Does believing Genesis is wrong make me a bad Christian?

[Brightmoon]

But is not science the pursue of the truth? that evolutoin alone can make us is not truth at all.

that is a belief not a fact

 

[Livingstones2020]

I don’t believe in any woman being a “virgin” as it’s just a woman who isn’t pregnant in biological terms . It’s a silly misogynistic concept and it needs to stop. There is a big difference between dogmas and facts . There are no dogmas in science . A scientist might say that as a joke but again there are no dogmas in science

Ah..... I see. So you don't believe the Bible. Good to know then.

 

[NBB]

I don’t believe in any woman being a “virgin” as it’s just a woman who isn’t pregnant in biological terms . It’s a silly misogynistic concept and it needs to stop. There is a big difference between dogmas and facts . There are no dogmas in science . A scientist might say that as a joke but again there are no dogmas in science

What? a virgin is a woman who didn't have sex before...

 

[Brightmoon]

There is more evidence for design than for evolution... i can see some people gnashing of teeth when others says this, they become brutal, luckily we are among christians here,

but the world can't take it because they need an explanation that they like.

. Fine define “ design “ and give parameters of how to recognize it. Creationists have been unable to do that since the intelligent design movement started

 

[Brightmoon]

It’s actually not possible to tell if a woman is a virgin unless the clumsy man injured her in some way. That is a widely believed myth . Ask a gynecologist

 

[NBB]

that is a belief not a fact

There is more evidence for design, you believe random change can build a brain, that is more crazy than believing in God, random mutation has to build to natural selection to be able to select, i really don't see how random change is now going to build brains and everything else, while in the meantime keeping the 'animal' alive too.

 

[Livingstones2020]

It’s actually not possible to tell if a woman is a virgin unless the man injured her in some way

What about the resurrection then?

 

[NBB]

. Fine define “ design “ and give parameters of how to recognize it. Creationists have been unable to do that since the intelligent design movement started

Just see how things are made and observe them, also all irreducible complex things are designed just test it yourself.

Evolutonist think some parts of the body are a 'marvel of engineering' i have read this myself from them, i wonder why.

ENGINEERING
noun

1. the branch of science and technology concerned with the design, building, and use of engines, machines, and structures.

 

[Brightmoon]

im Not going to upload thousands of pages on how genes form body parts ( that you’ll ignore anyway ). Intelligent Design is pseudoscience. It looks like science if you’re illiterate in the sciences

 

[NBB]

It’s actually not possible to tell if a woman is a virgin unless the clumsy man injured her in some way. That is a widely believed myth . Ask a gynecologist

She just need to not lie... and she is still a virgin if she didn't have sex before.

 

[NBB]

im Not going to upload thousands of pages on how genes form body parts ( that you’ll ignore anyway ). Intelligent Design is pseudoscience. It looks like science if you’re illiterate in the sciences

Ah yes? i'm illiterate because i don't buy an amoeba descendants can convert to a man just with evolution alone? God had in mind crearly what he was going to create, he designed us, he definitelely designed our souls so take one step futher and apply to our bodies also.

 

[NBB]

. Creationists seem to think that just because someone is an atheist that that makes him/her wrong and if someone is a creationist that makes him/her correct especially when it comes to science. And that’s definitely not true .Atheist Richard Dawkins is correct about evolution whether you agree with his stance on religion or not. Creationists Kent Hovind and Ken Ham are blatantly incorrect about science in general whether you are Christian or not . Biologists Francis Collins and Ken Miller are both devout Christians. They both accept an old earth and evolution and their science information is correct. None of their religious beliefs matter to the science information they present . Their science information is either confirmed as correct or not.

Except we have a soul that matches our bodies, so either God created a soul to fit something he didn't even make... that is a mess of an idea, or say he also made our bodies, or just throw everything overboard because you know *we are a brain only* would Dawkins say.

Like or not, the idea of a designer to our universe doesn't fly in science. But what we christians that know God can do? just say things were not made by God? actually that is very stupid after meeting God you have a good reason to say he made everything.

 

[Job 33:6]

I always will have 'beef' with evolution though, because they said it *alone* can create us, God not needed at all... that the biggest lie ever. If God used evolution that is design by his hands too not evolution.

This is a "beef" with atheists then, it's not necessarily a beef with the scientific theory. Atheists are the ones who suggest that God wasn't involved in working evolution, not the theory of evolution itself.

 

[Brightmoon]

Ah yes? i'm illiterate because i don't buy an amoeba descendants can convert to a man just with evolution alone? God had in mind crearly what he was going to create, he designed us, he definitelely designed our souls so take one step futher and apply to our bodies also.

news flash ! Neither do biologists. Ameba is a lifestyle of several different Unicellular eucaryotic lineages including Amoeba

 

[Brightmoon]

Ah..... I see. So you don't believe the Bible. Good to know then.

you do realize that a woman who has never had a penis in her vagina can get pregnant from what we used to call heavy petting .

I’ve said repeatedly that if natural phenomena conflicts with the Bible I’m going with natural phenomena and I don’t particularly care whether you like that or not

 

[NBB]

This is a "beef" with atheists then, it's not necessarily a beef with the scientific theory. Atheists are the ones who suggest that God wasn't involved in working evolution, not the theory of evolution itself.

Actually they do actually say that, is what they teach everywhere, and if you back evolution you are backing up the idea that random change and natural selection can build animals and humans alone, that is a process that doesn't need help from anything. If you say God directed evolution that is not evolution at all, that is theistic evolution maybe.

 

[NBB]

news flash ! Neither do biologists. Ameba is a lifestyle of several different Unicellular eucaryotic lineages including Amoeba

You understand what i am saying, they do say we evolved from simpler life forms.

 

[Job 33:6]

Actually they do actually say that, is what they teach everywhere, and if you back evolution you are backing up the idea that random change and natural selection can build animals and humans alone, that is a process that doesn't need help from anything. If you say God directed evolution that is not evolution at all, that is theistic evolution maybe.

Well yea, theistic evolution is a philosophical view that of course involves the theory of evolution. They aren't opposed to one another, it's just what it is.

There is atheistic evolution and there is theistic evolution. Both in sort of a tug of war over the theory of evolution which can be subjective viewed as a part of each.

But ultimately the theory of evolution itself, is just something observed in nature. A collection of observations.

It's like the theory of plate tectonics. It doesn't really say anything about whether God created earth or not, it's just about how rocks drift over magma.

 

[Job 33:6]

Sometimes I view the theory of evolution, much like the birth of a baby. A man and a woman of course have sex and there is sperm and an egg and eventually a developing embryo.

Theories in science can explain how a baby is born, and atheists could say "well I don't see God in that, it's just a sperm and an egg". But from a theistic perspective, call it "theistic birth", God creates life. God brings life into existence. This being something that no human can truly do. Only God can truly create life.

And belief in atheistic or theistic birth, is a philosophical position that is independent of the physical nature of birth. Whether God is absent from birth, or whether God is actively present in creating life, is an independent discussion from the physical nature of birth itself.

The same goes with the theory of evolution, There can be some people who say that God is not seen in the theory, and some people who say that they can see God in the theory, but ultimately it is a separate discussion from the physical theory of evolution itself.

And we can see God in the act of creating life through birth, even without needing to see God defy physics to do it.

And even when we call something "random", like, I flipped a coin and the result of the flip was "random", even if atheists may say it is random, we ultimately know that God is in control and nothing happens beyond God's will. Even a coin toss is not truly random because God is always in control.

So when atheists say "well those mutations are random", they may appear random, just as a tossed coin seems random if it lands on heads or tails, but we know that God is truly in control of all creation, with or without observed physics defying miracles. Nothing is ever truly random in this world, we just call flipping a coin random by habit as something that we simply cannot predict.

Mutations being unpredictable to us, results in us calling them random, even if we know that God is ultimately in control.

 

[Andre_b]

Here's some real scientific research:

More Bad News for Radiometric Dating