Why are most Christians so against evolution?

[Revmitchell]

The concept that Genesis 1-11 is an accurate account of historic events contradicts what God has allowed us to see with our eyes and feel with our hands. The early Christians were very concerned about this fact and typically interpreted these eleven chapters in a manner consistent with what God had taught them through their personal experiences and observations. Indeed, at least as early as the first half of the third century Christians observed the fact that the ark as described in Genesis 6 was far too small to house all of the kinds of animals that they themselves had seen and realized that God, in Genesis 1-11, was using a very different genre of literature than He had used in the rest of the Bible.

This interprets scripture through the lens of how one feels and manmade science. This is an inappropriate way to understand scripture. Everything should be understood through the lens of scripture.

Today, because of ministries such as Answer in Genesis and Creation Ministries International, millions of Christians are abandoning their faith in the Bible and the Christ that it proclaims. In particular, their absurd teaching that the ark was large enough because the word “kind” expresses the concept of genera rather than species and that the millions of species of animals that we have today descended from a relative small number of genera is a bold faced lie. About 10.8 million years ago, the cat family began to split off into 8 Lineages consisting of 2 subfamilies, 14 genera, and 41 species. Furthermore, the biological process that that they call “descended” is macroevolution on a grand scale and macroevolution does not occur in a mater of a few thousand years but rather in a matter of many millions of years. No one likes to be lied to, and when Christians see other Christians raking in millions of dollars by ling to them, who are they to believe—Christians who are lying to them, or scientists who are telling them the truth?

This is an absurd claim and I doubt it can be supported by anything reliable.

 

[Craigbythesea]

First secular scientific community find it ridiculous that Christians believe in evolution. They ridicule them and disparage them as much as the Christians they do not.

All science is secular because it is “not overtly or specifically religious” (Merriam-Webster) and is based upon observable facts rather than upon religious texts or traditions. Is Mormonism true just because it is based upon religious texts such as the Book of Mormon? Is science untrue just because it is not supported by the Book of Mormon or other religious texts?

Second, there are many in the field of science that believes in creation and not evolution.

There are today more than 3,000,000 men and woman who have earned at least one doctorate in at least one field of science who endorse the theory of evolution and who are currently employed as scientists.

There are today fewer than 10 men and woman who have earned at least one doctorate in at least one field of science who believe in creation and not evolution and who are currently employed as scientists.

Thirdly and most important, We do not accept evolution because it was designed to disprove God and we hold that it is important to understand science through the lens of scripture and not scripture through the lens of manmade science. Doing the latter is an indictment on the theology of those who do.

The theory of evolution was not “designed to disprove God” but to explain the fact that species have been observed in both the field and in the laboratory to change over a period of time resulting in speciation. Moreover, science and religion are two very different disciplines that do not intersect. Therefore, science could not care less about the teachings of religion. However, individual evolutionists and other scientists may have religious beliefs, and among evolutionists we may find Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and Taoists, as well as persons with indigenous and ethnic beliefs. Some scientists, however, may have no religious beliefs, and a few of these scientists may be atheists—but atheism is uncommon among scientists because evidence is a major component of science, and evidence that God does not exist is seriously lacking!

 

[Revmitchell]

All science is secular because it is “not overtly or specifically religious” (Merriam-Webster) and is based upon observable facts rather than upon religious texts or traditions. Is Mormonism true just because it is based upon religious texts such as the Book of Mormon? Is science untrue just because it is not supported by the Book of Mormon or other religious texts?

The Book of Mormon is no comparable to the Bible. The word of God is not just a religious text it is the inerrant word of God. It is quite troubling for someone who calls themselves a Christian to not be able to see the difference.

There are today more than 3,000,000 men and woman who have earned at least one doctorate in at least one field of science who endorse the theory of evolution and who are currently employed as scientists.

I do hope you are not trying to stand on the logical fallacy known as the bandwagon fallacy.

There are today fewer than 10 men and woman who have earned at least one doctorate in at least one field of science who believe in creation and not evolution and who are currently employed as scientists.

I assume this is meant to prop up your earlier logical fallacy. This even if it were true, doesn't prove your position.



[quoteThe theory of evolution was not “designed to disprove God” but to explain the fact that species have been observed in both the field and in the laboratory to change over a period of time resulting in speciation. Moreover, science and religion are two very different disciplines that do not intersect. Therefore, science could not care less about the teachings of religion. However, individual evolutionists and other scientists may have religious beliefs, and among evolutionists we may find Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and Taoists, as well as persons with indigenous and ethnic beliefs. Some scientists, however, may have no religious beliefs, and a few of these scientists may be atheists—but atheism is uncommon among scientists because evidence is a major component of science, and evidence that God does not exist is seriously lacking![/QUOTE]

I find it disingenuous to refer to "science" in reference to manmade decisions made by scientists as if there is not room for error of "science" is used. "Science, unlike scripture, is not inerrant. Man's so called "observations" are completely fallible and always are. What we see as observable doesn't prove them to be correct. Science is always changing God's word is not. It is a grave error to view the Bible through the lens of manmade science.

 

[tyndale1946]

I don't know about other Christians but I don't believe in Evolution but Devolution... Ever since we were created we have not evolved as a species but devolved... descent or degeneration to a lower or worse state... And man without God, the Bible backs up what I say... Brother Glen

 

[Silverhair]

Literal 6-day creationism is even worse!

There's never an end of story in Christianity.

That's true, it's called eternity.

 

[Craigbythesea]

The Book of Mormon is no comparable to the Bible. The word of God is not just a religious text it is the inerrant word of God.

Many centuries ago, the Jewish people began to esteem some writing more highly than others. The writings that they especially esteemed they began to circulate by making copies of them and passing them around. These Jewish people, like all people, were fallible and made coping errors. These errant copies were in turn copied and the people who copied them copied the errors and added errors of their own. Beginning late in the 5th century and continuing on through the 10th century groups of Jewish scholars and scribes known at the Masoretes began producing copies of the manuscripts that included diacritical marks in an effort to standardize the pronunciation of the words and added paragraph and verse divisions.

However, the Dead Sea Scrolls dating from about 150 BC – 75 AD, reveal that during this period there was no standardized text of the ancient Hebrew documents that eventually became our Old Testament. Furthermore, the Septuagint, a Greek Translation of the Hebrew documents made during the third and second centuries BC, was made from texts very different from the later Masoretic Text. By 70 AD, multiple versions of the Hebrew Scriptures existed. Moreover, the Peshitta (a Syriac translation made in the second century AD), the Samaritan Pentateuch (a Samaritan translation of the Pentateuch made in about 120 AD., and the Latin Vulgate (a Latin translation of the Bible made primarily by Jerome in the last part of the 4th century AD) all differ significantly from the Masoretic Text but partially agree with each other. Recent academic translations of the Bible take into consideration all of these texts in an effort to provide us with a translation as close to the original Hebrew writings as possible. For example, Genesis 4:8, in the KJV, reads,

8. And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.

In the RSV, it reads,

8. Cain said to Abel his brother, “Let us go out to the field.” And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel, and killed him.

In the NRSV, it reads,

8. Cain said to his brother Abel, “Let us go out to the field.” And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel, and killed him.

The RSV and the NRSV include a textual note that reads, “Sam Gk Syr Compare Vg: MT lacks [Let us go out to the field]. That is, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Septuagint, and the Syriac Peshitta include the quote, the Latin Vulgate rewords the quote to “suum egrediamur foras” (let us go outside). The Masoretic Text, however, lacks the quote. Because the genuineness of the quote is so well supported, it is included in the RSV and the NRSV. Which of these ancient texts, and which of these translations, is the inerrant word of God?

 

[Alan Gross]

Literal Interpretation of Scripture: Some Christians interpret certain passages of the Bible, especially in Genesis, as offering a literal and historical account of the creation of the world.

"Why are most Christians so against evolution?"

The best thing I know to tell you, in answer to your O.P. question
is that Christians are so against evolution
because they say something "evolved".

 

[37818]

"Why are most Christians so against evolution?"

The best thing I know to tell you, in answer to your O.P. question
is that Christians are so against evolution
because they say something "evolved".

The main reason, it is preceived to undermine and attack the truthfulness of the word of God.

 

[Alan Gross]

The main reason, it is preceived to undermine and attack the truthfulness of the word of God.

The Fundamental Laws of Science vs. Evolution.

David Cloud, Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368,
Port Huron, MI 48061
866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org

"The following is excerpted from The Beginning of the World by Dr. Henry Morris, pp. 12-15. Morris had a Ph.D. in hydraulics and hydrology from the University of Minnesota.

"For thirteen years he was Professor of Hydraulic Engineering and Head of the Civil Engineering Department of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and University. He was a Fellow of the American Association for Advancement of Science and the author of the textbook Applied Hydraulics in Engineering.

"It is significant that present processes, which are the only kinds of processes which can be tested by the scientific method, are not in any way creative processes.

"That is, the basic laws of modern science, which describe these present processes, are laws of conservation and deterioration, not of creation and integration.

"These laws deal with the fundamental behavior of matter and energy, which actually include everything in the physical universe, and are known as the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

Thermodynamics (from two Greek words meaning ‘heat power’) is the science dealing with the conversion of heat and other forms of energy into work.

"It is now known that everything in the universe is energy in some form, and everything that ‘happens’ is basically an energy conversion process.

"Thus, the first and second laws of thermodynamics could just as well be called the first and second laws of science.

"All processes in the universe, as far as known, have to obey these two laws.

"The first law of thermodynamics is also called the law of energy conservation.

"This law states that, although energy can be changed in form, it is not now being either created or destroyed.

"Since all physical phenomena, including matter itself, are merely different forms of energy, this clearly implies that creation was an event of the past and is no longer going on.

The second law of thermodynamics, stated in nontechnical form, says that all physical systems, if left to themselves, tend to become disorganized.

"Thus, machines wear out, processes run down, organisms get old and die.

"Any temporary increase in organization requires an input of energy from outside the system itself.

"These two universal laws are basic in all disciplines of modern science.

"Verified by thousands of experiments, from the nuclear level to the astronomic level, with no known exceptions, they clearly indicate that nothing is now being created and that the original creation is ‘running down.’

"This all proves, as well as ‘science’ is able to demonstrate anything, that evolution, which requires a continuing universal process of development and integration, is simply not true at the present time.

"This is why no one has seen evolution occurring.

"There is nothing whatsoever in science to prevent us from accepting the revealed fact that God created all things, calling them into existence ex nihilo ... in a fully developed and functioning state right from the beginning.

"This fact is confirmed not only by Scripture but also by the two laws of thermodynamics.

"The second law states, in effect, that the universe must have had a beginning: otherwise, since it is now running down, it would already be dead.

"The first law, on the other hand, states in effect that the universe could not have created itself.

"It must have been created, therefore, by some adequate Cause beyond itself.

‘In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth’ is the most scientific statement that could possibly be made about the origin of the universe, based on the known laws of science."

BY OUR ALL-SCIENCE KNOWING CREATOR GOD!

 

[Deacon]

I find it disingenuous to refer to "science" in reference to manmade decisions made by scientists as if there is not room for error of "science" is used. "Science, unlike scripture, is not inerrant. Man's so called "observations" are completely fallible and always are. What we see as observable doesn't prove them to be correct. Science is always changing God's word is not. It is a grave error to view the Bible through the lens of manmade science.

Rev, you make a fundamental observation about how science works. Many see the frequent changes in scientific theory as a flaw. In fact, it is its strength.

You see, scientists work hard to find an error in the theories of other scientists. That’s how progress is made.
It’s a process of reasoning, both inductive and deductive.
After a hypothesis is developed, scientists work hard to investigate flaws in the theory.
Over time more and more problems with a theory are found. Eventually someone develops another “out of the box” hypothesis that incorporates those pesky inconsistencies. That’s how science works.

Many here don’t trust science because it’s always changing while scientists themselves are reveling in the advancement of new theories that better explain the phenomenon they investigate.

SCIENCE IS NOT INERRANT, IT IS NOT DESIGNED TO BE THAT WAY.

Rob

 

[Craigbythesea]

The Fundamental Laws of Science vs. Evolution.

David Cloud, Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368,
Port Huron, MI 48061
866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org

"The following is excerpted from The Beginning of the World by Dr. Henry Morris, pp. 12-15. Morris had a Ph.D. in hydraulics and hydrology from the University of Minnesota.

"For thirteen years he was Professor of Hydraulic Engineering and Head of the Civil Engineering Department of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and University. He was a Fellow of the American Association for Advancement of Science and the author of the textbook Applied Hydraulics in Engineering.

"It is significant that present processes, which are the only kinds of processes which can be tested by the scientific method, are not in any way creative processes.

"That is, the basic laws of modern science, which describe these present processes, are laws of conservation and deterioration, not of creation and integration.

"These laws deal with the fundamental behavior of matter and energy, which actually include everything in the physical universe, and are known as the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

Thermodynamics (from two Greek words meaning ‘heat power’) is the science dealing with the conversion of heat and other forms of energy into work.

"It is now known that everything in the universe is energy in some form, and everything that ‘happens’ is basically an energy conversion process.

"Thus, the first and second laws of thermodynamics could just as well be called the first and second laws of science.

"All processes in the universe, as far as known, have to obey these two laws.

"The first law of thermodynamics is also called the law of energy conservation.

"This law states that, although energy can be changed in form, it is not now being either created or destroyed.

"Since all physical phenomena, including matter itself, are merely different forms of energy, this clearly implies that creation was an event of the past and is no longer going on.

The second law of thermodynamics, stated in nontechnical form, says that all physical systems, if left to themselves, tend to become disorganized.

"Thus, machines wear out, processes run down, organisms get old and die.

"Any temporary increase in organization requires an input of energy from outside the system itself.

"These two universal laws are basic in all disciplines of modern science.

"Verified by thousands of experiments, from the nuclear level to the astronomic level, with no known exceptions, they clearly indicate that nothing is now being created and that the original creation is ‘running down.’

"This all proves, as well as ‘science’ is able to demonstrate anything, that evolution, which requires a continuing universal process of development and integration, is simply not true at the present time.

"This is why no one has seen evolution occurring.

"There is nothing whatsoever in science to prevent us from accepting the revealed fact that God created all things, calling them into existence ex nihilo ... in a fully developed and functioning state right from the beginning.

"This fact is confirmed not only by Scripture but also by the two laws of thermodynamics.

"The second law states, in effect, that the universe must have had a beginning: otherwise, since it is now running down, it would already be dead.

"The first law, on the other hand, states in effect that the universe could not have created itself.

"It must have been created, therefore, by some adequate Cause beyond itself.

‘In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth’ is the most scientific statement that could possibly be made about the origin of the universe, based on the known laws of science."

BY OUR ALL-SCIENCE KNOWING CREATOR GOD!

A few objective and relative facts about the writings of Henry Morris need to be posted here.

Henry Morris never earned as much as an A.A. degree in any of the natural sciences, and he never took any college courses in evolutionary biology or the biology of natural populations. Moreover, he never took any college courses in the study of the Bible. His Ph.D. from the University of Michigan was in hydraulic engineering and was irrelevant to his teachings as a young earth creationist. Nonetheless, everywhere he went he flaunted his Ph.D. in order to deceive the public into believing that he was eminently qualified to teach that the earth was only about 6,000 years old.

His best-known work is The Genesis Flood that he coauthored with John C. Whitcomb, who also lacked any education in any of the natural sciences except for one year of study in historical geology and paleontology. This book presents foolishness as though it is genuine science and not so much one professor of geology teaching at an accredited university has ever endorsed the book or its thesis. Indeed, the literalness of Genesis 6-8, in which the flood is depicted, has been seriously questioned by careful readers of the Bible going all the way back to the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers, and has not been supported by any professors of Hebrew teaching at an accredited university since before 1900.

 

[Revmitchell]

Many centuries ago, the Jewish people began to esteem some writing more highly than others. The writings that they especially esteemed they began to circulate by making copies of them and passing them around. These Jewish people, like all people, were fallible and made coping errors. These errant copies were in turn copied and the people who copied them copied the errors and added errors of their own. Beginning late in the 5th century and continuing on through the 10th century groups of Jewish scholars and scribes known at the Masoretes began producing copies of the manuscripts that included diacritical marks in an effort to standardize the pronunciation of the words and added paragraph and verse divisions.

However, the Dead Sea Scrolls dating from about 150 BC – 75 AD, reveal that during this period there was no standardized text of the ancient Hebrew documents that eventually became our Old Testament. Furthermore, the Septuagint, a Greek Translation of the Hebrew documents made during the third and second centuries BC, was made from texts very different from the later Masoretic Text. By 70 AD, multiple versions of the Hebrew Scriptures existed. Moreover, the Peshitta (a Syriac translation made in the second century AD), the Samaritan Pentateuch (a Samaritan translation of the Pentateuch made in about 120 AD., and the Latin Vulgate (a Latin translation of the Bible made primarily by Jerome in the last part of the 4th century AD) all differ significantly from the Masoretic Text but partially agree with each other. Recent academic translations of the Bible take into consideration all of these texts in an effort to provide us with a translation as close to the original Hebrew writings as possible. For example, Genesis 4:8, in the KJV, reads,

8. And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.

In the RSV, it reads,

8. Cain said to Abel his brother, “Let us go out to the field.” And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel, and killed him.

In the NRSV, it reads,

8. Cain said to his brother Abel, “Let us go out to the field.” And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel, and killed him.

The RSV and the NRSV include a textual note that reads, “Sam Gk Syr Compare Vg: MT lacks [Let us go out to the field]. That is, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Septuagint, and the Syriac Peshitta include the quote, the Latin Vulgate rewords the quote to “suum egrediamur foras” (let us go outside). The Masoretic Text, however, lacks the quote. Because the genuineness of the quote is so well supported, it is included in the RSV and the NRSV. Which of these ancient texts, and which of these translations, is the inerrant word of God?

When you learn what inerrant actually means with regard to scripture let me know then we can talk. Until then it still holds true that it is absurd to compare the word of God to other religious books. Apples and oranges. Not sure why that needs explaining.

 

[Alan Gross]

This book presents foolishness as though it is genuine science

Of which we see no example, of course.

and not so much one professor of geology teaching at an accredited university has ever endorsed the book or its thesis.

"not so much one"

Can you believe that?

Remarkable.

And guess what?

"Life comes from a rock."

Really, man.

And then the rocks talk to each other.

It's really cool, it's really neat.

Indeed, the literalness of Genesis 6-8, in which the flood is depicted, has been seriously questioned by careful readers of the Bible

Are you serious?

"seriously questioned by careful readers of the Bible".

Really?

"by careful readers of the Bible"

You're getting serious.

Where did you pick up this habit of making "Wild, Rash, Guesswork", btw?

Evolution?

going all the way back to the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers,

And, so what?, so what?, so big deal what?

Anybody can deny the Bible.

Look at you.

and has not been supported by any professors of Hebrew teaching at an accredited university since before 1900.

Baloney flag. What do you know?

His Ph.D. from the University of Michigan was in hydraulic engineering and was irrelevant to his teachings as a young earth creationist.

I thought engineering was science.

There is more science in the word "hydraulic" than there is in the Entire Field and Realm of Thought regarding "Evolution".

"The Theory" of "Evolution" doesn't have enough science in it
for it the be designated, or qualified, to be a "Theory".

It is all "Wild, Rash, Guesswork",
at its VERY BEST and HIGHEST ACHEIVEMENT.

Nonetheless, everywhere he went he flaunted his Ph.D. in order to deceive the public into believing that he was eminently qualified to teach that the earth was only about 6,000 years old.

Anybody can read the Bible, to see the earth is only about 6,000 years old.

You can try to find an example of this gratuitous disparaging assertion,
"everywhere he went he flaunted his Ph.D. in order to deceive the public into believing that he was eminently qualified to teach that the earth was only about 6,000 years old", but I wouldn't count on you being successful in that endeavor and I sure don't see that in these words:

"The following is excerpted from The Beginning of the World by Dr. Henry Morris, pp. 12-15. Morris had a Ph.D. in hydraulics and hydrology from the University of Minnesota.

"For thirteen years he was Professor of Hydraulic Engineering and Head of the Civil Engineering Department of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and University. He was a Fellow of the American Association for Advancement of Science and the author of the textbook Applied Hydraulics in Engineering."

A few objective and relative facts about the writings of Henry Morris need to be posted here.

And some of the best places to find some of the most important objective and relative facts ever written, about the writings of Henry Morris, are posted right here:

Why are most Christians so against evolution?

 

[Alan Gross]

BY OUR ALL-SCIENCE KNOWING CREATOR GOD!

Omniscient, of course, means "All-Science-Knowing",
having Infinite Awareness, Understanding, and Insight.

God knows everything about anything that has to do with science,
because HE CREATED SCIENCE

and there isn't possibilty of there being any 'evidence' for any other idea
about the Creation of all things, because there can't be, because it wasn't,
And There Isn't Any.

And so, speaking of science, there is:

No Scientifically Proven Evidence for Evolution.

The one and only thing it has is assumption.

Try giving it up as an assumption and see what happens.

(unless you look in a terrible thing to waste book of man).

Look around for it.

What do you find?

Entropy?

That's universally proven Anywhere You Look.

And what's the problem with that?

Entropy is the Exact Opposite, scientifically, of "Evolution".

the earth was only about 6,000 years old.

In The Eyes of God, He is an exceptionally keen Observer of Reality,
and since He was an Eyewitness to Creation, His Testimony of it
carries the day, given in the most dependable and indisputable and
Eternal Statement of Scientific and Historical Fact,

"In the beginning, God created the Heaven and the Earth".

People need to get used to it.

That is the only way it has ever been, or ever will be.

 

[Craigbythesea]

When you learn what inerrant actually means with regard to scripture let me know then we can talk. Until then it still holds true that it is absurd to compare the word of God to other religious books. Apples and oranges. Not sure why that needs explaining.

Okay. Thanks for wising me up. Errors in the Bible are not errors because the Bible is inerrant.

 

[Alan Gross]

Many centuries ago, the Jewish people began to esteem some writing more highly than others. The writings that they especially esteemed they began to circulate by making copies of them and passing them around. These Jewish people, like all people, were fallible and made coping errors. These errant copies were in turn copied and the people who copied them copied the errors and added errors of their own.

You can't get a more complete explanation and confession
of the ignorance someone has of The Bible than this.

Where and when has anyone ever made a more ignorant statement,
as to the origin and existence of The Bible?????, then:

"Many centuries ago, the Jewish people
began to esteem some writing more highly than others."

(My Lord!, Jesus God Almighty, What "a Godless thing" for them to do).

Then, having filled the pot with garbage, the ignorance
begins evolving from there, and it goes on talking, but why?

All of the remaining comments result in just more garbage.

No one likes to be lied to

So, WHY ARE YOU TALKING?

The concept that Genesis 1-11 is an accurate account of historic events contradicts what God has allowed us to see with our eyes and feel with our hands.

What in Heaven's name have you seen and felt that contradicts God?

You really make some of the most bizarre and ridiculous statements, ever.

Almighty God's Act of Creation is impeached by what you think?

And that's it? That's all there is to it?

By what you think you see and feel, huh?

So, I have to ask...

Ah, have I said anything today
that might cause you to want to harm yourself, or others?

Indeed, at least as early as the first half of the third century Christians observed ...

"at least as early as the first half of the third century"

WHEN? "AT LEAST AS EARLY", HUH?

When did you realize that date? and this "knowledge?

That's WHEN, "Christians observed" something, right?

You just know they did, don't you?

And what did those Christians observe???

A "FACT", NO LESS!!

WHAT ABOUT THEM APPLES?!!!

the fact that the ark as described in Genesis 6 was far too small to house all of the kinds of animals that they themselves had seen...

They Got This! They had to have been right ON POINT,
with this amazingly absurd and fanciful "observation"!!!,
because "Craigbythesea" put it down there as a "fact".

That had to be one "brilliant deduction" they made.

But then, What did they do? What did they do?

Of course, they did WHAT ANYONE WOULD DO!!

They "realized that God, in Genesis 1-11,
was using a very different genre of literature
than He had used in the rest of the Bible."

I kid you not. It's right here, in black and white!!!

...and realized that God, in Genesis 1-11,
was using a very different genre of literature
than He had used in the rest of the Bible.

And do you want to know what that "very different genre of literature"
that God used, in Genesis 1-11, is called by, using its technical name?

Unbelief.

There it is, big boy!

That really is amazing, isn't it?

Like, Hocus Pocus!

Awesome, if you think about it.

Where someone reads the Bible there and says, "I don't believe it".

How unique!!

And it's called the "I Don't Believe Literary Genre".

Kind of has a ring to it.

If they would just stick to their own religious beliefs,
of "Life Comes from Death", for example,
and proliferate all their goofy ideas
that they "see with their eyes
and feel with their hands"
about everything around us always metamorphosing everywhere,
changing their form, and their very nature, etc., etc.,
to transform themselves into more highly evolved Wizards of Smart
and say one quick, "I do not believe that", we'd appreciate it.

Errors in the Bible are not errors because the Bible is inerrant.

Coming from someone who doesn't begin to have a clue what a Bible is,
you've sure got yourself into an overwhelming pickle with this 8-letter word.

Move on.

(Btw, Craigbythesea, I need to ask you one more little thing.

Do you think you came from a monkey?)

 

[MrW]

Why is it Crucial to recognize this? Evolution is contrary to scripture. End of story

It is not crucial to recognize evolution.

You’re still for Heaven or hell, no matter how you arrived here. Best to get that settled before the long dirt nap.