Theistic Evolution incompatable with Scripture

[California Tim]

There are several threads that ask questions related to the relationship between the Biblical account of creation and the Theory of Evolution and whether the two can coexist. Rather than repeat my answers in each, I wanted to present this brief list of reasons I feel the Bible plainly contradicts the possiblity of evolution as a mechanism used for creation. Feel free to offer your rebuttal on any or all points:

The 24 hour days of Creation:

• The Hebrew word used for "day" in the creation account when coupled with a numerical modifier in all instances outside the creation account in the Bible refers to a literal 24 hour day

• God is certainly "capable" of creating a fully functional universe in 6 days if He chose to.

• The instanteous creation account is more majestic and characteristic of the God portrayed throughout the rest of the Bible

The anti-thesis of evolution described in Genesis:

• God commands all species to reproduce "after their kind", indicating fully functioning species capable of reproduction are the first of creation.

• Man is created prior to Woman according to Genesis - a physical impossibility if both evolved (a mother would be needed)

• The woman is expressly created from a part of the already existing man - hence the name "woman". A silly misnomer if evolution were to be implied.

• The literal flood account fully explains rapid geologic transformations, and the fossil record.

• A literal creation account has already predicted, thousands of years before the introduction of evolution, what we see today in the fossil record (vast gaps between the species) Whereas the concept of evolution would depend on a consistent and compelling revelation of transitional forms.

• The current population statistics match the Biblical account of a literal flood and repopulation of the Earth after the flood.

The Biblical support for literal translation of Gensis:

• The creation account resulted in a literal man (Adam) to whom Christ and the apostles referred as literal.

• Genealogical references are included in the account.

• The affirmation of the dignity of man is introduced

• The concept of God's plan of salvation is introduced

• The moral responsibilities of man are introduced

• The regulations concerning marriage are introduced

• The concept of sin and its consequence are introduced

• The selection of the Jewish people as god's chosen is introduced

(to question the literal translation and reliability of creation brings into question the reliability of all the above accounts)

The literalness of Adam

• Adam is portrayed as the ONE man by whom sin was introduced into the world while Christ is the ONE man through whom redemption was restored. If Adam is figurative, then who is to say Christ is not figurative also?

• Until the "fall" of man by Adam's sin, death was not a part of man's lifecycle and either precludes the possibility of any ancestors evolving into hominids or calls into question the whole concept of the penalty for sin.

• A concise geneology is portrayed from Adam to Noah and from Noah onward. This would be perfectly useless if Adam and Noah were not literal people.

This list could grow to monumental proportions, so I'll end with this for now. Suffice to say, the predominant motivation behind accepting Theistic Evolution appears to be in the need to reconcile accepted "secular" science with inspired Scripture. It seems apparent that three conditions are present when one feels compelled to reject the literal creation account:

#1 Fundamental doubt over the reliablility and authenticity of the written account of God's Word in the Bible
#2 Wholesale acceptance of the secular scientific community's conclusions of an as of yet inconclusive theory that is nonetheless presented as irrefutable fact.
#3 The inner doubts of God's omipotence that compel a need to reconcile the spiritual with the worldly outlook of God.

In a nutshell, you may believe whatever you want about creation, but the Bible could not have been any clearer if it wanted to DISPROVE evolution. Perhaps you could come up with a missing statement, but as it is, by itself there is compelling evidence that Theistic Evolution is actually an oxymoron unsupported by Scripture.

 

[Didaskomenos]

The 24 hour days of Creation:

• The Hebrew word used for "day" in the creation account when coupled with a numerical modifier in all instances outside the creation account in the Bible refers to a literal 24 hour day

This is true.

• God is certainly "capable" of creating a fully functional universe in 6 days if He chose to.

This is true. He is certainly "capable" of craeting a fully functional universe in less than a nanosecond. If He chose to.

• The instanteous creation account is more majestic and characteristic of the God portrayed throughout the rest of the Bible

Majestic? It might indeed have seemed so to the Hebrews. Another truth of the account! God's creation was majestic and required ultimate power. But "majesty" is subjective. As for instantaneity, why do you think it took Him so long to create the Bible?

The anti-thesis of evolution described in Genesis:

• God commands all species to reproduce "after their kind", indicating fully functioning species capable of reproduction are the first of creation.
• Man is created prior to Woman according to Genesis - a physical impossibility if both evolved (a mother would be needed)
• The woman is expressly created from a part of the already existing man - hence the name "woman". A silly misnomer if evolution were to be implied.

No arguments! The Bible is not trying to teach evolution. It is giving a mythological account of the Creation of the world, and we shouldn't be surprised that they didn't have a clue about evolutionary theory.

• The literal flood account fully explains rapid geologic transformations, and the fossil record.
• A literal creation account has already predicted, thousands of years before the introduction of evolution, what we see today in the fossil record (vast gaps between the species) Whereas the concept of evolution would depend on a consistent and compelling revelation of transitional forms.

Neither of these having anything to do with Scripture contradicting theistic evolution.

• The current population statistics match the Biblical account of a literal flood and repopulation of the Earth after the flood.

Same answer. Besides, it is also compatible with the scientific explanation.

The Biblical support for literal translation of Gensis:

• The creation account resulted in a literal man (Adam) to whom Christ and the apostles referred as literal.
• Genealogical references are included in the account.

Another PRATT: allusions to a person or thing do not cause or necessarily imply that person/thing to be historical. As for the genealogies, we have tons of records of mixed genealogies in which people would tie historical and mythological together. They didn't view it as lying, but as adding the prestige of association.

• The affirmation of the dignity of man is introduced

WHAT? The affirmation of the depravity of man is also introduced! And just because you don't like apes doesn't mean that God didn't think it fit to bring us from them. Are you sure you want to be on the side that says, "I don't like this, so God better not have done it"?

• The concept of God's plan of salvation is introduced
• The moral responsibilities of man are introduced
• The regulations concerning marriage are introduced
• The concept of sin and its consequence are introduced
• The selection of the Jewish people as god's chosen is introduced

But theological truth is the whole point of having the Genesis account (or the Bible, for that matter). No arguments.

The literalness of Adam

• Adam is portrayed as the ONE man by whom sin was introduced into the world while Christ is the ONE man through whom redemption was restored. If Adam is figurative, then who is to say Christ is not figurative also?

This is all about what Lewis called myth becoming fact! Paul was drawing a rhetorical and philosophical parallel between Adam and Christ. It would not be false to say, "Just as evil entered the world through one box (Pandora's), so did our redemption from evil emerge from one box (the tomb)." And it's absolutely baseless to conclude that Jesus was figurative, based on literary and historical evidence. The same kind that tells us how to interpret Genesis.

• Until the "fall" of man by Adam's sin, death was not a part of man's lifecycle and either precludes the possibility of any ancestors evolving into hominids or calls into question the whole concept of the penalty for sin.

The account of the Fall of Man was meant to convey the fact that mankind is separated from God. We are born out of step with our Creator, and given the choice of submission to Him or self-rule, every human being naturally chooses the latter, making everyone deserving of the "penalty for sin".

• A concise geneology is portrayed from Adam to Noah and from Noah onward. This would be perfectly useless if Adam and Noah were not literal people.

Already talked about genealogies. But useless, no. It gave the Hebrews a sense of their connection to the past and their importance in the divine schema.

#1 Fundamental doubt over the reliablility and authenticity of the written account of God's Word in the Bible
#2 Wholesale acceptance of the secular scientific community's conclusions of an as of yet inconclusive theory that is nonetheless presented as irrefutable fact.
#3 The inner doubts of God's omipotence that compel a need to reconcile the spiritual with the worldly outlook of God.

#1 We simply have a different view of how the Bible was written and is to be interpreted. We believe in its reliability and its theological authenticity.
#2 If that were so, what would be wrong with it? Is everything touched by non-Christians immediately Satanic? Besides, what does "inconclusive" mean? You don't personally conclude the same thing?
#3 That's just a slap in the face, and absolutely ungrounded.

 

[tryptophan]

There are several threads that ask questions related to the relationship between the Biblical account of creation and the Theory of Evolution and whether the two can coexist. Rather than repeat my answers in each, I wanted to present this brief list of reasons I feel the Bible plainly contradicts the possiblity of evolution as a mechanism used for creation. Feel free to offer your rebuttal on any or all points:

The 24 hour days of Creation:

• The Hebrew word used for "day" in the creation account when coupled with a numerical modifier in all instances outside the creation account in the Bible refers to a literal 24 hour day

• God is certainly "capable" of creating a fully functional universe in 6 days if He chose to.

• The instanteous creation account is more majestic and characteristic of the God portrayed throughout the rest of the Bible

I certainly believe that God is capable of creating a fully functional universes in 6 days if He chose to. I just don't believe that he did. I believe that creation story is figurative to begin with, so that first point I'm not concerned about. Majestic is a rather subjective quality. What if I said that the Big Bang was a very majestic event?

The anti-thesis of evolution described in Genesis:

• God commands all species to reproduce "after their kind", indicating fully functioning species capable of reproduction are the first of creation.

• Man is created prior to Woman according to Genesis - a physical impossibility if both evolved (a mother would be needed)

• The woman is expressly created from a part of the already existing man - hence the name "woman". A silly misnomer if evolution were to be implied.

• The literal flood account fully explains rapid geologic transformations, and the fossil record.

• A literal creation account has already predicted, thousands of years before the introduction of evolution, what we see today in the fossil record (vast gaps between the species) Whereas the concept of evolution would depend on a consistent and compelling revelation of transitional forms.

• The current population statistics match the Biblical account of a literal flood and repopulation of the Earth after the flood.

Once again, I consider the first part of Genesis figurative, so I won't deal with that. Both Man and Woman would be able to evolve together. You wouldn't have one and then the other, you would have both at the same time. I'm not sure about point 3. It seems like we're arguing semantics.

I don't really agree with the flood geology part. We also have plenty of transitional forms, and the fossil record can still be explained with evolution in mind. How does the current population statistics match with the Biblical account and not an evolutionary account?

The Biblical support for literal translation of Gensis:

• The creation account resulted in a literal man (Adam) to whom Christ and the apostles referred as literal.

• Genealogical references are included in the account.

• The affirmation of the dignity of man is introduced

• The concept of God's plan of salvation is introduced

• The moral responsibilities of man are introduced

• The regulations concerning marriage are introduced

• The concept of sin and its consequence are introduced

• The selection of the Jewish people as god's chosen is introduced

(to question the literal translation and reliability of creation brings into question the reliability of all the above accounts)

I still believe in the theological aspects of the creation account. I also believe that Abraham and other later Genesis figures were literal. Sorry, I have to go now. I'll address the rest later.

 

[Vance]

Tim, you might want to check out this thread to get a better idea of where most TE's are coming from:

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=10667999&posted=1#post10667999

 

[California Tim]

Tim, you might want to check out this thread to get a better idea of where most TE's are coming from:

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=10667999&posted=1#post10667999

Thanks for the heads-up. I will be reading it to see if I overlooked anything already advanced in the many debates I've witnessed in the past.

 

[gluadys]

California Tim said: (My responses in bold)
The 24 hour days of Creation:

• The Hebrew word used for "day" in the creation account when coupled with a numerical modifier in all instances outside the creation account in the Bible refers to a literal 24 hour day

Agreed. But when the context is not literal, then the 24-hour days are not literal either. They are like the days in a novel. 24 hours to be sure, but not on a calendar.

• God is certainly "capable" of creating a fully functional universe in 6 days if He chose to.

Agreed.

• The instanteous creation account is more majestic and characteristic of the God portrayed throughout the rest of the Bible

That is a subjective opinion. Actually the first thing that drew me to TE was the impression of the majesty of evolution.

The anti-thesis of evolution described in Genesis:

• God commands all species to reproduce "after their kind", indicating fully functioning species capable of reproduction are the first of creation.

The theory of evolution also requires species to reproduce "after their kind"; just not to the point of exact copies. It is a non-sequitor to say this means the species must have been produced as adults. And actually, the creation story does not say that they are to reproduce after their kind, but that God made them after their kinds. i.e. God made all the many kinds of creatures.

• Man is created prior to Woman according to Genesis - a physical impossibility if both evolved (a mother would be needed)

Yes. Another good reason not to treat Gen. 2 as if it were science.

• The woman is expressly created from a part of the already existing man - hence the name "woman". A silly misnomer if evolution were to be implied.

Evolution is not implied in the story.

• The literal flood account fully explains rapid geologic transformations, and the fossil record.

No, actually it contradicts the geological record. It was geology, not evolution, which disproved a global flood, even before Darwin set foot on the Beagle. And practically all the geologists who discovered these contradictions were devout Christians.

• A literal creation account has already predicted, thousands of years before the introduction of evolution, what we see today in the fossil record (vast gaps between the species) Whereas the concept of evolution would depend on a consistent and compelling revelation of transitional forms.

There are many examples of consistent and continuous transitional forms. There are also understandable reasons why such continuities are not present in all lineages. A literal creation account has made no predicition about the fossil record at all. If you disagree with this statement, please provide a reference to the prediction.

• The current population statistics match the Biblical account of a literal flood and repopulation of the Earth after the flood.

This misrepresents actual population statistics and introduces impossible contradictions with historically recorded populations i.e. that the total population of the world, including children and infants, would be only about 100 people as the pyramids were being constructed.


The Biblical support for literal translation of Gensis:

• The creation account resulted in a literal man (Adam) to whom Christ and the apostles referred as literal.

Reference to a non-literal person cannot be distinguished from reference to a literal person.

• Genealogical references are included in the account.

Ancient geneological records often included non-historical ancestors.

• The affirmation of the dignity of man is introduced

• The concept of God's plan of salvation is introduced

• The moral responsibilities of man are introduced

• The regulations concerning marriage are introduced

• The concept of sin and its consequence are introduced

• The selection of the Jewish people as god's chosen is introduced

All of these are introduced whether or not the account is literal and are true whether or not the account is literal.

(to question the literal translation and reliability of creation brings into question the reliability of all the above accounts)

Only in your mind. And this is what we mean by the literalist, YEC mindset being dangerous. If you are prepared to turn your back on the truths of salvation because the vehicle in which they are conveyed to you is not a historical account, are you not dictating to God how God must present these truths? Who are you to tell God what literary form inspiration must take? Who are you to refuse inspiration in a form you do not approve of?



The literalness of Adam

• Adam is portrayed as the ONE man by whom sin was introduced into the world while Christ is the ONE man through whom redemption was restored. If Adam is figurative, then who is to say Christ is not figurative also?

This passage is easily interpreted without the necessity of a literal Adam, but in any case TE does not require that there be no Adam. Only that God used evolution as a means of creating Adam.

• Until the "fall" of man by Adam's sin, death was not a part of man's lifecycle and either precludes the possibility of any ancestors evolving into hominids or calls into question the whole concept of the penalty for sin.

That does not apply to the pre-Adamic ancestors of Adam. Presumably, they were incapable of sin, as lacking a soul, they were incapable of moral agency.

• A concise geneology is portrayed from Adam to Noah and from Noah onward. This would be perfectly useless if Adam and Noah were not literal people.

Not to people of biblical times. They did not use geneologies as we do.

This list could grow to monumental proportions, so I'll end with this for now. Suffice to say, the predominant motivation behind accepting Theistic Evolution appears to be in the need to reconcile accepted "secular" science with inspired Scripture. It seems apparent that three conditions are present when one feels compelled to reject the literal creation account:

#1 Fundamental doubt over the reliablility and authenticity of the written account of God's Word in the Bible

No, this is not a factor. TEs uphold the reliability and authenticity of the scriptures as fully as literalists do.


#2 Wholesale acceptance of the secular scientific community's conclusions of an as of yet inconclusive theory that is nonetheless presented as irrefutable fact.

If the theory was inconclusive, there would not be any need for reconciliation. It is soundness of the theory and the overwhelming evidence that evolution is fact that make it necessary to reconcile the truths of science and the truths of scripture. Otherwise, God is not the God of all truth.

PS. No scientific theory is considered "irrefutable". All theories are, in principle, considered provisionally true according to currently available evidence.



#3 The inner doubts of God's omipotence that compel a need to reconcile the spiritual with the worldly outlook of God.

Again not a factor at all. TEs do not question God's ability. The controversy is not over what God is capable of doing. It is over what God actually did.

 

[Vance]

You guys have covered all the bases and left me nothing to add.

 

[gluadys]

You guys have covered all the bases and left me nothing to add.

Well, you are such a good teacher, Vance.

 

[Vance]

Well, you are such a good teacher, Vance.

No, in most areas, your knowledge greatly exceeds mine, especially in the science. But we each have our distinct contribution to make to the discussion, and we all learn from each other.

 

[California Tim]

The theory of evolution also requires species to reproduce "after their kind"; just not to the point of exact copies. It is a non-sequitor to say this means the species must have been produced as adults. And actually, the creation story does not say that they are to reproduce after their kind, but that God made them after their kinds. i.e. God made all the many kinds of creatures.

I do not know if you meant to present so obvious a contradiction. To suggest ET requires species to reproduce "after their kind" is untrue. That they do reproduce is true and we have empirical evidence to support that. However, the fundamental difference between ET and Creationism is the concept of a species ability to spawn a completely new, unique and unrelated species versus the limitation of reproduction solely within the boundaries of the species.

Until the "fall" of man by Adam's sin, death was not a part of man's lifecycle and either precludes the possibility of any ancestors evolving into hominids or calls into question the whole concept of the penalty for sin.​

That does not apply to the pre-Adamic ancestors of Adam. Presumably, they were incapable of sin, as lacking a soul, they were incapable of moral agency.

So I take it you feel physical death was not part of the curse on creation since it must have already existed as an integral part of the process of evolution.

I would be interested in your interpretation of Genesis 1:30 insofar as the development of carnivores is concerned:

And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein [there is] life, [I have given] every green herb for meat: and it was so.​

Not to people of biblical times. They did not use geneologies as we do.

What might the significance of these verse be?

Genesis 5
5 So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died.
6 Seth lived one hundred and five years, and begot Enosh. 7 After he begot Enosh, Seth lived eight hundred and seven years, and had sons and daughters. 8 So all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years; and he died.
9 Enosh lived ninety years, and begot *Cainan. 10 After he begot Cainan, Enosh lived eight hundred and fifteen years, and had sons and daughters. 11 So all the days of Enosh were nine hundred and five years; and he died.
12 Cainan lived seventy years, and begot Mahalalel. 13 After he begot Mahalalel, Cainan lived eight hundred and forty years, and had sons and daughters. 14 So all the days of Cainan were nine hundred and ten years; and he died.
15 Mahalalel lived sixty-five years, and begot Jared. 16 After he begot Jared, Mahalalel lived eight hundred and thirty years, and had sons and daughters. 17 So all the days of Mahalalel were eight hundred and ninety-five years; and he died.
18 Jared lived one hundred and sixty-two years, and begot Enoch. 19 After he begot Enoch, Jared lived eight hundred years, and had sons and daughters. 20 So all the days of Jared were nine hundred and sixty-two years; and he died.
21 Enoch lived sixty-five years, and begot Methuselah. 22 After he begot Methuselah, Enoch walked with God three hundred years, and had sons and daughters. 23 So all the days of Enoch were three hundred and sixty-five years. 24 And Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him.
25 Methuselah lived one hundred and eighty-seven years, and begot Lamech. 26 After he begot Lamech, Methuselah lived seven hundred and eighty-two years, and had sons and daughters. 27 So all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred and sixty-nine years; and he died.
28 Lamech lived one hundred and eighty-two years, and had a son. 29 And he called his name Noah, saying, "This one will comfort us concerning our work and the toil of our hands, because of the ground which the Lord has cursed." 30 After he begot Noah, Lamech lived five hundred and ninety-five years, and had sons and daughters. 31 So all the days of Lamech were seven hundred and seventy-seven years; and he died.
32 And Noah was five hundred years old, and Noah begot Shem, Ham, and Japheth.​

Are you of the opinion that all these very precise lifespans were ?
a) poetic
b) fabrications
c) non-essential, flipant information
-or-
4) meaningful representations of historical figures

I just can't seem to bring myself to the point that any part of the written Word is to be dismissed as irrelevant to the overall plan of God for us - including these otherwise innane geneologies. The Bible seems so plain to me I have trouble understanding those who read into it something other than the obvious unless otherwise clearly instructed to do so.

 

[Vance]

Where does the theory of evolution state that a species will create a "new, unique and unrelated species"?

The theory of evolution does predict that over time, given enough selection pressures, a population group may change enough that it would become a different species than it's parent population group. And you know what? We have emperical evidence to support this happening. We have seen it. Even the leading Creationist groups have had to come around and admit this much.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

 

[Bushido216]

California Tim,

Sir, on behalf of all evolutionists I am sorry for your wasting of time. You see, despite how much you might want to use your interpretation of Genesis to invalidate evolutionary theory, it just doesn't work like that. Evolution is a scientific theory based on observations and experimental data. No matter how much you'd like to use your theory to falsify that data, you can't. The long and short of it is that the theory of evolution has yet to be falsified.

Regards,
Bushido216,
Thief in the Night

 

[California Tim]

California Tim,

Sir, on behalf of all evolutionists I am sorry for your wasting of time. You see, despite how much you might want to use your interpretation of Genesis to invalidate evolutionary theory, it just doesn't work like that. Evolution is a scientific theory based on observations and experimental data. No matter how much you'd like to use your theory to falsify that data, you can't. The long and short of it is that the theory of evolution has yet to be falsified.

Regards,
Bushido216,
Thief in the Night

I could say the same for creationism. And by the way, if I ever felt you were wasting my time, I'd have no one but myself to blame. Personally, I enjoy these discourses whether we agree or disagree on a given point. One of the chief benefits of this form of entertainment is it forces us to delve far deeper into the Word than we ever were motivated to before. In so doing, we test our convictions and develop a bettter understanding of our relationship to other Christians, Christ, His Word and how it applies to our daily affairs.

 

[California Tim]

Where does the theory of evolution state that a species will create a "new, unique and unrelated species"?

The theory of evolution does predict that over time, given enough selection pressures, a population group may change enough that it would become a different species than it's parent population group. And you know what? We have emperical evidence to support this happening. We have seen it. Even the leading Creationist groups have had to come around and admit this much.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Correction: Evolution asserts that species already must have spawned new and unrelated distinct species. It is accepted as the ONLY possible explanation for the existence of all distinct species on the planet, both plant and animal. Any attempt to refute this is spurned as fantasy. The evidence is thus wedged into the theory on the basis that no other explanation is possible - and then interpreted from that bias. It is not a symptom unique to Creationists.

 

[Vance]

No, scientists did not start with the concept of evolution. It was forced upon them by the evidence.

And keep in mind that species do not "spawn" new species in the sense that a member of one species would give birth to another species in a single generation. Evolution has NEVER said this would happen. Each generation in a given species does, indeed, reproduce its own kind. Again, this is what the theory of evolution has always said. The point is that within a generation of a given "kind" will be a degree of variation, as we see in any generation of any species today. Over time, this process of variation and selective pressures in favor of certain traits within that spectrum of variation will eventually lead to a change in the species over time. If a gene pool is separated into two groups and each group is subjected to different pressures, they will change in different directions. Eventually these two groups will no longer be the same species. This is evolution. And, yes, this has been observed.

 

[herev]

You guys have covered all the bases and left me nothing to add.

 

[herev]

However, the fundamental difference between ET and Creationism is the concept of a species ability to spawn a completely new, unique and unrelated species versus the limitation of reproduction solely within the boundaries of the species.

Wow, this is neither evolution, theistic evolution or anything that has ever been propsed by science

 

[herev]

Correction: Evolution asserts that species already must have spawned new and unrelated distinct species.

wow, neither is this.

everyone knows that as far as evoltuion predicts, it happens all the time that people reproduce offspring that are not after their own kind, if you interpret it to mean a literal copy--genetic errors and mutations happen, it is a matter of record. Evolution merely takes this already agreed on fact and evidence from the fossil record, and evidence from biological studies of various family, genus, etc. categories of animals and presents a theory based on this

 

[herev]

I could say the same for creationism. And by the way, if I ever felt you were wasting my time, I'd have no one but myself to blame. Personally, I enjoy these discourses whether we agree or disagree on a given point. One of the chief benefits of this form of entertainment is it forces us to delve far deeper into the Word than we ever were motivated to before. In so doing, we test our convictions and develop a bettter understanding of our relationship to other Christians, Christ, His Word and how it applies to our daily affairs.

by this, I am assuming that despite our beliefs, you accept us TE's as brothers and sisters in christ, who will spend eternity in heaving with you?

 

[PaladinValer]

CT, please do us the favor of first educating yourself on the following topics before assuming what they are first please. It would add a lot of credibility to you:

1. What is Science?
2. What is evolution?