Christians, do you accept the Theory of Evolution? If you do...

so you think little things can happen but not a bunch of little things can't add together to make a larger change? It's like saying you believe in addition but not multiplication, one can be broken down into instances of the other.

>he unironically thinks the (((old testement))) has any weight for Christians

so, the fact that a child can be born with a genetic disorder naturally means he can become a superhero, or another animal altogether?

"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." John 5:39, and innumerable other N.T. verses, especially Paul's appeals to O.T. scripture

That is correct. I believe that multiple small changes can turn something into a different version of itself, but it will never change kingdoms/families etc

godandscience.org/evolution/evolution.html

Feel free to fact check everything in the article.

Genetically, yes.

what about the fact that there are fish that crawl around on land?

I don't think you know how genetics and DNA works.

Yes, no.

>Jesus himself claims to be the messiah mentioned in the OT
>claims to be the son of the same god/ is the same god as OT god
>LOL just going to ignore what god was doing back then because it seems wrong!

See this is my biggest issue, it seems clear Jesus walked the earth and is said to have preformed miracles by people with him at the time, but if that's true then I'm fucking terrified by the possibility of OT god being the creator of this world since he is insane.

Its to the point where even Christians full believers in the lord don't want to accept OT out of the complete insanity god was doing back then.

>Major transitions in evolution - such as the origin of life, the emergence of eukaryotic cells, and the origin of the human capacity for language, to name but a few - could not be farther from an equilibrium. Also, they cannot be described satisfactorily by established models of microevolution
>and the origin of the human capacity for language
So animals can communicate but human language can't be explained? That doesn't make any sense we just have a more sophisticated form of communication than other animals due to our intelligence.

That is why the only way to God is through the Son. He's backing us up.

They have always been that way. They've adapted to their environment through small mutations. There must be a niche for amphibious fish. That jump from small creature to swamp thing won't happen because it will not exist within its niche and be out muscled by the niche it would fill. Large scale mutations are often killed/die by even their mothers because of natural selection.

Ya but, doesn't the fact our creator is that ruthless and schizophrenic seem fucked?

I get that I'm only human and this god is above us but it's not exactly a loving creator being depicted in OT times.

Almost makes it seem like a profoundly lonely being decided to create humanity for the sole purpose of worshiping him.

Fuck that man.

>Not listening to the Gospel of Devo
God made man
But he used the monkey to do it
Apes in the plan
We're all here to prove it
I can walk like an ape
Talk like an ape
Do what a monkey do
God made man
But a monkey supplied the glue

So where are the new species coming from?

We have been a lost cause to God for eons. As He put it, all men are born with evil in their hearts. I don't blame him for the travesty He did. We deserve it for being such ungrateful shits.

God made the universe, therefore all physical phenomena are manifestations or indirect fallout from the work of his will. Science attempts to understand the processes of physical phenomena, it is therefore a materialistic assessment of the functions of God's will and by what methods he chooses to engage in works. If evolution proves veracious by the honest application of the scientific method, then it is entirely compatible with Christian faith. Any who deny this are committing blasphemy for taking the words of ancient men over the visible and apparent Works.

>macro evolution

american education

Those jumps only appear large because we have scattered specimens over an intensely long period of geological time; if you had a complete record of every living thing ever, you'd see a mosaic of microevolution and extinction at play between the large jumps we currently rely on as our evolutionary landmarks.

God doesn't lie, even if human perception tells us otherwise.

>disagreeing with scientific theory that you know nothing about because a 2000 year old sand nigger book says so
makes sense to me

>ignoring evidence

There are no missing links in the chain. We have in-depth knowledge of this shit

DELET THAT

Recent findings are start to make claims that animals have extremely complex communications, the high order mammals especially. Animals that rely on signal and tone/pitch are the equivalent of trying to have a philosophical discussion of the fallout of quantum physics using only semaphore and signal flares. It doesn't really work in feasible timescales.

Yes, and no, there is no conflict.

Alright this is actually somewhat interesting. But what of the possibility that Punctuated Equilibrium is mostly true and the explosions in new species seen in the fossil record are the result of abnormal amounts of radiation (abnormal solar activity, gamma ray burst, etc)? This would increase the rate of mutations which could increase the chances of those mutations being beneficial. No idea if there's any evidence which could support this idea but it was my first thought.

They happen over very long periods of time...

Yes. The bible teaches the Why not the How.

I find it irrelevant.

Fucking Christians rejected the theory at first and afterwards they adopted the theory as god's intention, fuck off.

This shit can't be real. Ameridumbs.
>Student visa boi

micro + changing niche/micro/macroenviro + time = macro

Yep

Nope: I think of the bible as God's word, filtered through the human mind. As such, there is going to be some minutiae lost in translation. I don't see how any human conception of creation will ever be 100% accurate, since it's probably not possible at this point to understand it in the first place (i.e. a dog has no chance of learning quantum mechanics). So, the ideas given in the bible are necessarily approximations of the truth.

This.

What kind of logic is that? Too difficult to understand so you accept the bible as truth?

half of them don't even accept Jesus is a kike
the other half don't care out explain away his being a Judaen or some shit
Christians are so cucked it's disgusting

What is a day to god? A passage of time? Also, he could have created shit in no time but it coalesced over a period. Time isn't well understood anyway and the only thing that makes the creation story not match up with evolution is the time element.

>the only thing is time
>only thing
Christians are this delusional.

My understanding is that God doesn't measure time. From his perspective every happens within moments.

>Christians rejected the theory at first

b8

Nice png

But what if i told you that they don't interfere with each other and many Christians actually believe in god and evolution.

Science and faith are two separate realms. I dont understand why people find this so difficult to understand. You wouldn't ask, "If love exists, then how do you explain fiberglass?"

Its also weird the way, in current year, some people judge faith scientifically, while applying a faith-like devotion to the latest pop-science.

Evolution does not contradict the bible.

Get it together protestants, the Catholic Church has had evolution figured out since 1952.

w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

>Atheists
>Good mental health
top kek.
Come on dude these strawmen are ridiculous I really hope you're just using your aforementioned affable nature and joking around.

y-you too

>God made the world in 7 days
>God said to him a second is a thousand years and a thousand years is a second
Seven hardworking God days is probably billions of years to us wherein any number of things could have happened.

Hey you, ya fucker. You want to see god/ This is Nevsky, he is your fucking god now

Never said it was too difficult, and therefore I have this position.

I start by saying that the bible is the word of God because the message rings true to me.

I don't think that any string of human words of any length is capable of accurately describing the universe. I may be wrong; I'll concede that, but I find it unlikely.

Since I find the message of the bible to be true, but I don't think it's likely that the words are a literal representation of that truth, the rest follows.

It's that I find truth in the bible which I can not find elsewhere, even after going through an 11 year long atheist phase. The fact that truth stares out at me from the written word is what motivates my decision. It is NOT that I believe there is a God which wrote the bible and then I have to explain it away. It's that I find the bible's message to be transcendent, and it implies divinity.

But a few lines here on Cred Forums aren't enough to go into the ins and outs of that. It suffices to say that one should evaluate the bible individually. If it rings true for you, run with it. If not, then don't.

has to be fake

>...the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith. Some however rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humani_generis#Evolution

I accept that the book of genius as originally written without error. I also accept that evolution and the big bang theory are probably true because that is what scientists tell me. Are those two theories actually true? No idea but I think its a fair position to accept them until proven other wise. How do those two fit together? I have not idea but I have faith in God that it happened one way or another.

>If you read Genesis through the proper point of reference you fedoras will see just how pro science the biblical creation account is.

Why are these religious idiots always so desperate to make their crazy stories seem rational?

>no idiot the bible is obviously right as long as you interpret it so it matches preexisting scientific evidence

Water is 2 hydrogen, 1 oxygen.

>They've adapted to their environment through small mutations.
Like humans with gills? Everybody has them at some point.

The bible is not to be taken literally. Especially not the OT. The most important thing about christianity is the morals it instills in society, anyway. And no not HURR JESUS WAS A SOCIALIST and the marxist pope kissing nigger feet, actual christian morals. I'm a christian and I'm studying to be a chemist, by the way.

>If you read Genesis through the proper point of reference you fedoras will see just how pro science the biblical creation account is.
Nice try there b8. You just act like every other religion by getting with the times like everyone else.

Yeah. Remember that the Big Bang Theory was created by a Catholic scientist. Christianity is not anti-science. It's only some protestant sects that think the earth is 7000 years old and the bible is literal fact.

Yes. The evidence seems to point that way.

No. I don't read any of the Bible literally except the Gospels and Acts.

Im not even religious and i dont believe in that garbage.... thats makes as much sense as believing in jesus or allah. Well actually jeaus and allah are more believable than that shit.... literatly no proof what so ever to prove evolution. Aminals can aadapt but they dont evolve.

>The most important thing about christianity is the morals it instills in society, anyway

"Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!"
--Psalm 137:9

Litteratly no proof of the big bang either.... its all pseudoscience folks

It's just a theory, no one claims it's 100% the gospel truth and nothing else is possible. It is what most people assume for now though until we learn more about the beginnings of the universe.

Lol if a scientist were to come out and cast doubt om the subject he would lose all credibility and be black listed.

>Aminals can aadapt but they dont evolve.
One of the most stupidest things I've read in this whole thread.

>It's just a theory
Expect we have way more evidence on evolution than we do the big bang.

Nah, you're thinking about human-caused global warming and the physical state of steel in a jet fuel fire. :^)

Scientists are right now doing a lot of very expensive experiments with particle accelerators in the hopes of learning about the beginnings of the universe.

Explain where the first organic life in the universe came from

Ok? That's a good thing. I'm not sure what your point is.

Why is that.... do you not know the difference... a dog can get hairier or larger over many generations as to thrive in its enviroment, thats adaption. A dog will never turn into a cat and thats evolution... fucking shill

>Checked
Point was that evolution is less of a theory now than the big bang

I'm not a Darwin thumper but that's not how theory works. Even scientific law can be retracted if evidence proves otherwise

biblegateway com/passage/?search=Psalm+137&version=NKJV

Post the full passage faggot. Afraid of a little context?

Babylon in that chapter is a metaphor and that verse isn't talking about actual babies. Carry o posting random segments and pretending it gains you any intellectual high ground.

> In regard to this passage, we are not necessarily to suppose that the author of the psalm approved of this, or desired it, or prayed for it. He looked forward to the fulfillment of a prediction; he saw that a just and terrible judgment would certainly come upon Babylon; he expressed that in the common language of the times, and states the manner in which it would occur; he described the feelings - the gratification - of those who would execute the divine purpose in the overthrow of Babylon; he referred to the estimate in which the conqueror would be held by people, and the glory of the achievement as giving him fame among people.
-Bible Hub

>hairier or larger over many generations as to thrive in its enviroment, thats adaption.
>larger
Man it's like you're not even trying
>Shill
Nice try, goyim

It's 2016, why do people still refer to evolution as a "theory". It's not been a theory for like 4 or 5 decades.

Yet they still are getting no where.... could be brcause of their flawed theory

Saying there's no evidence of it is kind of disingenuous. No, we can't directly observe the big bang... But current conditions in the universe make it the most plausible explanation for why things have formed the way they have, and why we have observed the data we have from satellites.

It's not a 100% certain theory, it's just the best one for our current observations, and explains what we're dealing with the best.

We're alive, we're sentient. Do we have observable evidence of how we came into existence, do we remember our birth? Or do you have to rely on someone else to tell you XYZ happened and just take their word for it? Their word is probably the most probable and acceptable solution to the problem. Even if it could easily be a pile of bullshit.

I'm not arguing that evolution is wrong. Evolution is perfectly acceptable for a Catholic. It's only the protestant offshoots that want to use the bible as a literal history book. I have already said this.

I know. I have not argued against this either.

Could be. Someday soon we may find out. Hopefully the discoveries have practical applications and lead to exciting new technologies too.

Im not even trying... you dont have to be a scientist to see that the theory of evolution is bullshit

It's still the theory of gravity ding dong

Theory vs hypothesis

ITT:
We believe in everything we're told without, people who disagrees are dumb.

There aren't that many literally retarded people who believe that the earth is 10k years old anymore. Mostly old people and hicks and the people in cultish versions of christianity.

>It's only the protestant offshoots that want to use the bible as a literal history book
Well then sorry for my arrogance by ignoring some of your post, 3CO.
>#FuckProtestants

I dont care about having a theory but its treated more as truth than a theory

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of biogenesis. It has to do with what happened between biogenesis and today.

>you *don't have to be a scientist to see that the theory of evolution is bullshit
Keep on giving (you)s, goyim.

Pretty much. Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox master race. Tbh I am thinking about switching since the current pope is such a cuck.

People tend to treat things like that as true because they're using it as a basis for a scientific model, that depends on the big bang being a factual event for their model to work.

You have to take some liberties with things like that and make assumptions. Sometimes the model you create based on that assumption can later develop to disproving the theory it was based on.

>Tbh I am thinking about switching since the current pope is such a cuck.
It be better off for you to switch. The current pope was always a cuck.

Keep on trusting in you scientist master neil degrass tyson

good on you man, keep it up.

Catholics, the original Christians, believe in evolution

>Do I accept the theory of evolution?
Genesis 1: God created vegetation on the third day, and then fish and birds on the fifth, and then animals, mammals, and humans on the sixth.

The theory of evolution (from what I've gathered) shows the timeline of evolution starting with bacterium, evolving into fish, with plants popping up on the surface between the first fish and the first amphibian appearances, and then land animals and birds evolving from there.

If you believe in the "ages" interpretation of the 7 days (i.e. not literal days, instead long lengths of time which are referred to as "days"), then it's entirely plausible to assume that The Bible could support a theory of evolution. Maybe not the exact one we have today in terms of ordering, but in general it's believable enough. Just as Christians can support the idea of the Big Bang creating the universe by claiming that God caused it, Christians can support evolution by claiming it was how God created the species of Earth in the first place.

Of course, since we don't exactly have all the knowledge pertaining to the beginning of life on the planet from a scientific perspective, it's entirely plausible to think that some new piece of evidence may show up which might completely rewrite our current theory of evolution as we know it. Or maybe we have it mostly correct already, and any new evidence may just tweak small parts of what we know. Either way, both theories align with each other at least somewhat.

>Keep on trusting in you scientist master neil degrass tyson
What kind of sentence is that? You're making no sense which means you are underage, young goyim.

>I believe in micro, but not macro, evolution
>1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1...

>you don't have to be educated in science to deny science
really made me think

Yes I do, and none.

God could have made us using evolution.
I see nothing wrong with that.

Love God, praise him and try to be the best person you can.

Science is of the most importance for me as well.

>no idiot the bible is obviously wrong as long as you interpret it so it disagrees with my beliefs

Lol shills are going to shill

No. If evolution is true and seems to be based on evidence then that is just how it was done.

The only people who require Genesis to be literal truth are the ones you want.

Tip harder bud

>Le shill excuse meme
You're still not trying, underage goyim.

Lol nice try buddy.... i see what you did there

i'm not your buddy, guy

>....
Back to Plebbit, Fedora Hoarder Kid

Yes I believe the theory of evolution.

No it doesn't conflict with the Bible because I understand parables and metaphors.

Stop trying to be edgy. Believe whatever you want and don't judge others.

Unless someone is trying to convert you it is none of your business.

Calling me a youngster goyim meme... nice try shill

I had just spent 6 hours reading up on christian theological beliefs and biblical and historical data.

My head is spinning, but the conclusion i managed to filter down was that my previous beliefs were in fact substantiated and others agree on them, despite the fact that there seemingly aren't two christians who beliefs are the same. And haven't been since Jesus died.

So yes.
Evolution exists, and i continue to hold my panentheist beliefs.

In that God is Logos and thus also natural laws. And thus governing the universe and responsible for the creation of life, and evolution, and good and evil at the same time, but using this same logic permits us to get favorable outcomes for our species.

Im not your guy friend

Not really. Then again I prefer to put more focus on the teachings and lessons rather than agonize over shit that is basically meaningless

We are here. Arguing over how serves no purpose

Something I read which I quite enjoyed, is in school we are taught the laws of nature. the definite, all powerful nature of these laws. yet there is no mention of who may have conceivably made these laws and for what purpose

>based Peter Hitchens, "The Rage Against God"

I have no issue with the study of the physical world we are confined to. we should study the beauty and complexity of this world/universe. but this idea that because we can record and experiment with the physical world and its properties, it therefore answers everything (spiritually and morally) I reject

>do you accept the Theory of Evolution?
Yes
>does the conflict of the theory with the Bible trouble you at all?
No, God set everything up. The bible shortens shit up (humans wrote it down don't forget that) but God set it up. I also believe in the big bang. Free will and all it makes perfect sense.

Never been there... what is it like there.... tell me you just got to tell me

Do any of you heathens even read St. Augustine?

Whatever you say, goyim. Not like I'm secretly a jew or something.

Meet houndres of christians in my life. Not a single one dismissed evolution theory. In Germany there is no discourse about whether the bible or science is tight, because these to things do not aim to answer the same questions, they are not real rivials anymore.

>heathens
It's like you were not even paying attention to this whole thread, goyim.

You have summed up precisely how I feel. The truth of the Bible jumps out and smacks me right in the face. I can't deny it. I know the book has been edited and changed, over the years, but it's still describing the truth of reality. Using imperfect symbols that denote imperfect sounds, created by man. It's the best we have, aside from observing reality.

That's probably real, I wouldn't be surprised. The amount of Americans who are genuinely stupid is very high (hence why Hillary stands a chance against Trump).
That said the only thing they did wrong was state things as facts with confidence when in reality they have no clue what they're talking about. There's no shame in not knowing a bunch of DNA/chemistry/hydrocarbon stuff, but don't act like you know shit about it.

>...
You have very low confidence, goyim.
From how many periods you use.

assemblies of god here

i believe that evolution may have happened and continues to or has the capacity to happen, and that mutation is observable. the world would not have been able to repopulate after the flood otherwise, two of every animal refers to types of animal, not each individual subspecies. the dimensions of the ark would not allow for that. noah probably got some lions to fuck and somewhere down the line housecats emerged.

abiogenesis is a crock of fucking horseshit though.

Is that a sign of low confidence.... i didnt know that.... was that a darwin theory as well

What conflict? You assume a lot op.

>was that a darwin theory as well
Shesh you're more confusing than a psychopath, goyim.

>It's impossible that god could have created evolution when he created the universe
okay senpai

I am a psychopath.... but why do you call every goyim... is it a defence mechanism

Abiogenesis would mean that life is written into the physical laws of the universe on a fundamental level. It's not an accident that life arose if the potential for it already exists within the parameters of pre-biotic chemical reactions, which are drawn from the properties of atoms, and those from more fundamental components, and on and on.

Look it up, goyim. But thanks for correcting the record and telling me you're a psycho.

Chatolicism has no problem with evolution.

Creationism is more of a protestants thing.

With our limitless mental gymnastics we can just conveniently interpret the bible to mean whatever we want. Atheists BTFO xD

There is literally no conflict between the theory of evolution and the Bible. Update your understanding of either science or faith if you think otherwise.

>Waaah exegesis waaah

Sure, I'm catholic.

>so what if our holy book is vague enough to be interpreted in whatever way is most convenient given the social and cultural inclinations of a particular time period? that's just a coincidence goyim it's all still 100% true

I believe the two can coincide.