Evolution

J

Jack Koons

Guest
I know this was not addressed to me, but since this is an open forum:

bhsmte stated,

"I have done quite a bit of research into the works of NT historians and scholars and find the following that give me great pause as to the credibility of the NT:

-The gospels were written by anonymous authors and the names attached to them, were only attached to them 150-200 years after Jesus died.
-The four gospels were written 30-70 years after Jesus died, making eye witness accounts highly unlikely.
-The gospels were written in Greek, and Jesus' followers spoke Aramaic and were considered to be illiterate.
-There are significant discrepancies in the crucifixion and resurrection accounts in each of the gospels
-Mark had numerous verses added to it, centuries later, so it would jive with the other gospels
-Stories were added to the gospels centuries after the fact. The famous story of the adulteress, is no where to be found in any of the oldest copies of the gospels and most scholars agree, it was added centuries later.
-John is the only gospel that mentions Jesus states he is God and it was the last gospel written (about 70 years after Jesus died) and is considered the least reliable of the four by most historians and scholars. Why would Matthew, Mark and Luke fail to mention such an important point about Jesus?

I could go on and on, but will finish with this. The consensus of NT historians can only agree on the following in regards to Jesus with a high degree of confidence:

-Jesus was baptized
-Jesus had followers
-Jesus was crucified

Beyond that, there is little consensus as to what in the NT is reliable, from a historical perspective."
This is one of the greatest tragedies of modern Bible colleges. When Christians are taught in so-called "Bible colleges" the Bible we have now is full of errors.

I will respect the purpose of this thread: the purpose of which is discussing the true evidence concerning evolution. However, if the author of the above analysis of NT truth would like to discuss that which he posted; with his permission, I would gladly start a new thread titled:

"Is the historicity of the NT valid?", with the above quote as the main text of the OP.

Furthermore, I will further address the statements (and questions) directed at me in a further post. It is however my desire to not shift the attention of this thread away from the OP. I will do my best to only address matters of 'evolution' and that which pertIns to it in this thread.

Jack
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I know this was not addressed to me, but since this is an open forum:

bhsmte stated,

"I have done quite a bit of research into the works of NT historians and scholars and find the following that give me great pause as to the credibility of the NT:

-The gospels were written by anonymous authors and the names attached to them, were only attached to them 150-200 years after Jesus died.
-The four gospels were written 30-70 years after Jesus died, making eye witness accounts highly unlikely.
-The gospels were written in Greek, and Jesus' followers spoke Aramaic and were considered to be illiterate.
-There are significant discrepancies in the crucifixion and resurrection accounts in each of the gospels
-Mark had numerous verses added to it, centuries later, so it would jive with the other gospels
-Stories were added to the gospels centuries after the fact. The famous story of the adulteress, is no where to be found in any of the oldest copies of the gospels and most scholars agree, it was added centuries later.
-John is the only gospel that mentions Jesus states he is God and it was the last gospel written (about 70 years after Jesus died) and is considered the least reliable of the four by most historians and scholars. Why would Matthew, Mark and Luke fail to mention such an important point about Jesus?

I could go on and on, but will finish with this. The consensus of NT historians can only agree on the following in regards to Jesus with a high degree of confidence:

-Jesus was baptized
-Jesus had followers
-Jesus was crucified

Beyond that, there is little consensus as to what in the NT is reliable, from a historical perspective."
This is one of the greatest tragedies of modern Bible colleges. When Christians are taught in so-called "Bible colleges" the Bible we have now is full of errors.

I will respect the purpose of this thread: the purpose of which is discussing the true evidence concerning evolution. However, if the author of the above analysis of NT truth would like to discuss that which he posted; with his permission, I would gladly start a new thread titled:

"Is the historicity of the NT valid?", with the above quote as the main text of the OP.

Furthermore, I will further address the statements (and questions) directed at me in a further post. It is however my desire to not shift the attention of this thread away from the OP. I will do my best to only address matters of 'evolution' and that which pertIns to it in this thread.

Jack

I agree. thanks.
 
Upvote 0
J

Jack Koons

Guest
Jack,

Science is not out to prove creation wrong, science follows the evidence, where ever it may lead. In other words, if scientific evidence supported the bible, then that is where the evidence would point, but it doesn't.

Do understand what a scientific theory is? For a theory to be valid, it must be tested and empirical evidence must support the theory for it to be valid. After 150 years, more and more evidence has accumulated that has supported evolution. Do you really think science is out to prove the bible is wrong? Science could care less what any book states, it again follows the evidence.

It appears, you simply default to what the bible states and if anything goes against what the book says, it must be wrong, no matter how much evidence is present. How do you know the bible is correct? Do you have any objective evidence to support what the bible states, above simply saying; I believe it because that is what it says?

You are certainly free to believe what you will and reject evidence that goes against your belief. What always amazes me though, are those who will try so hard to discredit the abundance of objective evidence science has accumulated, refuse to agree with supported theories and then not produce any evidence that would falsify the theory they reject. On the other hand, if someone is critical of a book written thousands of years ago by many men who are unknown, shame on them for even thinking about questioning it.

But I do understand. If one takes a literal view of the bible, then they have no choice but to ignore any evidence that goes against it.


"Science is not out to prove creation wrong, science follows the evidence, where ever it may lead. In other words, if scientific evidence supported the bible, then that is where the evidence would point, but it doesn't."

Science (supporters of evolution) must prove creation wrong because creation goes against the very core of evolution. The reason creation must be proved wrong (or false) is because creation requires a Creator. Evolutionists are not willing to admit to having a 'creator', simply because the only plausible creator would be God. A God that is omniscient and omnipotent. That is someone scientist cannot, and will not believe exists. To do so would mean that they would have to also admit just how little they know, and would therefore need to submit to the greatness of such a creator.


"Do understand what a scientific theory is? For a theory to be valid, it must be tested and empirical evidence must support the theory for it to be valid. After 150 years, more and more evidence has accumulated that has supported evolution. Do you really think science is out to prove the bible is wrong? Science could care less what any book states, it again follows the evidence."

Please allow me to give a simple example of a scientific theory:

If by chance someone were to accidentally leave a glass of milk sit on the counter of my kitchen at 6:00 in the evening, and I would not notice it until 6:00 AM; I would theorize that the glass of milk were left there the previous evening. At this point I have a “theory”. I do not know this as a fact, until I text my theory through experimentation. First, I take a photo of the original glass of milk. (for documentation), then leave it be for further observation. Second, at 6:00 PM I go and get another glass of milk (just like the first one), and set it on the counter. (I take a photo of it) Third, at 6:00 AM I inspect the second glass of milk. (observation, under the same exact conditions as the first glass of milk) It (the second glass of milk) now looks exactly like the first glass of milk did 24 hours earlier. I can now surmise the following: 1) I know that the first glass of milk was left on the counter very near to 6:00 PM the night prior to my finding the glass at 6:00 AM. 2) I also know that if I leave the second glass of milk sitting on the counter another 24 hours, it will look just like the first glass of milk looks like presently.

This is an example of observation and experimentation.

What you are saying is that science has collected evidence for 150 years that is to prove to me what happened over a period of hundreds of millions, and even billions of years ago. How does a scientist properly observe what happened 1,000,000 years ago, let alone 100 or 1000 times that. There is absolutely no possible way to begin to set the possible parameters, and variables that could be needed to make such a calculation.

the·o·ry\ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
noun
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : speculation
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn>
b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances — often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
b : an unproved assumption : conjecture
c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
synonyms see hypothesis
Other forms: plural the·o·ries
(Merriam-Webster 2013)

The bottom line is that a 'theory' is conjecture as to the why, how, or when something occurred.

ev·i·dence\&#712;e-v&#601;-d&#601;n(t)s, -v&#601;-&#716;den(t)s\
noun
1 a : an outward sign : indication
b : something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter
2 : one who bears witness; especially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against his accomplices
in evidence
1 : to be seen : conspicuous <trim lawns…are everywhere in evidence — American Guide Series: North Carolina>
2 : as evidence
First use: 14th century
Synonyms: attestation, confirmation, corroboration, documentation, proof,substantiation, testament, testimonial, testimony, validation, voucher, witness
Antonyms: disproof


em·pir·i·cal\im-&#712;pir-i-k&#601;l\
adjective
1 : originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>
2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory <an empirical basis for the theory>
3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>
4 : of or relating to empiricism
em·pir·i·cal·ly \-i-k(&#601;-)l&#275;\ adverb


This would mean that 'empirical evidence' is that witness or testimony that is based upon 'observation' and or 'experience'. Where is the scientist that has observed evolution taking place over a period of millions, or billions of years? I'll settle for one who has been around for a thousand years and has actually witnessed evolution. This means, he had to see for example the actual step by step “transformation” from one form, to another.


"It appears, you simply default to what the bible states and if anything goes against what the book says, it must be wrong, no matter how much evidence is present. How do you know the bible is correct? Do you have any objective evidence to support what the bible states, above simply saying; I believe it because that is what it says?"

Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.
Ecclesiastes 1:7 All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.

These are just a few verses written hundred (even thousands) of years before Christ, which told of scientific facts long before the 'scientific' community was willing to accept them.


"You are certainly free to believe what you will and reject evidence that goes against your belief. What always amazes me though, are those who will try so hard to discredit the abundance of objective evidence science has accumulated, refuse to agree with supported theories and then not produce any evidence that would falsify the theory they reject. On the other hand, if someone is critical of a book written thousands of years ago by many men who are unknown, shame on them for even thinking about questioning it."

1) I have yet to see real 'empirical evidence' that actually complies with the definitions of 'empirical' and 'evidence'.
2) While not every 'writer' of the Bible is known, the internal witness as to the 'Author' of it, is not unknown.
3) It is agreed upon by nearly all Biblical scholarship, that even if every Bible were to have been destroyed; the actual text of the entire Bible has so permeated the literary world, that the Bible could be recomposed by the text contained in literature throughout the world. To my knowledge, this cannot be said of any other literary work.


"But I do understand. If one takes a literal view of the bible, then they have no choice but to ignore any evidence that goes against it."


I am not ignoring any evidence; there hasn't been any actual 'empirical evidence' presented.


Jack
 
Upvote 0

rebornfree

Senior Veteran
Supporter
May 5, 2007
8,404
14,214
NW England
✟790,449.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Divorced
I'm not a scientist so I cannot argue from that angle but I thought I'd throw in a couple of observations.

1. How can something so beautiful as the universe come into being by accident? From the smallest details of creation to the vastness of space everything points towards Intelligent Design.

2. As a Christian I believed in theistic-evolution for about 30 years until I realised that there was no death before Adam. It was Adam and Eve's sin which brought death, disease and decay into the world, so there cannot have been millions of years of evolution involving creatures which had become extinct. Hence my change into a Creationist.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I'm still wondering 1) Where is the refuting of Cubanito's three points; or 2) Where is the presentation of some actual empirical evidence?

Jack

The link below, summarizes empirical evidence to support the theory of evolution.


Lines of evidence: The science of evolution

At the heart of evolutionary theory is the basic idea that life has existed for billions of years and has changed over time.

Overwhelming evidence supports this fact. Scientists continue to argue about details of evolution, but the question of whether life has a long history or not was answered in the affirmative at least two centuries ago.

The history of living things is documented through multiple lines of evidence that converge to tell the story of life through time. In this section, we will explore the lines of evidence that are used to reconstruct this story.

These lines of evidence include:
Fossil evidence
Homologies
Distribution in time and space
Evidence by example



Lines of evidence: The science of evolution
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I'm still wondering 1) Where is the refuting of Cubanito's three points; or 2) Where is the presentation of some actual empirical evidence?

Jack

Jack,

I would assume you are a supporter of creation, as opposed to evolution, correct?

If so, are you aware of any empirical evidence to support creation?
 
Upvote 0
J

Jack Koons

Guest
I have stated from the beginning that I am by no means a scientist. I am a Bible believer. While the secular world may swallow; hook, line, and sinker, the theory of evolution and ignore the Word of God, I choose to put my faith in what God says; after all, since He created all things (He was there), He gives us what happened in the beginning!

The only reason the world accepts the teachings of evolution is because several intellectual atheists stated their theory in a manner that sounds impressive to common people. They say that their 'theory' is proven by their interpretation of their so-called 'facts'; however, there are many scientists (some not even Christians) who say these 'facts' make no sense at all. I will leave the scientific evidence to men like Cubanito (even though he is a bit arrogant and a legend in his own mind).

Here is what I believe:

The Bible is true; historically, doctrinally, and scientifically. As stated above, since God the creator was there at the beginning, His Word is good enough for me.


Jack
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I have stated from the beginning that I am by no means a scientist. I am a Bible believer. While the secular world may swallow; hook, line, and sinker, the theory of evolution and ignore the Word of God, I choose to put my faith in what God says; after all, since He created all things (He was there), He gives us what happened in the beginning!

The only reason the world accepts the teachings of evolution is because several intellectual atheists stated their theory in a manner that sounds impressive to common people. They say that their 'theory' is proven by their interpretation of their so-called 'facts'; however, there are many scientists (some not even Christians) who say these 'facts' make no sense at all. I will leave the scientific evidence to men like Cubanito (even though he is a bit arrogant and a legend in his own mind).

Here is what I believe:

The Bible is true; historically, doctrinally, and scientifically. As stated above, since God the creator was there at the beginning, His Word is good enough for me.


Jack

Jack,

I can appreciate you are not a science expert, because if you had knowledge of how science worked, you would understand how impossible it is for a group of scientists to simply fool everyone based on the fact they say they have evidence to support a theory. It simply doesn't work that way and it certainly wouldn't stand up to 150 years of scrutiny, because of those scientists who claim evolution doesn't make sense, they are free to produce empirical evidence to show the theory of evolution does not work. Not only has no one been able to do so, but 99% of the biologists (who know the most about evolution) who are members of the national academy of science, keep saying the evidence to support evolution just keeps getting stronger and they PRODUCE the empirical evidence to support this claim, while NO ONE has been able to produce evidence to show evolution to be false, even when the production of this evidence, would make them the most famous scientist who likely ever lived.

Now, no theory is perfect and you will always have a small minority hanging on certain points claiming it doesn't make sense, that is human nature. How many christians agree on interpretations of the bible? Not many, which is why you have so many denominations of christianity, who all claim they have it right.

Again, I am appealing to authority in regards to the scientific community that has the most knowledge on this topic (and many of them are christians) and I have given you the reasons why. Nothing wrong with you claiming the bible should trump scientific findings, that is your personal choice. I would also add, there is nothing wrong with one choosing to agree with the abundance of evidence discovered by science that is empirical in nature and agree the theory of evolution is correct, based on this evidence, that keeps accumulating.
 
Upvote 0
J

Jack Koons

Guest
Jack,

I can appreciate you are not a science expert, because if you had knowledge of how science worked, you would understand how impossible it is for a group of scientists to simply fool everyone based on the fact they say they have evidence to support a theory. It simply doesn't work that way and it certainly wouldn't stand up to 150 years of scrutiny, because of those scientists who claim evolution doesn't make sense, they are free to produce empirical evidence to show the theory of evolution does not work. Not only has no one been able to do so, but 99% of the biologists (who know the most about evolution) who are members of the national academy of science, keep saying the evidence to support evolution just keeps getting stronger and they PRODUCE the empirical evidence to support this claim, while NO ONE has been able to produce evidence to show evolution to be false, even when the production of this evidence, would make them the most famous scientist who likely ever lived.

Now, no theory is perfect and you will always have a small minority hanging on certain points claiming it doesn't make sense, that is human nature. How many christians agree on interpretations of the bible? Not many, which is why you have so many denominations of christianity, who all claim they have it right.

Again, I am appealing to authority in regards to the scientific community that has the most knowledge on this topic (and many of them are christians) and I have given you the reasons why. Nothing wrong with you claiming the bible should trump scientific findings, that is your personal choice. I would also add, there is nothing wrong with one choosing to agree with the abundance of evidence discovered by science that is empirical in nature and agree the theory of evolution is correct, based on this evidence, that keeps accumulating.








I am aware that certain people claim to be both Christians and Evolutionists, however, I find that to be an oxymoron. Why? The Bible clearly teaches that, in order to be a Christian (a follower of Christ) you must actually believe what God says in His Word, the Bible. Since the Bible clearly states that God created the heavens, and the Earth; along with the stars, any person believing in the theory of evolution would be calling God a liar; hence, that person would not be a very good Christian.

This simply means that the only way you can believe in the theory of evolution, is to deny the existence of the God of the Christian Bible.

Jack
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I am aware that certain people claim to be both Christians and Evolutionists, however, I find that to be an oxymoron. Why? The Bible clearly teaches that, in order to be a Christian (a follower of Christ) you must actually believe what God says in His Word, the Bible. Since the Bible clearly states that God created the heavens, and the Earth; along with the stars, any person believing in the theory of evolution would be calling God a liar; hence, that person would not be a very good Christian.

This simply means that the only way you can believe in the theory of evolution, is to deny the existence of the God of the Christian Bible.

Jack

That is your take on it Jack and that would disagree with the majority of christians, since most christians do accept the theory of evolution as being true and they certainly are not denying the existence of God.

The number of christians who agree with evolution keeps growing every year, because folks are starting to understand how compelling the evidence is.

In regards to christianity in general, I fully understand that those who take the bible literally, disagree strongly with the christians that have chosen to accept empirical evidence and chose to not take the bible literal.

Again, of all the religions in the world, christians clearly have the greatest disagreement over scripture amongst their own believers and this is why so many denominations have evolved, under christianity.
 
Upvote 0
J

Jack Koons

Guest
That is your take on it Jack and that would disagree with the majority of christians, since most christians do accept the theory of evolution as being true and they certainly are not denying the existence of God.

The number of christians who agree with evolution keeps growing every year, because folks are starting to understand how compelling the evidence is.

In regards to christianity in general, I fully understand that those who take the bible literally, disagree strongly with the christians that have chosen to accept empirical evidence and chose to not take the bible literal.

Again, of all the religions in the world, christians clearly have the greatest disagreement over scripture amongst their own believers and this is why so many denominations have evolved, under christianity.



I want you to understand where I am coming from. You are correct in stating that more and more people that call themselves are accepting the theory of evolution. Furthermore, you are also correct in stating that there are varying 'interpretations' of God's Word. The latter is the cause of the former; and the latter is clearly against the the internal witness of God's Word.

2 Peter 1: 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Simply put; God says what he means, and means what he says.

With that being said, I redirect your attention back to last sentence of my last post:

"This simply means that the only way you can believe in the theory of evolution, is to deny the existence of the God of the Christian Bible."

I never said one must deny the existence of a god to believe in the theory of evolution, just the God of the Christian Bible. My previous statement still stands.

Jack
 
Upvote 0

Ezra915

Apologist
Feb 8, 2013
20
0
Huron, SD
Visit site
✟15,131.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
The physical evidence (a combo of genetics,fossils etc) shows that macroevolution is most likely how God made us.

But it was guided by God not random. God made us from the dust of the earth.

So when exactly did we become "human" and become accountable for our sins? Was there an Adam? How exactly can you reconcile your view with scripture, or do you just write off Genesis 1-11 as "allegory"?
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
So when exactly did we become "human" and become accountable for our sins? Was there an Adam? How exactly can you reconcile your view with scripture, or do you just write off Genesis 1-11 as "allegory"?

Well, most Christians do write off Genesis as allegory, because they agree with evolution.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

KWCrazy

Newbie
Apr 13, 2009
7,229
1,993
Bowling Green, KY
✟82,877.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Well, most Christians do write off Genesis as allegory, because they agree with evolution.
Christian means "of Christ."
Did Christ write off Genesis as allegory, or did he revere the Scriptures and teach from them as accurate; God inspired revelations?

Christians who believe in evolution do so because the repeated lies of the unsaved and their own sin has distanced them from the Scriptures, because the Scriptures clearly state that God created each species after its own kind, and that man was created from the dust of the earth. We did not evolve.

Citing the failings of many as justification that those failings are acceptable is like saying that because many married people cheat on their spouses that adultery is an acceptable part of marriage.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Christian means "of Christ."
Did Christ write off Genesis as allegory, or did he revere the Scriptures and teach from them as accurate; God inspired revelations?

Christians who believe in evolution do so because the repeated lies of the unsaved and their own sin has distanced them from the Scriptures, because the Scriptures clearly state that God created each species after its own kind, and that man was created from the dust of the earth. We did not evolve.

Citing the failings of many as justification that those failings are acceptable is like saying that because many married people cheat on their spouses that adultery is an acceptable part of marriage.

I understand you don't like it, but my statement is true, the majority of Christians accept evolution.
 
Upvote 0
S

SeventhValley

Guest
Genetic 'Adam' and 'Eve' Uncovered | LiveScience

Well proof that all living humans did come from one male and one female that lived approximately around the same time(never can be 100% sure). Apparently we are all related.

I accept Genesis as partly historical and partly telling a great truth about the human story. These would be the Adam and Eve that I consider the first humans. So I accept a Old Earth creationism.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,584
951
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,905.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You have to be careful what you mean by most Christians accept evolution and you have to make clear what you mean by evolution. If you pin down a christian and ask them what they think evolution is there will be different interpretations and many will not be clear on their understanding. For some evolution will mean that God put all the elements in place such as the chemicals to start the process on earth. Others will say that God created certain creatures as the first ones and then evolution took over.

Some will accept evolution as the transformation of one creature into another so that they gain new abilities and genetics they never had before. This came about by a random process so they could adapt to their environment. Others will say this cannot happen but the evolution of creatures so that they can change to adapt to their environment is possible but is limited to what genetics they already have.

So though many Christians say they believe in evolution you have to clarify what they mean as there is a lot of difference in some interpretations. Many Christians may believe in evolution but it is only limited and God is still the creator of basic kinds of creatures and nature cannot creature new type from a random and chance process.

There is even another hypothesis out there that Satan started evolution as a way to compete with God in the making of a human. When Satan was an angel he was going down on the earth or and getting up to something as God had asked where he had been. But it doesn't say what he was doing. But the fact that it is made a point is interesting. If Satan wanted to show that he was as great as God then maybe this is how he did it. This would allow the ape man to arise. When other parts of the bible talk about the sons of God and the sons of man this could be the line of Adam and the line of the ape man. It seems that there may have been other creatures around when Adam was created as well. Plus if the two had mated then this would create a hybrid and there is some evidence of past humans breeding with other forms of humanoids.
Of course this is a hypothesis that is unproven and has no grounds so it is only a thought. But it is an interesting one.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0