Do you believe in Evolution or Adam and Eve?

[Anonymous]

Evolution.

Adam and Eve.

[jennifer_bloom]

I am not sure what I believe in direct details - I believe God created the world but I do not know whether He did it through evolution or whether he did it some other way.

A high school teacher said its possible that God used evolution to make human beings.

I've also heard people say they believe Genesis is written in figures of speech and not in chronological history so Adam and Eve might symbolize male and female gender identities in general and not necessarily singular identities in history.

[purplepoppy]

Why do all paintings of Adam and Eve show them with navels?

[strateguy632]

because that is human form but not because painter believed they had umbilical cord or was a non tailed ape called pithicus.

[strateguy632]

honestly i struggle with those options because book genesis might be only symbolic. either way the bible never excluded "only one human was created," so possible after humans already existed 100 thousands years, as scientists interpret skeletons, god added a human adam a certain number of years before exodus.

[genericname85]

what a lousy god if he left you to figure out what he meant symbolic and what he meant litterally. i mean it's just a matter of whether you go to heaven or hell. so certainly it can't be so important that he makes himself absolutely 100% clear right?

[strateguy632]

@genericname85 to @genericname85 , content hell. you distinguished accurately the important stuff was clear not abandoned without prophets in contrast to stories are usually symbolic.

[genericname85]

The important stuff is clear. So you're saying there's "not important" stuff in the bible. Which is yet another baseless assertion that violates the rules of your very own faith.

[strateguy632]

@genericname85 baseless? outsiders can't make up the "rules".
the important stuff is in book corinthians and book romans. all the rest is less important.

[genericname85]

Who decided what the "important" stuff is? Not the Bible itself cause the Bible was edited by people. That's my argument.

[genericname85]

i don't "believe" in evolution. i "know" evolution is a thing as it is going on right before our very eyes.

now "believe" would be necessary for adam and eve, cause only believe allows you to assume things to be true that are either "not evidently true" or "evidently not true".

[strateguy632]

"ape birthing human" is NOT "going on right before our very eyes."
we know how reproduction occurs half chromosomes from each parent. the many chromosomes animals, dog 78 chromosomes, did NOT have ant ancestors with 2 chromosomes that developed from simple to complex.

[genericname85]

@strateguy632 yes it is, cause humans ARE apes. Therefore apes do birth humans. Thars like saying pugs don't birth dogs. Pugs are dogs.

[Alicealex]

At the moment I believe in both because I don’t think we have it 100%. Like we used to think the earth was flat. there's bits of truth and evidence in everything but I would be shocked if we got it 100%. A lot of people also interpret the story of Adam and Eve differently. I just think it’s a little naive to think that your interpretation and belief is the truth and the only truth. It’s definitely possible but everyone thinks that they are correct and that makes a lot of correct interpretations of how we got here. But I don't know nothing in this world makes much sense lol 🤷‍♀️

[Dargil]

There are two creation stories in Genesis. Genesis 1 chronicles all of creation, perhaps chronicling the ascent is life culminating with man kind on day 6. Genesis 2.1 begins the creation of the Garden and of covenant humans and begins on day 3.

Before disputing, read it.

[Paris13]

Adam and Eve. God;s First MSN and Women. Why do You Think we All Have to Die Now? Sinners. xxoo

[Siri137]

Neither, because they're both clearly wrong.

[OfDeath]

Evolution is backed by a massive amount of reliable and verifiable evidence. Adam and Eve is a parochial myth. So which one do you think I'm more likely to believe?

[strateguy632]

the so called evolution of one species born from another was never "observed in a lab" including from apes. the chromosome data, we know, makes such a child unlikely unless you believe in miracles... but then why not creation?

[OfDeath]

@strateguy632 one species "born from another" can't be "observed in a lab". The mutations are minute and take too long for that kind of observation. However, the incremental steps have been observed in a lab and archeogenetics and the fossil record tells us the rest.

Why not creation? Because the evidence doesn't point to that. It points to evolution. If evolution wasn't true, we wouldn't have disciplines like virology which actually make discoveries based on evolution.

There are multiple examples of chromosome change in nature other than the fusion you're referring to in humans. We can even point to the exact ancestoral chromosomes which fused. So that is not a valid argument against since we have confirmed what happened with actual evidence from the real world.

[strateguy632]

topic incriment, that is the change in genes not chromosomes, all dogs are still dogs.

[strateguy632]

topic fused, such fusing was never observed so it isn't really science.

[OfDeath]

@strateguy632 you have an inchoate understanding of how facts about nature are ascertained. Just because something can't be observed directly, doesn't make it "not science". Most if not all of the quantum particles in particle physics such as neutrinos, bosons, etc have ever been directly observed. We simply know they are there by matching data from indirect observations. However, in biology, we actually CAN observe things like the irientation of telemores which are pertinent to understanding that chromosome 2 is the result of an evolutionary fusion of 2 ancetoral chromosomes. That is science.

A species such as dogs are of course still dogs, but one such as whales which share a common ancestor with dogs are no longer that common ancestor and nor are dogs. A new species can also still exist along side an ancestoral species given the right conditions. There seems to be quite a lot about this that you don't understand.

[Suthain]

Those who believe in Adam and Eve can return to ancient times.

[strateguy632]

belief is not like primitive ceremony that can be harmful and change an infsnts body in medically unnecessary and risky circumcision.

[sawno]

Why would that be mutually exclusive?

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

Both.