Does believing Genesis is wrong make me a bad Christian?

[NBB]

We know the gospel is not a phylosophy right? is the actual sacrifice of Christ, so we may be saved from our sins and restore a relationship with God.

I don't know why i am saying this, but i think some people forget that this gospel is written in the bible.

 

[hedrick]

So the transfiguration, we know God can do anything, is all made up too? Moses and Elias appeared, bringing to them importance? why trust the gospel at all if you are not going to believe most of what is written?

If you say because you believe in Jesus, that is ok, perfect, but its a bit weird for me.

Again, there’s no reason Moses couldn’t have existed, and Elijah.

 

[Brightmoon]

Well the grass is green, so succession says that the grass evolved from the green part of the rainbo.

Common part DOES NOT PROVE common ancestry. Only in a person's mind. Since both planes and cars have wheels, electronics, similar sensors, similar computers. They both evolved from a bus?

. Buses don’t evolve . What a ridiculous assertion

 

[Andre_b]

. Buses don’t evolve . What a ridiculous assertion

Exactly my point. Thanks for agreeing. Humans make similar vehicles, like god makes similar living organisms.

Bones can't evolve also into another animal. Live species don't evolve into another animal. Ridiculous theory. It's exactly the same as thinking as man made objets are related because they are made from having similar parts and looking similar and may be used for similar reasons.

I'm comparing one design to another, God vs Human design. Evolutionist claim that similar parts means it came from the same root animal. That's the most ridiculous theory. Which many people agree, however the closer we arrive to "like the days of Noah" the less people will believe in God. And trust less what the bible says, many seem to have one foot halfway out already.

 

[Brightmoon]

We are talking about a ridiculous theory based on similarities in biological parts. As if you can't understand the same analogy in different objects.

Apes have eyes, arms and legs, and some similar bone structures, oh that means we come from apes? Sorry but it's funny.

. Even Linnaeus thought that humans belonged with the apes and he challenged his Scientifically literate friends to prove him wrong. Linnaeus! in the mid 1700s. A hundred years before Darwin

Eyes forelimbs legs and vertebrae are some actual evidence of common descent for vertebrates

 

[Brightmoon]

Exactly my point. Thanks for agreeing. Humans make similar vehicles, like god makes similar living organisms.

Bones can't evolve also into another animal. Live species don't evolve into another animal. Ridiculous theory. It's exactly the same as thinking as man made objets are related because they are made from having similar parts and looking similar and may be used for similar reasons.

I'm comparing one design to another, God vs Human design. Evolutionist claim that similar parts means it came from the same root animal. That's the most ridiculous theory. Which many people agree, however the closer we arrive to "like the days of Noah" the less people will believe in God. And trust less what the bible says, many seem to have one foot halfway out already.

don’t be daft . Dead organisms can’t evolve . Populations of living organisms evolve . And populations of deceased organisms evolved when they were alive

 

[Andre_b]

. Even Linnaeus thought that humans belonged with the apes and he challenged his Scientifically literate friends to prove him wrong. Linnaeus in the mid 1700s

Sure many have believed ridiculous theories which is still going on today. Again just because they look somewhat like us doesn't mean anything.

 

[Andre_b]

don’t be daft . Dead organisms can’t evolve . Populations of living organisms evolve . And populations of deceased organisms evolved when they were alive

Show me where a fruit or vegetable tree/plant has every created something other than what was planted. The millions of years is added for the imagination of this happening because the observation of this never happens. It's the only way the theory works, there's 0 observations of this. Same for animals. Just dead bones or parts.

 

[Andre_b]

don’t be daft . Dead organisms can’t evolve . Populations of living organisms evolve . And populations of deceased organisms evolved when they were alive

You confuse heavily evolve vs small variation. This is where the ridiculous theory blends words and pretends that it happens. Small changes occur but there are major limits in the changes. None of which ever have a major change.

 

[Brightmoon]

Sure many have believed ridiculous theories which is still going on today. Again just because they look somewhat like us doesn't mean anything.

creationists believe ridiculous discredited assertions with no evidence . Scientific theories are based on facts . Even insect eyes are related to ours . They did those experiments in the late 90s and I remember the pleased shock that traveled through the scientific community when they saw that the make-an-eye-here gene in insects was the same gene in humans, squid and mice and even worked in other species as an eye gene. That’s most of the bilaterian lineages right there. Scientists didn’t think the experiment would work because these lineages have been split apart since the Precambrian. This gene also was similar to a bacterial light sensing pigment . So the master control gene in eye formation has a long shared lineage. Now that’s just a single gene so scientists redid the experiment with other basic body plan genes . And the bilaterians share those too

 

[aschnyder26]

a few little corrections . Adaptations are just successful natural selection so that IS evolution.Creationists have a sneaky unethical tendency of changing the meanings of science terminology. they’re trying to fool people into thinking their false ideas are correct. they should use terminology correctly .
There are about 26 protohuman species that are now extinct . Not all of them are our direct ancestors. Humans ARE apes specifically we’re great apes . That’s what Hominidae means . The older terminology ,Pongidae that referred to the non human great apes , is OFFICIALLY retired

@Brightmoon I believe in my last post I specifically stated that I was referring to Darwinian Evolution. Darwinism. Here is the definition from which I quoted Definition of DARWINISM. I wasn't being sneaky I was actually being very precise. So again Merriam Webster defines it as: "a theory of the origin and perpetuation of NEW species of animals and plants that offspring of a given organism vary, that natural selection favors the survival of some of these variations over others, that NEW species have arisen...". My point is still valid in that I can't find any scientific evidence out there that shows that a fossil record indeed has been found showing perpetuation of new species from an old one. There is always a "missing link". So if you perhaps would like to take on the challenge of finding anywhere science has actually found the fossil record showing the perpetuation of a NEW species from an old one please cite the evidence for me. Now if evolution is defined as not involving the development of new species but the change of a species over time then I'm onboard. But as of this moment science hasn't found the intermediate fossil proof of ANY species perpetuating a new one, great apes included.

 

[Andre_b]

If evolution were true, all planets in our solar system would have organisms that were created and adapted to its environment. This is exactly what the theory claims. Abiogenesis would have happened regardless of the chemical composition because it would have used its own chemicals from that planet to cause chemical reactions based of that specific region. Yet there are 0.

 

[Brightmoon]

You confuse heavily evolve vs small variation. This is where the ridiculous theory blends words and pretends that it happens. Small changes occur but there are major limits in the changes. None of which ever have a major change.

You confuse heavily evolve vs small variation. This is where the ridiculous theory blends words and pretends that it happens. Small changes occur but there are major limits in the changes. None of which ever have a major change.

the only thing you’ve demonstrated (and documented extremely well so far) is that you didn’t understand or probably didn’t pass your middle school science courses. Why would any scientist take your word over the evidence?

 

[Brightmoon]

@Brightmoon I believe in my last post I specifically stated that I was referring to Darwinian Evolution. Darwinism. Here is the definition from which I quoted Definition of DARWINISM. I wasn't being sneaky I was actually being very precise. So again Merriam Webster defines it as: "a theory of the origin and perpetuation of NEW species of animals and plants that offspring of a given organism vary, that natural selection favors the survival of some of these variations over others, that NEW species have arisen...". My point is still valid in that I can't find any scientific evidence out there that shows that a fossil record indeed has been found showing perpetuation of new species from an old one. There is always a "missing link". So if you perhaps would like to take on the challenge of finding anywhere science has actually found the fossil record showing the perpetuation of a NEW species from an old one please cite the evidence for me. Now if evolution is defined as not involving the development of new species but the change of a species over time then I'm onboard. But as of this moment science hasn't found the intermediate fossil proof of ANY species perpetuating a new one, great apes included.

. So Lucy is chopped liver? And you’ve got the whale lineage from indohyus and pakicetus to modern whales. The fossils of the lineage from Synapsids to mammals including an animal that had 2 jawbone attachments as an intermediate stage between Synapsids and mammals

 

[Andre_b]

creationists believe ridiculous discredited assertions with no evidence . Scientific theories are based on facts . Even insect eyes are related to ours . They did those experiments in the late 90s and I remember the pleased shock that traveled through the scientific community when they saw that the make-an-eye-here gene in insects was the same gene in humans, squid and mice and even worked in other species as an eye gene. That’s most of the bilaterian lineages right there. Scientists didn’t think the experiment would work because these lineages have been split apart since the Precambrian. This gene also was similar to a bacterial light sensing pigment . So the master control gene in eye formation has a long shared lineage. Now that’s just a single gene so scientists redid the experiment with other basic body plan genes . And the bilaterians share those too

So God created the universe will full of death and suffering before Adam's sin and before man?

 

[Andre_b]

. So Lucy is chopped liver? And you’ve got the whale lineage from indohyus and pakicetus to modern whales. The fossils of the lineage from Synapsids to mammals including an animal that had 2 jawbone attachments as an intermediate stage between Synapsids and mammals

You realize some of the animals are actually made up an non existent right?

 

[aschnyder26]

. So Lucy is chopped liver? And you’ve got the whale lineage from indohyus and pakicetus to modern whales. The fossils of the lineage from Synapsids to mammals including an animal that had 2 jawbone attachments as an intermediate stage between Synapsids and mammals

Essentially...Yes. Just because "Lucy" was found which is a new species or extinct species still does not prove that it was the evolution of the human race. Dozens of new species of animals are found every year. Does that mean that because we didn't know about a previously undiscovered species that we evolved from it? Of course it doesn't. The only evidence you can provide is that there are many similar species. And so there are. And here we are back where we began.

 

[Andre_b]

Essentially...Yes. Just because "Lucy" was found which is a new species or extinct species still does not prove that it was the evolution of the human race. Dozens of new species of animals are found every year. Does that mean that because we didn't know about a previously undiscovered species that we evolved from it? Of course it doesn't. The only evidence you can provide is that there are many similar species. And so there are. And here we are.

I don't understand how people cannot understand this. They find dead bones and they believe it did something living organisms cannot do.

 

[aschnyder26]

I don't understand how people cannot understand this. They find dead bones and they believe it did something living organisms cannot do.

To say that we evolved from a monkey is just a slap in the face to God Almighty the creator of Heaven and Earth. You call God a liar when you do this. I can assure you he is not a liar.

Isaiah 45:12

“It is I who made the earth, and created man upon it.
I stretched out the heavens with My hands
And I ordained all their host.

The bible says in many places that God created us. In Isaiah 45 God himself says he did. When you argue that we evolved from a single cell organism or a monkey you simply call God a liar.

 

[Job 33:6]

@Brightmoon I believe in my last post I specifically stated that I was referring to Darwinian Evolution. Darwinism. Here is the definition from which I quoted Definition of DARWINISM. I wasn't being sneaky I was actually being very precise. So again Merriam Webster defines it as: "a theory of the origin and perpetuation of NEW species of animals and plants that offspring of a given organism vary, that natural selection favors the survival of some of these variations over others, that NEW species have arisen...". My point is still valid in that I can't find any scientific evidence out there that shows that a fossil record indeed has been found showing perpetuation of new species from an old one. There is always a "missing link". So if you perhaps would like to take on the challenge of finding anywhere science has actually found the fossil record showing the perpetuation of a NEW species from an old one please cite the evidence for me. Now if evolution is defined as not involving the development of new species but the change of a species over time then I'm onboard. But as of this moment science hasn't found the intermediate fossil proof of ANY species perpetuating a new one, great apes included.

What does this even mean? You're asking someone to show you a fossil having offspring of another species of fossil?