Evolution and Christianity?

[Dannager]

Sorry, you can't have it both ways.
Evolution places death before sin.
Evolution removes the fall and in doing so removes the reason for Christ's death.


Evolution contradicts the genealogy of Christ

Luke 3:23-38

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph, Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge, Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda, Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri, Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er, Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim, Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David, Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson, Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda, Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor, Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala, Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech, Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

​

Evolution contradicts the words of Jesus Christ himself in Matthew 19:4, it calls him a liar.

Evolution depicts God as a powerless and helpless something on the sidelines at best. It usually denies him altogether.
Evolution contradicts hundreds if not thousands of scripture passages.
And evolution is stupid!

Sincerely, Zach Doty

And I say that evolution is none of those things. Are you telling me that I'm not a Christian?

 

[chaoschristian]

Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

A narrow path indeed!

Evolution places death before sin.

Expand on this please. This line of argumentation intrigues me and I don't fully understand it. Please elaborate.

Evolution removes the fall and in doing so removes the reason for Christ's death.

How?

Evolution contradicts the genealogy of Christ

Luke 3:23-38


And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph, Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge, Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda, Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri, Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er, Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim, Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David, Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson, Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda, Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor, Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala, Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech, Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.​

​

How?

Evolution contradicts the words of Jesus Christ himself in Matthew 19:4, it calls him a liar.

Again, expand on this and show me how the text is contradicted.

Evolution depicts God as a powerless and helpless something on the sidelines at best. It usually denies him altogether.

As the theory itself is completely unconcerned with theology, tell me how this could be so.

Evolution contradicts hundreds if not thousands of scripture passages.

Please cite all of these scriptures (not just passage numbers, I want to see the text) with a detailed analysis on how they are contradicted by the theory of evolution.

And evolution is stupid!

Oh, come on now. You undermine any amount of credibility you might have and amount of good will toward you when you stoop to such childish levels. Stay on the level and treat yourself with some respect.

 

[chaoschristian]

Picky correction. Irreducible complexity does exist in nature, and TE does not deny that. But TE rejects the ID position that irreducible complexity cannot originate through evolution. As does mainstream science. There are a number of ways in which something that is irreducibly complex today could have evolved from precursors which either were not irreducibly complex, or which were originally used for different functions.

Aha! Got it. Thank you for the correction.

 

[NarrowPathPilgrim]

And I say that evolution is none of those things.

Are you trying to tell me that evolution doesn't contradict scripture?

Are you telling me that I'm not a Christian?

Not I, but Christ and the Holy Scriptures. He that believeth not is condemned already (John 3:18).

Galatians 1:8-9
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

A narrow path indeed!

Luke 13:23-24
23 Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them,
24 Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.

Luke 17:26-30
26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

Yes, the path is truly narrow, very, very few shall find it. It shall be as in the days of Noah where only 8 were saved, or as in the days of Sodom where only 3 were saved.

Expand on this please. This line of argumentation intrigues me and I don't fully understand it. Please elaborate.

Evolution requires billions of years and death. If evolution created Adam then there would have been death before sin. Scripture tells us that death entered the world by sin.
Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

How?

If the genesis account is wrong then the fall is too, that removes the entire purpose of Christ's death.

How?

It says right there that Jesus is a direct descendant from Adam and that Adam was directly from God.

Again, expand on this and show me how the text is contradicted.

Please, read the scripture before asking me how they contradict. In that verse Jesus says that man was created. You are claiming that he evolved.

As the theory itself is completely unconcerned with theology, tell me how this could be so.

That is my point, this theory removes God from creation. Evolutionists are willingly ignorant of the truth.
2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old (creation), and the earth standing out of the water and in the water (the flood):

Please cite all of these scriptures (not just passage numbers, I want to see the text) with a detailed analysis on how they are contradicted by the theory of evolution.

Okay, I would be more than happy to do so. I will spend a bit of time finding them in a bit then I'll post them!

Oh, come on now. You undermine any amount of credibility you might have and amount of good will toward you when you stoop to such childish levels. Stay on the level and treat yourself with some respect.

Proverbs 28:26 He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool.

 

[NarrowPathPilgrim]

Here is a list of Bible passages that oppose evolution and show creation instead.
http://www.wholesomewords.org/resources/creatvs.html
That isn't a complete list but it looks like they have listed enough to make my point!

Sincerely, Zach Doty

 

[gluadys]

Are you trying to tell me that evolution doesn't contradict scripture?

Not I, but Christ and the Holy Scriptures. He that believeth not is condemned already (John 3:18).

But you are the one alleging that these scriptures apply to Dannager. Why do you make this connection?

Evolution requires billions of years and death. If evolution created Adam then there would have been death before sin. Scripture tells us that death entered the world by sin.
Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

It is a fact that trilobites died before humans existed. Would it not be a good idea to interpret scripture so as to agree with fact?

If the genesis account is wrong then the fall is too, that removes the entire purpose of Christ's death.

Are you saying that if humans evolved we are sinless and do not need redemption?

It says right there that Jesus is a direct descendant from Adam and that Adam was directly from God.

And who is Adam?

In that verse Jesus says that man was created. You are claiming that he evolved.

What makes you think that creation and evolution are in contradiction? Why is it not possible to say that God planned for humanity to be created through evolution?

That is my point, this theory removes God from creation.

What aspect of the theory of evolution removes God from creation?

 

[gluadys]

Here is a list of Bible passages that oppose evolution and show creation instead.
http://www.wholesomewords.org/resources/creatvs.html
That isn't a complete list but it looks like they have listed enough to make my point!

Sincerely, Zach Doty

Most of those are about things that evolution doesn't speak of: wind, stars, lightning, snow, etc. So they are irrelevant to the question of evolution.

All of them speak eloquently of creation, but which speak against evolution?

After all evolution does not exclude creation and creation does not exclude evolution. Evolution is a way to create, not an alternative to creation.

 

[NarrowPathPilgrim]

But you are the one alleging that these scriptures apply to Dannager. Why do you make this connection?

Because he has defied scripture.

It is a fact that trilobites died before humans existed.

Whoever told you that is a dead wrong evolutionist. Scripture says in Romans 5:12 that death came into the world by sin.

Would it not be a good idea to interpret scripture so as to agree with fact?

"God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar;" Romans 3:4

Are you saying that if humans evolved we are sinless and do not need redemption?

Think about it, If you don't believe in Adam's fall then why would you be a sinner?

And who is Adam?

Oh my, do you know anything about the subject being discussed????

What makes you think that creation and evolution are in contradiction? Why is it not possible to say that God planned for humanity to be created through evolution?

Because scripture says that he didn't.

What aspect of the theory of evolution removes God from creation?

Hey, they are two opposite beliefs. One says that God created and one says that we evolved.


Sincerely, Zach Doty

 

[artybloke]

Whoever told you that is a dead wrong evolutionist.

Whoever told you that evolution was wrong is a lying creationist.

Hey, they are two opposite beliefs. One says that God created and one says that we evolved.

Wrong. Evolution is God's method of creation. Unless you have absorbed too many of the mistaken and misleading notions of creationists who won't even tell you what the real theory of evolution is (they'll give you some weird distortion that has nothing to do with the ToE) the two are not contradictory.

 

[Dannager]

Because he has defied scripture.

No I haven't. I adhere to scripture just fine, thanks. However, I respect the fact that your opinion labels me as defying God without excuse. And if it is your opinion that by accepting the evidence seen before me I am defying God, then so be it. I continue to defy God. In fact, I will defy God at every turn, should reality dictate that I do so in order to maintain intellectual integrity. In doing so, my understanding of God will become clearer and clearer, until at last my understanding of the world and God will be uniform, and then I will no longer be denying God, but embracing God.

NarrowPathPilgrim, I cannot turn away from God, nor the evidence I come across in the world. I can, however, as a Christian, choose to accept the Bible as fact in some places and allegory in others. Doing so does not make me less Christian, as my Christianity is, here, defined by the Nicene Creed which makes no reference to creation beyond "through him all things were made", which I cannot dispute. Feel free to tell me I am not a Christian - you will be plainly wrong. The Bible does not tell me I am not Christian, the Nicene Creed does not tell me I am not Christian, my understanding of what it means to be Christ-like does not tell me I am not Christian, nor does my own church tell me I am not Christian.

You'd best find another way of arguing your point, because threatening us with a lack of Christianity is a pretty poor way of going about it.

 

[Dannager]

Hey, they are two opposite beliefs. One says that God created and one says that we evolved.

I say that God created, then we evolved. Those don't sound much like opposites to me. Because, you know, if they were opposites they couldn't both have taken place. Except that scenario allows both to take place. What do you know? Looks like you were wrong.

 

[artybloke]

Dannager, I notice you're a Catholic. I'm a Quaker with Anglo-Catholic tendencies. Don't you find it funny that a few Protestants out of all the millions of Christians throughout the world think they own the right to tell everybody else how to interpret the Bible? Anybody would think they were the Pope...

I say that God created, then we evolved.

I'd say it's more that God creates through evolution, as your phrase implies that God started it then withdrew (light the blue touchpaper and stand well back...)

 

[gluadys]

Because he has defied scripture.

That is pure assertion and accusation. When you bring a charge like that, you are required to provide evidence.

Whoever told you that is a dead wrong evolutionist. Scripture says in Romans 5:12 that death came into the world by sin.

And the world God made tells us this did not apply to plant and animal life. Should I believe God's creation or your human interpretation of scripture?

Think about it, If you don't believe in Adam's fall then why would you be a sinner?

I believe in the fall of humanity. We are all separated from God. I don't see anyone who is not a sinner. Certainly not myself.

Oh my, do you know anything about the subject being discussed????

More than you suspect. You are just so certain that the way you read scripture is the only possible way to read scripture that it is inconceivable to you that any other reading might be better than yours.

Adam=humanity. Adam is a personification of all human beings. The story of the fall is the story of every human being.

Because scripture says that he didn't.

Where specifically. Remember that a scripture that says "God created" is not the same as one that says "Species did not evolve".

Hey, they are two opposite beliefs. One says that God created and one says that we evolved.

But these are not opposite beliefs. Most evolutionists say evolution is how God provided for the overwhelming diversity of life-forms.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

The book of Genesis is a part of God's Word, which is without error. Therefore Genesis is truth, [snip]

Were you under the impression that Truth = Fact?

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

was science written only for scientists to understand

There is a difference between understanding and evaluating.

Did you take Diffy Q?
(100 free blessings to the first person who translates what I just wrote into English)

Or at a lower level can you calculate the gravitational force on a particle within a solid sphere? It requires doing an integration over a sphere and over a spherical shell. 90% of the population wouldn't have a clue where to start, better than 50% wouldn't even understand what I was talking about. Yet without that capacity you can't seriously evaluate fairly basic physics.

Given a blackboard (I'm old fashioned, so sue me) I could explain the results to you so you could understand it, but for all you know I could be BSing you.

Unless you checked with the thousands of other people with a good background in physics about what I told you. (But if you believe in conspiracies you are out of luck).

Science is in large part about evaluating what others claim. If it can't be evaluted, it isn't science. Peer review is about people who are substantially educated in a subfield evaluating what a researcher claims before it is allowed to be printed.

 

[NarrowPathPilgrim]

That is pure assertion and accusation. When you bring a charge like that, you are required to provide evidence.

He does not believe in a 6 day creation as the Bible plainly teaches. "In six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day" Exodus 20:11

And the world God made tells us this did not apply to plant and animal life. Should I believe God's creation or your human interpretation of scripture?

I find it very strange that you would make a distinction between animals and humans, evolution views humans as nothing more than advanced animals.

I believe in the fall of humanity. We are all separated from God. I don't see anyone who is not a sinner. Certainly not myself...
More than you suspect. You are just so certain that the way you read scripture is the only possible way to read scripture that it is inconceivable to you that any other reading might be better than yours.
Adam=humanity. Adam is a personification of all human beings. The story of the fall is the story of every human being.

Many scriptures are quite clear that Adam and Eve were actual people not just symbolic analogies. (i.e. 1 Timothy 2:12-15)

Where specifically. Remember that a scripture that says "God created" is not the same as one that says "Species did not evolve".

Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

But these are not opposite beliefs. Most evolutionists say evolution is how God provided for the overwhelming diversity of life-forms.

I highly doubt that, most evolutionists are atheists. But even if that were so, it doesn't matter what the evolutionists say because Holy Scripture says they are wrong.

I continue to defy God. In fact, I will defy God at every turn, should reality dictate that I do so in order to maintain intellectual integrity. In doing so, my understanding of God will become clearer and clearer, until at last my understanding of the world and God will be uniform, and then I will no longer be denying God, but embracing God.

"He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool" Proverbs 28:26

NarrowPathPilgrim, I cannot turn away from God, nor the evidence I come across in the world. I can, however, as a Christian, choose to accept the Bible as fact in some places and allegory in others. Doing so does not make me less Christian, as my Christianity is, here, defined by the Nicene Creed which makes no reference to creation beyond "through him all things were made", which I cannot dispute. Feel free to tell me I am not a Christian - you will be plainly wrong. The Bible does not tell me I am not Christian, the Nicene Creed does not tell me I am not Christian, my understanding of what it means to be Christ-like does not tell me I am not Christian, nor does my own church tell me I am not Christian.

You'd best find another way of arguing your point, because threatening us with a lack of Christianity is a pretty poor way of going about it.

"Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein." Mark 10:15


Sincerely, Zach Doty


For Your Memory...

[bible]Genesis 1[/bible]
​

 

[gluadys]

He does not believe in a 6 day creation as the Bible plainly teaches. "In six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day" Exodus 20:11

Are you sure he doesn't? Have you asked him?

And what of the biblical author? What did the author mean when he wrote a story about creation in a six-day framework? Why is it that even more than 2,000 years ago---a long, long, long time before Darwin---respected Jewish and Christian teachers said the six days of Genesis were not literal days?

I find it very strange that you would make a distinction between animals and humans, evolution views humans as nothing more than advanced animals.

Are you trying to evade the question by diverting attention from it? Here is the question again.

Should I believe God's creation or your human interpretation of scripture?

As for your observation, yes, it would be more accurate to say "other animals" or "non-human animals" since humans are themselves animals. But evolution does not say humans are more advanced than other animals. Perhaps the word you intended to use was "complex"?

Evolution is not about advancement.

Also evolution does not say that humans are "nothing more" than other animals.

Many scriptures are quite clear that Adam and Eve were actual people not just symbolic analogies. (i.e. 1 Timothy 2:12-15)

Where does Paul say in his letter to Timothy (or in any of his other writings) that when he speaks of Adam and Eve he is not speaking about symbolic persons?

How would his teachings differ if Adam was symbolic of humanity rather than being a literal individual person?

Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

The theory of evolution says the same thing: that living things reproduce according to their species (aka "kind"). So where is the contradiction?

I highly doubt that, most evolutionists are atheists.

What survey has been done to verify that? I understand that in the US only about 5% of the population is atheist. But 45-55% of the population agrees with evolution. That means at least 40% of the population is not atheist and does accept evolution. Not all would be Christian, (some would be Jewish, Muslim, etc.) but the majority would be. So any way you slice it Christians who accept evolution far outnumber atheists.

Outside the US, by far the majority of Christians accept evolution.

But even if that were so, it doesn't matter what the evolutionists say because Holy Scripture says they are wrong.

Where? And don't you really mean "scripture as you understand it?"

 

[chaoschristian]

Did you take Diffy Q?
(100 free blessings to the first person who translates what I just wrote into English)

Differential Calculus?

 

[chaoschristian]

Here is a list of Bible passages that oppose evolution and show creation instead. http://www.wholesomewords.org/resources/creatvs.html
That isn't a complete list but it looks like they have listed enough to make my point! Sincerely, Zach Doty

OK, you provided a bunch of quotes (from someone else's list) but you didn't provide the analysis.

Now, from what I've read of your posts, your subscribe to an indicative interpretation of the Bible (I am reading RC Sproul's 'The Last Dasy According to Jesus' and in it he gives the best explanation as to why 'literal' is not the best way to describe this particular interpretive style, and instead uses 'indicative'. I highly recommend this book to all). So using your interpretive style, let's look at some of the verses your list supplied:

Volcanoes
And mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke, because the LORD descended upon it in fire: and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly. Exodus 19:18

He looketh on the earth, and it trembleth: he toucheth the hills, and they smoke. Psalm 104:32

The mountains quake at him, and the hills melt, and the earth is burned at his presence, yea, the world, and all that dwell therein. Nahum 1:5

Now, what this tells me, from your stand point, is that God is directly responsible for the operations of volcanoes. Not just that volcanoes are, but the actual day to day goings ons. You've taken the God of Creation and Salvation and turned him into a Polynesian fire god, to whom virgin sacrifice is a good appeasement.

Now, I don't want to put too fine a point on this, but your interpretation belittles God and puts Him into a nice, small, easily managed and easily understood box so that you can cart Him around and smack people in the head with Him when you choose.

There is more to scripture than fact. The Truth of the scriptures transcends the written word and exhalts upon the great glory and mystery of God the Creator. And this Truth cannot be arrived at through simple human means (which your interpretive style allows) but only with the guiding hand of the Holy Spirit. Standing in conjunction (not opposition) to the witness of scripture is the witness of Creation. God did bring forth His Creation, afterall, and who are we to deny it? The witness of Creation also reveals God's Truth and stands as a testement to His infinite creative prowess. The theory of evolution stands upon the foundation of God's Creation. It does not deny it, it glorifies it. It does not deceive us, it enlightens us as to the nature and character of the Father.

You interpretation of the Bible, nay, God belittles and denies this.

 

[NarrowPathPilgrim]

Are you sure he doesn't? Have you asked him?

Hey, he said he believed in evolution. Are you going to claim that evolution allows for a 6 day creation?

And what of the biblical author? What did the author mean when he wrote a story about creation in a six-day framework? Why is it that even more than 2,000 years ago---a long, long, long time before Darwin---respected Jewish and Christian teachers said the six days of Genesis were not literal days?

Scripture is plain enough.
"And there was evening, and there was morning, the first day."
"And there was evening, and there was morning, the second day."
"And there was evening, and there was morning, the third day."
"And there was evening, and there was morning, the fourth day."
"And there was evening, and there was morning, the fifth day."
"And there was evening, and there was morning, the sixth day."
"On the seventh day, God rested."

Are you trying to evade the question by diverting attention from it?

No!

Here is the question again.
Should I believe God's creation or your human interpretation of scripture?

I think it is quite evident from my previous posts what I believe. "Let God be true, but every man a liar;" Romans 3:4

As for your observation, yes, it would be more accurate to say "other animals" or "non-human animals" since humans are themselves animals. But evolution does not say humans are more advanced than other animals. Perhaps the word you intended to use was "complex"? Evolution is not about advancement.

lol, animals are never and have never been equal with humans. God didn't create them that way and scripture is clear on that issue.

Also evolution does not say that humans are "nothing more" than other animals.

I didn't say that they are "'nothing more' than other animals". I said "evolution views humans as nothing more than advanced animals."

Where does Paul say in his letter to Timothy (or in any of his other writings) that when he speaks of Adam and Eve he is not speaking about symbolic persons?

This goes right back to the genealogy issue...if he was speaking symbolically of the human race why would we have genealogy that goes all the way to Jesus Christ?

How would his teachings differ if Adam was symbolic of humanity rather than being a literal individual person?

A lot

The theory of evolution says the same thing: that living things reproduce according to their species (aka "kind"). So where is the contradiction?

No it does not. Evolution says that animals produce DIFFERENT KINDS. God created them the produce the SAME KIND.

What survey has been done to verify that? I understand that in the US only about 5% of the population is atheist. But 45-55% of the population agrees with evolution. That means at least 40% of the population is not atheist and does accept evolution. Not all would be Christian, (some would be Jewish, Muslim, etc.) but the majority would be. So any way you slice it Christians who accept evolution far outnumber atheists...Outside the US, by far the majority of Christians accept evolution.

I should have used "unchristian" instead of "atheist" because I am referring to those who "Have a form of godliness, but deny the power thereof". (2 Timothy 3:5)

Where? And don't you really mean "scripture as you understand it?"

I've already posted them.



Sincerely, Zach Doty