whatsoever since what you are attempting to describe is that which only exists in imagination, I suggest you start paying attention to things in the real world. I also suggest you cease obstinately retaining ideas you thought were arguments against the discoveries of science, which are in fact not at all and have been refuted over and over. You needed this.

[CindersFire]

Well your taking a 1st century book made from stories that were likely hundreds if not thousands of years old when they were recorded and comparing it to 21st century knowledge. Evolution has been accepted by the catholic church and, from my experience, most Christian's. As to why it isn't taught in school's it is most places from what I can tell and generally it is your state or country that decides on your curriculum. The bible, and most religious texts are a set of stories that humanity has been using for millenia to guide themselves in the world and I dont see how throwing those out because a bunch of sheep herders didn't know that humanity originated at the bottom of the ocean sucking off a thermal vent.

[Bellatris]

I'm not a Christian, but I certainly do not accept the fairy-tale that is evolution. I mean, just listen to yourself! "Evolution says we evolved from single-celled organisms..." Really? How? Tell me how that occurred? Explain it to me, in detail. How did simple micro-organisms diverge into plants, reptiles, fish, mammals and so on? Explain the process if you will.

[Asker]

You should have opened your science text books. Even 5th grades don't ask the question that you asked here. You think "evolution is a fairytale" but Adam and Eve isn't, 🤦🏼‍♀️🤦🏼‍♀️🤣🤣 someone is delusional

[Bellatris]

No, I don't accept the Adam and Eve story either. Didn't you see the part where I say that I'm not a Christian?
Well, since "even 5th graders" know this, then you will be able to tell me: how did reptiles become birds? Since the first complex life was cyanobacteria (aka, blue-green algae), how did the first animals appear?

[Kaneki05]

It's actually really simple to understand evolution... to call it a fairytale might as well just be saying so are Viruses and Bactria. Since they are legit proof evolution exists.

[Bellatris]

@Kaneki05 Simple to understand. Good. Explain it then. How did life first appear from non-life?

[Kaneki05]

Tbh you don't even need that question to be answered to understand evolution. Bactria and viruses mutate all the time and why? Evolution lol. And you question is kinda weird, cause what's the difference between atoms creating life? and creating None life? when atoms just creates anything? And considering were all ran on energy... don't it make sense life? which runs on energy to exist?

But anyway to actually answer your question, were all just energy colliding which then created reactions which lead to compounds, molecules, acids, water, fire, life all this stuff remember humans are made from chemicals. To think life cannot come from Non living things, when were all just chemicals and chemicals aren't living is kinda... wtf?

Like saying we cannot come from energy cause energy is not living? But energy literally made us and keeps us alive.

[Asker]

@Bellatris
Have you been to school? Ever opened a science text book? Man, you really should learn about it. Or are you like 5 years old? Your questions are the result of your denial of evolution. And the reason why you asked it is cause you don't know what evolution is. So go back to school or go to school!

[Bellatris]

You STILL haven't answered my questions! Come on, it should be easy. Even a 5th grader can do it :)

[Asker]

I have answered, seems like you even can't tell it apart.

[Asker]

And you accepted that even a 5th grader can answer the question that you can't, that indirectly means you should go to school.

[Bellatris]

@Kaneki05 This - "And you question is kinda weird, cause what's the difference between atoms creating life? and creating None life? when atoms just creates anything? And considering were all ran on energy... don't it make sense life? which runs on energy to exist?"
- is completely incoherent. More than just energy is needed for life to appear, that much is obvious. Can you even give me a definition of life to begin with? What is it? Do you know? Here's one definition: that which requires energy to sustain itself, utilises oxygen, reproduces, and grows (I've just described fire, so I guess that definition won't do).
How can life come from non-life? People like to say "abiogenesis", but that's just a word that doesn't tell us a damn thing. The truth is that no one knows how something like that can happen. It's never been observed in either nature or the lab.

[Bellatris]

Repeating a lie will not make it true. You have not answered my questions of how reptiles became birds, and how at the beginning when there was only cyanobacteria the animals arrived. You haven't answered these questions because you CAN'T answer them. That much is obvious.

[Bellatris]

Darwinism is just another creation story, like the Adam and Eve myth, and is analogous to it. Atheists like to ask the question, "Where did Cain's wife come from?", but a similar question to it is, "Where did the animals originally come from?", because in the beginning (the pre-Cambrian) there were only plants in the world's oceans and seas.

[Asker]

reptiland.com/how-birds-and-reptiles-are-related/
This answers your question.
You with your limited perception deny evolution and science, but unfortunately, all aren't like you.
And I have a question for you, if you don't believe in evolution, where do you think we come from? Adam and Eve is a story which is used to explain the question, and evolution debunked it. You don't believe in evolution or adam and eve, so explain?

[Bellatris]

No, I don't "deny science". I just do not accept an idiotic creation tale that makes no sense whatsoever (evolution).
As for your link, it's pathetic, and besides, I asked YOU to explain it to me, because you should have a clear and thorough understanding of the process, since it's so easy and obvious that even 5th graders know about it.

[Asker]

Lmao, so it's "pathetic"? How's it pathetic? Do you have an explanation for it? Yes, illiterate ones like you'd feel it's pathetic because you can't understand it. Evolution is science and you deny it, which indirectly means you deny science.
And you haven't answered the second part of my question, I'm pasting it here for you once more :
'And I have a question for you, if you don't believe in evolution, where do you think we come from? Adam and Eve is a story which is used to explain the question, and evolution debunked it. You don't believe in evolution or adam and eve, so explain?'

[Bellatris]

Why are you getting upset about this? Why do you even care if there are some like me who do not accept this fantasy? Could it be because, deep down on a subconscious level, you know it's all a lie, and that deeply disturbs you because you've invested so heavily in it being true?

[Bellatris]

The truth of the matter is that we simply DO NOT KNOW how life got going on Earth. It's okay to admit to not knowing something.

[Asker]

You're clearly the one who is upset because noone is buying into your fantasy and nonsense. I feel sorry for you that you still think you're smart after denying science, the scientists who devote their whole lives to prove scientific theories aren't dumbasses, like you. You claim that the scientific theories are "pathetic" because you do not have the iq to understand it or because you've never been to school, and when asked why you think it's pathetic, no answer other than blabbering nonsense.

The truth of the matter is YOU simply lack the IQ to comprehend science hence you deny it , just like a flat earther.

[Bellatris]

Don't be such a spoilt cry-baby. I told you before that I wasn't a Christian, so what's with all this bullshit about me being the one who is, "upset because no one is buying into your fantasy and nonsense"? I'm not the one who believes nonsense here, you are.
Let me make it clear and simple for you, since you don't have the intellectual capacity to understand big words. I don't believe in the Genesis creation account, I don't accept the theory of evolution, I DO believe that the scientific method works when applied properly, and I do not believe the earth is flat. There! Got it?
Science is a methodology, a means to an end, the end being a greater understanding of reality. Dogmatic nonsense like evolution, global warming, and the simulation hypothesis are not based on sound science. In science nothing is ever "proven"; if you want proof, consult a mathematician. It's not about proof.
You see, you don't know what the hell you're even talking about!

[Asker]

Don't be such a dumbass. So you think Christians are the only ones who believe in Adam and Eve? There are many ideologies which believes in the same concept or concepts which are similar to it. And a dumbass like you who is just whining because you lack the IQ to understand the concept of evolution decides that evolution is nonsense? 😂😂 What a dumbass are you?
Since you don't have the intellect capacity or iq to understand simple sentences, let me say it again : Go to school, cry baby, you're just out here crying and whining because you have no idea on what evolution is. So to debate about evolution you should have at least the knowledge about science which children have, and you clearly even lack it. So stop whining, and go to school!

[Bellatris]

Wow, you really are insane, and completely deluded. Darwinian evolution isn't true. That's just a fact. To accept it would be to deny reality, and would be on the same level as thinking the earth is flat.

[Bellatris]

I already told you I didn't accept the Adam and Eve story, right at the beginning of this ridiculous conversation! Are you blind, or just stupid?

[Asker]

A person who is delusional enough to talk absolute nonsense by denying science and the theory of evolution is stupid and you indirectly accepted you're a fool and that you're Illiterate at science. And again you proved your ignorance by saying "it's not true it's a fact", which in turn is a fallacious statement. Hence proved that you're delusional and an idiot.

[Kaneki05]

I told you why. If you cannot understand it then. That's your own problem. It perfectly makes sense to most people including scientists who are trained in there fields and simply just smarter than you. Just cause you don't personally don't understand it, don't mean it didn't happen. Cause it did and it's proven we are all just chemical reactions and that's how we were created. And evolution does exist with bactira and viruses been direct proof.

[Bellatris]

@Kaneki05 I do understand it 'Kane'! That's why I can't accept it, because it's nonsense. Why are the two of you so sure you're correct about this, and why is the 'Asker' being so hysterical. Does it really matter so much to the two of you that there are people who don't accept this garbage? That says a LOT more about you than you apparently realise.
Also, how can you seriously claim that, "It perfectly makes sense to most people including scientists who are trained in there fields and simply just smarter than you"?
You know precisely zilch about me, what I do, who I am. How are you so certain that I'm not a biologist myself? Or a chemist? You don't.
"Just cause you don't personally don't understand it, don't mean it didn't happen."
Oh don't be so bloody stupid. Geez. I accept other things I don't fully understand (like G. R. and Q. M.), so don't give me that crap.
"Cause it did and it's proven we are all just chemical reactions and that's how we were created. And evolution does exist with bactira and viruses been direct proof."
Yes, we were created. Glad you acknowledge that fact at least. :) Bacteria and viruses are proof? Well, actually they're not, and as I pointed out before, science isn't about establishing proofs, or seeking the ultimate truth. It's provisional, subject to change given new information. It builds on what went before.
It's clear to me that the two of you know very little, if anything, about science.

[Kaneki05]

Yeah the one who pretty much learned everything he can about hawkings to tyson, to enstein. Don't know much about science sure lol. If you don't accept a thing that is legit widley accepted by scientists and has proof behind it with tons of evidence and don't even know simple facts that humans are just made of chemicals. And that were all made of energy. And that all species mutate through a process called evolution. Then your just ignoring facts. And science is literallly there to understand and explain things through factual evidence which so far it has. You might as well be saying oh the earth is flat or dieases aren't real when we can use the tech we have today to prove it. We do the exact same thing with evolution. But nah i guess it don't matter what you believe tbf, but if your ignoring scientifc studies that prove shit and also ignoring religon, you just come off crazy to the ones who follow science or religion.

Enjoy your own weird belief system that all evidence goes agiest since it all backs evolutuon.

[Anonymous]

evolution is fake
the earth is flat with a dome
and GOD Christ is above the dome
the Serpent Jormag circles the earth which is known as Outer darkness

the souls of the blasphemers and of those who are in the doctrines of error and of all who teach doctrines of error, and of those who have intercourse with males, and of those stained and impious men and of ATHEISTS and murderers and adulterers and sorcerers,--all such souls then, if while still in life they do not repent they shall go into outer darkness

https://www.youtube.com/embed/fH1uylyEnLU

[Asker]

Wtf 😂😂 lmao
Are you the one who wrote the bible?

[Opinion Owner]

watch the WHOLE VIDEO TRUST ME

[Asker]

😂😂 I hope you'd get hold of a 5th grade science text book soon.

[Opinion Owner]

the core of the earth does not exist science is fake
and if you think it does exist

PROVE IT :)

[Asker]

🤦🏼‍♀️🤦🏼‍♀️🤦🏼‍♀️ sCIeNcE iS fAkE. Lmao

[Opinion Owner]

prove the core of the earth exist
im waiting?

since it is part of the fake science text book
so please

PROVE THE SCIENCE TEXT BOOK :)

[Asker]

You still believe the earth is flat, I'm not blaming you, and since you also believe that science is fake. Please wtach this video https://youtu.be/_bHqBy92iGM , it's not at all talking about science, so please watch this video.

[Opinion Owner]

seen it
and even made a video about it
proving him wrong which is easy
to bad my channel got deleted

ohh well
guess the elite hate the truth

always gotta start brand new
as you

[Asker]

Can you tell me here whether how he's wrong?

[Opinion Owner]

easy first one GRAVITY
it's an assumption

you must prove the core of the earth exist
in order to prove gravity
THEY ARE CONNECTED
most people do not even realize that

then you also have to answer this question
if the vacuum of space is pulling on the earths atmosphere
how are we still alive?

IF YOU SAY GRAVITY
then explain this why do balloons still float in the air if gravity is supposedly pushing it down?


and this is what a vacuum does to a steel rail train
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zz95_VvTxZM

SO WHICH ONE IS IT?

:)

[Asker]

To answer whether why balloons float, you should know about something called buoyancy, helium floats because it is buoyant that means its molecules are lighter than oxygen molecules that is present in our atmosphere. Ever noticed that after a few days the balloon doesn't stay afloat?

[Opinion Owner]

why isn't gravity pulling the balloon down?

does it have favoritism?
does it only pull down what it wants?

decide
cause I promise if gravity was real

THERE WOULD BE NO FAVORITISM
it would pull down everything
no matter what

[Opinion Owner]

now prove to me the core of the earth exist

IM WAITING PICTURE OR VIDEO PLEASE

[Asker]

A person who is science illiterate can definitely not understand what buoyancy is. So try to learn about it. Buoyant force is the reason why helium balloons float and when the balloon loses the helium that's filled in it, the balloon will not stay afloat anymore.

[Opinion Owner]

still waiting for you to prove what is in that science text book

PROVE THE CORE OF THE EARTH EXIST :)
im waiting

IF NOT SCIENCE IS FAKE

[Asker]

So did you understand what buoyancy is and why helium balloons float?

[Opinion Owner]

what force does a helium balloon have are you hearing yourself lol

[Asker]

I clearly understand your problem, you clearly have never been to schooland you never opened a science book in your life. Instead of talking rubbish, forst learn what is gravity, then learn what is buoyancy. You clearly have no idea about gravity, force, buoyancy, and science as a whole.

[Opinion Owner]

when you can prove your words let me know

[Asker]

When you go to school and learn basic science, let me know

[Riddler1412]

Mark Twain said " The best cure for Christianity is reading the Bible".
Or something along those lines.
I, as a historian, have read a lot about some religions, Christianity being the one I read the most about. And the only thing that I can say is that the church did some things " in the name of God" that contradict what is taught in Christian schools. So, if the church is able to do that, who says that some things they ( the church ) preach are actually true.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

I'm Christian. Evolution is 100% fact; certain animal evolution certainly took place.

I believe God had a hand in evolution as well sometime after the flood.

In the beginning God created all animals to eat herbs, not each other; we now know that's not the case as animals hunt each other for survival.

Now in saying that God did create Adam from dust as nothing is impossible with God.

[Asker]

If you believe in evolution, how do you believe in Adam being created from dust?
If you believe it, you don't know what evolution is.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

Because God created mankind and is the creator of life. God is the creator of the universe.

Just because God is the creator doesn't mean God can't use evolution regarding certain animal species or the earth go through geographical changes as it did when it split into 7 continents.

[Asker]

You haven't answered my question, if you believe in evolution, how do you believe in Adam being created from dust?
Don't just try to escape by saying god created mankind. And do you think Adam (who is often referred to as the first man) came from dust or do you think mankind is the result of evolution?

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

I explained to you already. I think evolution took place sometime after the great flood, not before creation by God.

[Asker]

Evolution is a gradual process, see this is why I told you and I'm still telling you in the most respectful way possible, you don't know what evolution is.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

The flood happened around 5,000 plus years.

[Asker]

Hahaha, about 2000 million years ago, first cellular forms of life appeared on earth, if you say evolution happened after the flood (just 5000 years ago), then we all would have been some random cells or some fish.

[Wowie101]

There is literally hundreds of thousands of pieces of evidence... it’s not a matter of whether it’s real. Because it is. The question is why do you think it’s not?

[NamerOfStars]

Sure do. The Catholic Church has been on-board with the theory of evolution since the days of ERASMUS Darwin, and the reality since the accumulated evidence began supporting it.

[mrkdvsn]

As a Christian, I've ALWAYS believed in the Biblical truth of Creation (which I believe should be exclusively taught in school)

[Asker]

So you want children to be living in delusion that Adam was created from dust? I hope evolution will be taught to every single child who is forced to believe that Adam was created from dust. It's a blatant lie and nonsense.

[mrkdvsn]

OK, well, you're entitled to your opinion. I don't know SPECIFICALLY how God formed Adam, and then placed him inside the Garden, but the parents of children should at least have a CHOICE as to what their children are being taught

[Asker]

There's no choice as to what their children should be taught! Because evolution is true and is proven, while the theory of adam is just nonsense. I once believed in it and I'm even ashamed to say so. Why do you think the theory of evolution isn't true?

[Bellatris]

Evolution is not true though. How can you say it is, and with such conviction?

[Asker]

@Bellatris
You should have gone to school, instead of studying bible or any other religious text books.

[mrkdvsn]

Creationists debating Evolutionists win the argument every time. Like I said, you're entitled to your views, but hopefully someday you'll discover that the ONLY way the human race could have been started was through God's careful and supernatural Creation of such

[Asker]

Creationists debating evolutionists never win any arguments and never won.
Creationists theory of adam being created from dust is delusional and doesn't make any sense. Try to think out of the echo chamber of indoctrinated bias that you've been brought up with, You'll discover a lot of things and you'll learn a lot more.

[Alexandrubaschet08]

I belive in evolution and Christianity belive as well.

[queenelizabeth1]

Adam and Eve aren't real, but God is. And God created evolution. After all, God isn't a person, God is an energy. It's not possible for a person to create all this

[Asker]

I assume you aren't Christian.

[Anonymous]

evolution does exist but aliens also made humans (the greys made humans and the reptilians (possibly draconians) made humans)

[Dinosaursandanime65]

With animals and other races yes

[Zaneprodigy1]

evolution is FAKE.

[Asker]

Why do you think evolution is fake?

[Zaneprodigy1]

bc god created man from dust man didn't "evolve" form monkeys

[Asker]

It's not possible to create anything from dust. It's what Bible says but it's wrong.

[Zaneprodigy1]

it is possible bc god is all powerfull

[Asker]

Haha, you'll learn about evolution and you'll understand hopefully

[Asker]

A human being cannot be made from dust.

[Asker]

Bible is wrong

[Zaneprodigy1]

i have learned about it and how its fake

[Asker]

How's it fake?

[Zaneprodigy1]

bc it is not possible and anything that contridickts wut gods says is wrong/fake

[Asker]

Are you actually 13?

[Zaneprodigy1]

yes i am

[Asker]

Okay , good luck!