Faith

Are Some Evangelicals Beginning to Question the Existence of Adam and Eve?

Some Christian and Evangelical Scientists Embrace Evolution, Reject Creationism

Most Christians share one, solid similarity: They embrace Jesus Christ as God’s son and as a central figure of the faith. Beyond that, beliefs and practices can get a little murky when compared between various denominations. One of the most contentious issues of debate among adherents is whether the Holy Bible, the central text of the faith, should be viewed through a literal or a figurative lens. This, of course, has implications when it comes to discussing humanity’s origins.

This morning, NPR’s Barbara Bradley Hagerty delved into this contentious debate, writing about whether Adam and Eve historically existed or whether they are simply literary figures. In framing the discussion, Hagerty boils it down to a simplistic, two-pronged question: “Did they exist, and did all of humanity descend from that single pair?” She writes:

According to the Bible (Genesis 2:7), this is how humanity began: “The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” God then called the man Adam, and later created Eve from Adam’s rib.

Some Christian and Evangelical Scientists Embrace Evolution, Reject CreationismIf one embraces this version of the creation story, he or she believes that God very literally created Adam, then Eve and that every man, woman and child in existence can essentially be traced back to these first human beings.

It is this notion that evolutionists generally scoff at, as they embrace very different constructs regarding how mankind came about. But, as Hagerty writes, it seems there are now some conservative, Christian scholars who are also coming forward to say that they can no longer publicly support the Genesis account of creation.

Take, for instance, Dennis Venema, a biologist at Trinity Western University. When asked how realistic the Genesis version of creation is, he explains, “That would be against all the genomic evidence that we’ve assembled over the last 20 years, so not likely at all.” While some may dismiss Venema as a liberal, scientific mind (possibly even an atheist of sorts), he’s actually a Christian and a senior fellow at BioLogos Foundation. Below, watch Venema discuss why he believes evangelicals can, indeed, accept evolutionary theory:

The above video constitutes only a portion of the discussion. Additional segments are available here.

Last month, The Blaze highlighted some harsh words that BioLogos founder and National Institutes of Health (NIH) director Francis Collins had for atheists. The goal of the Christian BioLogos Foundation is to reconcile science and faith. Collins, also an evangelical Christian, breaks with conservative ranks, as he — like Venema — endorses the theory of evolution and rejections literal interpretation of Genesis.

When it comes to tracing mankind’s lineage, Venema says there’s absolutely no way all of humanity traces back to Adam and Eve. To begin, he claims the human genome shows that mankind emerged from other primates and that we did so as “a large population.” Additionally, he explains that the Genesis time frame of only a few thousand years isn’t long enough to explain these evolutionary developments. Hagerty writes:

To get down to just two ancestors, Venema says, “You would have to postulate that there’s been this absolutely astronomical mutation rate that has produced all these new variants in an incredibly short period of time. Those types of mutation rates are just not possible. It would mutate us out of existence.”

Venema isn’t alone, of course. Others, like John Schneider, who taught theology at Calvin College in Michigan, recently said that it’s time for Christians to abandon the idea of a literal Adam and Eve. He says:

“Evolution makes it pretty clear that in nature, and in the moral experience of human beings, there never was any such paradise to be lost. So Christians, I think, have a challenge, have a job on their hands to reformulate some of their tradition about human beginnings.”

Clearly, these ideas are not going to be welcomed by more conservative Christians who do, indeed, see literalism in the Bible’s descriptions, particularly when it comes to the story of creation. Hagerty speaks with a number of individuals who object openly to evolutionary theory:

“From my viewpoint, a historical Adam and Eve is absolutely central to the truth claims of the Christian faith,” says Fazale Rana, vice president of Reasons To Believe, an evangelical think tank that questions evolution… [...]

Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, says that rebellious choice infected all of humankind. [...]

Mohler says the Adam and Eve story is not just about a fall from paradise: It goes to the heart of Christianity. He notes that the Apostle Paul (in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15) argued that the whole point of Jesus‘ crucifixion and resurrection was to undo Adam’s original sin.

Below, watch a talk by Rana during which he seeks to debunk evolution, while supporting creationist theories:

Now, evangelicals who originally saw themselves as being opposed to evolutionists who rail against creationist theory are now also forced to face individuals from within their own ranks. The debate has become so intense that some scientists have allegedly been forced out of Christian schools for their less-than-literal views on mankind’s origins.

Back in 2006, National Geographic provided some interesting information on the American public’s take on evolution. The U.S., when compared to other Western nations, is essentially much less inclined to accept evolution as fact:

In the U.S., only 14 percent of adults thought that evolution was “definitely true,” while about a third firmly rejected the idea.

More recent (2010) Gallup data shows 40 percent of the nation embracing the notion that God created man in his current form, with only 16 percent claiming that God played no part in the process of creation. While the scientific and Christian communities continue to grapple with internal disagreement, it seems the creationists are thus far winning the PR war.

Take our poll and tell us how you think mankind came about (Note: We will have an update with results later today, as they have been removed for the time being to verify their accuracy):


Comments (835)

1 2 3 ... 15
  • CommonSenseis Missing
    Posted on August 9, 2011 at 3:29pm

    To sum up the majority of these postings: I believe what I believe, please don’t confuse me with facts.

     
    • Tradition Dies Here
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 3:47pm

      Exactly. The voluntary ignorance and stupidity here is suffocating.

      Report Post » Tradition Dies Here  
    • indy1
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 3:50pm

      Yes the Obama worshippers will never admit he is a failure.

      Report Post »  
    • joe1234
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 3:53pm

      yeah just like you believe in evolution…facts don’t matter to you….

      Report Post » joe1234  
    • Average_JoeMN
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 4:00pm

      When you can show me all the “millions” of nature’s attempts at evolving a better human – walking down the street – I’ll give your evolution a thought. But since none of those so-called evolving attempts exist – something that would be necessary if evolution were true – I’m going to go with the word of the God of the Universe over some random blow hard anonymously taking potshots at people he disagrees with.

      Report Post »  
    • ishka4me
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 4:02pm

      for all i know is that pigs are pigs, dogs are dogs and people are people. sizes and colors and other traits can be bred; for example a toy poodle and a great dane, still both are dogs. I have never seen or read about any pigs developing wings to fly, or dogs gills to breath under water. of all the insects and plants wouldn’t we have some evidence of something changing into something else? selective breeding is far different from evolution. I get how the beaks of sparrows get longer on gallapgos, but they are still sparrows. The beak length of sparrows was taught to me as proof of evolution. even at a young age i knew this wasn’t evolution, but traits already in the parameter of the birds genes . I would love to see or read about real evolution that changes a lizard to a bird.

      Report Post »  
    • SimpleTruths
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 4:19pm

      So you actually think that God created the entire vast Universe, the Milky Way, this solar system, and finally this ball of dirt we stand on, all for Man? How impossibly arrogance of all you so called Christians.

      SimpleTruths  
    • loriann12
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 4:27pm

      If man evolved from apes, why do we still have apes? Evolution is supposed to replace the previous model, because the newer smarter one would breed and the other wouldn’t. And where are all the missing links that prove the statement From goo to the zoo via you?

      Report Post »  
    • loriann12
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 4:27pm

      Oops, need for edit button, that’s from goo to you via the zoo.

      Report Post »  
    • paulusmaximus
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 4:28pm

      The right to express views opposing yours are still a right we have. The put downs you have expressed are juvenile play ground attempt to suppress others and really self-degrading.

      Report Post » paulusmaximus  
    • Tradition Dies Here
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 4:39pm

      Lorianne….. I just don’t even know where to start. Humans ARE primates. We share a common ancestor with other primates. That common ancestor also belonged to the order of primates. An entire genus doesn’t become extinct when an isolated population undergoes a mutation/genetic drift.

      Report Post » Tradition Dies Here  
    • teddrunk
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 4:41pm

      If you mean the laughable theory of the Big Bang, and man evolving from a rock. Yes, those “facts” are pretty funny.

      Report Post »  
    • Tradition Dies Here
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 4:47pm

      Hardy har, har, har. As compared to what? The highly laughable and far more absurd claim that women was supernaturally taken from the rib of man by a fairy in the sky?

      Report Post » Tradition Dies Here  
    • KMA too
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 4:55pm

      @SimpleTruths
      And, how typically arrogant it is of the humanist crowd to automatically think of Mankind first when talking about anything having to do with God. Of course, I’ve yet to see anyone around here who claims to be a Christian make the claim that any/all of creation was for our benefit.

      Report Post »  
    • bikerr
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 4:56pm

      @CommonSenseis Missing—-To what facts are you referring?
      Fact one for me is that I am here.
      Fact two is there is a God.
      Fact three you are not him.
      Fact four All who believe in God have no problem humbling themselves before Him and acknowledging that He is in control.

      Report Post »  
    • Drives Like Jehu
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 4:57pm

      “To sum up the majority of these postings: I believe what I believe, please don’t confuse me with facts.”

      Ummh…irony of ironies – are you speaking about your own post???

      Report Post » Drives Like Jehu  
    • Sheepdog911
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 5:55pm

      So, since you insist that (non-existant, zero proof thereof) )mutations have to be built into the timeline, God‘s stated timeline can’t exist. There is no proof that the genome goes to apes, it’s all interpolated through mutations (non-existant, zero proof thereof) for their “theory” to persist. For the record, there has never, ever been any scientic proof of anything that refutes the literal interpretation of the Word of God.

      Report Post » Sheepdog911  
    • Right_on_the_Left_Coast
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 6:12pm

      This whole debate has already been resolved. The reality is that science actually agrees with the Bible on this point. Genetic research and testing has been able to isolate the paternal and maternal lineages of all human beings back to one male and one female ancestor. These have come to be known as Chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve.

      Scientific consensus doesn’t place these two ancestors together within the same generation. But that is a theory not based on conclusive evidence. The evidence only proves that there were two central ancestors, the rest is speculation. Going further back in our ancestry, beyond Adam and Eve, we can debate about the merits of evolution versus creation. But about the humanity’s descent from two people, there is no disagreement between the Bible and science on this.

      Report Post » Right_on_the_Left_Coast  
    • HankScram
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 6:21pm

      Mormon Prophet Brigham Young taught in his sermons that Adam became God. It’s known as the Adam/God doctrine in the mormon church.

      “When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken—He is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later.” Young (1852, p. 50) (statement given in the General Conference of the LDS Church on 9 April 1852).

      So, Mormons clearly will reject the thesis of this article. Adam is God.

      Report Post »  
    • HankScram
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 6:27pm

      Another President of the mormon church, Prophet Woodruff said the same thing – but after saying Adam was God, he said there was “no use . . . to discuss it with . . . any one else.” This comes from Brigham Young Jr. journal.

      In a private Council meeting held on April 4, 1897, President Woodruff said “Adam is our father and God and no use to discuss it with [the] Josephites or any one else.” Brigham Young, Jr. Journal, April 4, 1897-February 2, 1899, Vol 30:107; CHO/Ms/f/326, Dec 16th 1897.

      So, yes, the mormon church taught that Adam was God, but they also decided it was no use to discuss it with anyone else. So, you can expect to hear mormons deny this teaching or say “its not church doctrine.” Really? Just the teachings of the mormon church prophets, eh?

      Report Post »  
    • HawaiiDonald
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 6:32pm

      with all the lies and mis-interpretations of the Bible, many intentional, it is little wonder so many can’t believe it, but of course most are actually ignorant of what they claim they don‘t believe and can’t articulate what evidence they site or reasons they have for what they think they do believe. So for myself, I’ld change your summation to state it in my own words. “I know what I believe, don’t try to confuse me with your ignorance of what you think I believe.”
      Now, please feel free to believe what you want. If I’m right, I’ll see you on the other side. If I’m wrong, it doesn’t matter. Have a nice life and I wish you all the best.

      Report Post »  
    • Cesium
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 6:51pm

      yes!! JOE1234 is back to convince everyone that the fairy tales in the bible are true and evolution is a racist ploy! Yep, just forget the fact that the evolutionary puzzle pieces led to the illumination that all our ancestors no matter your race are africans. Yes joe we are all descended from black people and we realized this truth from? answer is? not the bible!!! If christians weren‘t racists they’d stop painting jesus as a white guy… If anything he looked like Bin Laden

      Report Post »  
    • HawaiiDonald
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 6:56pm

      Oh and one other thing, as best you can read and search for as original of text as you can. Avoid the “created for dummies” versions of scripture as the more you translate the farther you get from the original meaning because of peoples interpretation of what they choose it meant. Compare writings such as King James vs Torah vs Dead Sea Scrolls etc. You’ll be surprised how easy it is to understand when you take the effort to find out what it really said.

      Report Post »  
    • poverty.sucks
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 6:58pm

      Questioning God’s existence is one of the oldest stories in the bible. Satan questioned Eve in the garden, if she really thought to disobey God means death.

      We’re 1 generation away from closing the light on our nation. 50 percent of children born today are without a mom and a dad, complete set of parents, and therefore minus a set of grandparents. Knowledge and wisdom isn’t effectively making the transition from generation to generation. More and more children are disrespecting their parent(s) authoritive people in their lives. When your children fail to respect and listen to you, that’s an overwhelming indicator they will not listen to the word of God.

      Is that your Family?

      http://www.PeaceWithGod.net

      Report Post » poverty.sucks  
    • Thomas
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 7:14pm

      Evolution does not disprove the bible or God but only someones theological interpretation. On the idea of whether there is a God or not, good science yet remains neutral. Since God is tracing genes in the bible, doesn’t that mean that God new about evolution before science? Does Genesis 30:39 where Jacob is dealing with the flocks of sheep reveals that God had taught him something about genes and how they are passed from generation to generation?

      The things spoken about in Genesis 1 that God did in an instant mentally/Spiritually is still unraveling in the progress of time and Genesis 2:1-3 from the point of view of the physical has not yet happened. Now Adam was the start of a new segment of time called the Adamic age (of which the bible deals with) within a much older segment of time that could be millions or billions of years old. Adam was something new introduced to this world. Time is actually insignificant to the God. Genesis 6 speaks about Adam’s offspring (called the Sons of God) being mixed with the humanoid evolved creatures, that were here before Adam, through their daughters. Noah was mixture and so are we. Adam’s offspring introduced language and objectivity to the purely subjective and emotional world of the animal. Adam is the missing link that science has yet to find because of his origin as an angelic genes that were placed in a physical body his bones dissolved after death and so did his descendants that were giant. Because the Giant were not able to b

      Report Post » Thomas  
    • dnpdover
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 7:37pm

      The lie of evolution presented with a twist. Simple fact. Science has proved evolution never happened.

      Report Post »  
    • holy ghostbuster
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 7:49pm

      @Loriann12 – Instead of asking why we still have apes, you should be asking why don’t we have the hypothetical ape-like ancestor, the real missing link? Evolutionist do not think we came from apes, but rather shared a common ancestor.

      Report Post » holy ghostbuster  
    • stringfellow hawk
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 8:07pm

      to deny the authenticity and realtiy of Scripture invites the individual into some very murky waters. if it is said that only certain parts are a fable to teach a lesson, what is the method used to determine the fable? What of the central theme of Christianity -the death, burial, resurrection, eventual return ofChrist and the necessary response of a sinful humanity. Are those fair game as well? If we cut and paste, all we are left with is a ragged tapastry of what is convenient for us to believe. God never said anything about conveniance, but a whole lot about how we must live by faith.

      Report Post »  
    • JJ Coolay
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 8:14pm

      Any Christian that is beginning to veer off course from what the bible says is conforming to the ways of the world. Careful folks, the bible says there will be a falling away.

      Report Post » JJ Coolay  
    • JJ Coolay
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 8:16pm

      Simpletruths… how in the world does a human deferring to the deity of God equate to human arrogance? That doesn’t make one shred of sense. Use your noggin.

      Report Post » JJ Coolay  
    • thinkinghuman
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 8:38pm

      I don’t know, I’m a thinker, and I think that if evolution DID occur, it would STILL be occurring, and we would see some of that “IN-BETWEEN” stuff going on, but alas, we don’t.

      That theory is soooo dumb! Evolution, what a crock.

      Report Post » thinkinghuman  
    • -Publius
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 9:07pm

      I love how you call these facts and even if they were why does what other people believe bother you so much?Not believing in something is not enough for you, you feel as though you need to attack those who do. The only thing Christians are “guilty” of is living their lives by a set of morals and values, but somehow that opens them up for attack by the people missing those very values. To the superior intelegent moron who posted below you, if the ignorance you speak of suffocates you, why dont you go blow your hot air elsewhere instead of a place where the majority of people are who you call ignorant .

      Report Post »  
    • Consentiondum
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 9:18pm

      Personally I am still trying to figure out which creation story in Genesis is the correct one. Is it the one where GOD creates one man first and then plants and animals, and after that one woman from the man’s rib? (Gen 2:4-25)…. Or is it the one where GOD created all plants and animals and then men and women at the same time? (Gen 1:1- Gen 2:3)

      Report Post »  
    • Darren
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 9:28pm

      Hankscram;

      Drop it, dude.

      You said the Mormon church taught Adam was God and as a suppporting argument you showed that the mormon church did not dicsuss this idea wit hthe Mormon members. I suppose you’re going to say that Hankscram told everyone that he likes the Mormon church and suppport that with a journal entry that says, “let’s not tell this to anyone”.

      Even when science goes against Evangelicals you still bash the Mormons. This is known as trolling. as far as imforming the masses, you’re usless. As far as honesty, you’re a liar through and through. It‘s been explained to you many times that Brigham Young’s journals only reflect his thoughts on specific subjects. That they hold no bearing on the Mormon church in terms of doctrine. NONE. Yet you continue to prop them up as a standard for Mormon doctrine.

      See my new which I’ll work on now if you want to know what Mormonism teaches on evolution and Adam and Eve.

      Report Post » Darren  
    • HankScram
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 9:34pm

      @Darren,

      I agree with you that mormon prophets no longer teach that Adam was God. I’m not sure when they started changing it – I think around 1970. All I said was that mormon Prophet Brigham Young taught that Adam was God. I understand that later mormon prophets said that Brigham Young was only teaching as a man, not as a Prophet when he taught that doctrine. I think we agree this time around.

      Report Post »  
    • HankScram
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 9:39pm

      @Darren,

      It doesn’t matter a lot what the current mormon church doctrine is on Adam and Eve – though I’m curious. The problem is the next mormon prophet can come along and change it by saying the last mormon prophet was wrong. That’s why its so hard to discuss mormon doctrine or mormon text – it always changes, particularly when new information comes along, like DNA, archeology, the Abraham funeral pyre, etc.

      I did learn something new the other day from a mormon historian – a white Toad was guarding the box with the Golden Plates at one time. Never heard that before.

      Report Post »  
    • Big Book Harry
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 9:49pm

      Here’s one for ya God created everything in time and space through Jesus that is why physics(science) is perfect and absolute proof in intelegent design (GOD) not spontanious evolution millions of years ago, Maybe the Urantia book is correct concerning Adam and Eve. Fact is God Is and I am not him, as a mortal living in time and space I will never be able to understand— Romans 10:9

      Report Post »  
    • LibertarianForLife
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 9:57pm

      Couldn’t have said it better my friend. The fact that 40% are completely denying a “my as well be” fact… is insane and makes me embarrassed to admit i read the blaze.

      Report Post »  
    • Darren
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 9:58pm

      Hank;

      “I understand that later mormon prophets said that Brigham Young was only teaching as a man, not as a Prophet when he taught that doctrine.’

      Now you’re lying to get out of your lie. After citing from journal entries Brigham Young and Woodrow Woodruff you said, “So, yes, the mormon church taught that Adam was God”. The mormon Church NEVER taught that Adam was God. The official LDS doctrine regarding the creation is found in the Old Testament, New testament, Book of mormon, and Pearl of Great Price. nowhere will you find anything close that says Adam was God. Adam and Eve were created by God as mortal men. that’s all there is to it.

      Also, to make the Mormon connection you said, “So, you can expect to hear mormons deny this teaching or say “its not church doctrine.” Really? Just the teachings of the mormon church prophets, eh?” Brigham Young himself expressed doubt concerning this idea and you’ve probably pondered on it far more than he did. You’ve certainly brought it up more than he has. Of the thousand or so entries regarding his discourses, you’ll find this idea xpressed n only 6 and in three of them he expressed doubt and even found it useless to teach due to any lack of merit. Yes, Young was a prophet but also a mortal man. Nobody knows all the things of God and therefore all, including prophets must study and ponder on scripture.

      Report Post » Darren  
    • Ruler4You
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 10:04pm

      Did Mohamed really ride a horse into the heavens?

      Report Post » Ruler4You  
    • Darren
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 10:07pm

      Hank;

      “The problem is the next mormon prophet can come along and change it by saying the last mormon prophet was wrong. That’s why its so hard to discuss mormon doctrine or mormon text – it always changes, particularly when new information comes along, like DNA, archeology, the Abraham funeral pyre, etc. ”

      Again, you declare something where your supporting statement cotradicts what you’ve declared. There has been no DNA, archeology, or anything from any LDS prophet which goes contrary to previous statements by them . On science, the LDS Church has always been neutral. It does not care what science says. It‘s nice ot have on your side but it matters not if you don’t.

      I’ve told you what it takes to become Mormoni doctrine. While any prophet has the authority to clarify Mormon doctrine, to change it for the LDS Church takes a much more elaborate process. Science is what changes and should change due to the nature of science. That being the nature of science it amazes me that someone like you would use science as a battering ram against the LDS Church and then complain how confusing it is that Mormon doctrine changes. Science changes, not Mormon doctrine. Mormon doctrine is one of the most constant things in the world. Science always changes. It’s crazy you place so much faith in science and then complain that the LDS does exactly what science does.

      Report Post » Darren  
    • Darren
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 10:12pm

      Hank;

      “I did learn something new the other day from a mormon historian – a white Toad was guarding the box with the Golden Plates at one time. Never heard that before.’

      And you wonder if Joseph Smith was mentally ill. Who cares what this “mormon historian” said. It’s stupid. You’ll go to all sorts of lengths to find out about the mormons except teir own doctrine and history. Then you denounce Mornos as not hating science (and we’ll add history as well).

      Like I said, these are signs of trolling; not intelligent discussion.

      Report Post » Darren  
    • HankScram
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 10:17pm

      @Darren,

      I don’t make a distinction between the mormon church teaching something and the mormon prophets teaching something. As Prophet Benson said, “when the Prophet speaks, the thinkings been done.” I consider when Joseph Smith or Brigham Young are telling the followers about the mormon faith that they are talking about the mormon faith.

      But, I’m happy to go along with your distinction – that its not the mormon church saying it unless it comes from some official mormon doctrine instead of just the sermons of the Prophets.

      That said, can you direct me to official mormon doctrine that says the mormon church does not consider Adam to be God, as taught by Brigham Young?

      Report Post »  
    • Tretka
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 10:21pm

      Has Science proved anything?

      Report Post » Tretka  
    • Pujols
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 10:21pm

      I was made from GOD. Some of you might have come from Monkeys.

      You voted for Obama and He’s a Damn fool.

      Report Post »  
    • Tretka
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 10:22pm

      What are you views? Please explain how Science has explained all this to you.

      Report Post » Tretka  
    • HankScram
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 10:23pm

      @Darren,

      Are you saying you don’t believe that mormon church history shows that Joseph Smith said a white Toad was guarding the golden plates at one time – and the toad morphed into a man? If you found out that was in mormon history, it would not matter to you would it? You’d be okay with that, right?

      Report Post »  
    • Tretka
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 10:23pm

      What are your facts on the topic? Just curious?

      Report Post » Tretka  
    • jzs
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 10:32pm

      I’ll tell you about evolution. First, it was unheard of. Then came Darwin. Then came appalled disbelief and derision and accusations the the idea was heretical. Then there were laws preventing evolution from being taught in schools. Then there were no laws preventing evolution from being taught in the schools. Then came the discovery of DNA and after that the ability to examine the DNA of different species. Then the realization that all life on Earth is deeply related and has a common heritage. Then the realization among most people that evolution is true. Some may try to reverse that trend but that’s not happening.

      That’s the way science evolves. First the Earth was the center of the universe and everything revolved around it. Then the Copernican idea that the Earth was not the center of the universe, an idea also viewed as heretical. And you know the rest.

      I imagine most educated religious people, and I view myself in some ways as one of those, believe in evolution. In evolutionary terms, those who view the literal Genesis view of the creation of life on Earth are a “dying breed.” Sorry, but you’re going the way of all the billions of extinct species on Earth.

      Report Post » jzs  
    • jb.kibs
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 10:36pm

      theories aren’t facts. that is the fundamental problem with our society.

      Report Post »  
    • jb.kibs
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 10:36pm

      and besides. everyone can be wrong.

      Report Post »  
    • Lux
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 10:44pm

      @Darren

      Way to stand up for truth.

      @Hank

      I’m not one for name calling (is it still considered name calling if it’s true?), but Darren’s correct… you are a liar. It’s quite sad that you would go to such lengths to attack ones beliefs with out any credible, tangible, or logical proof. I’ve noticed you like to take things way out of context, but that will only get you so far. Hopefully God, in his infinite mercy, will soften your heart and open your eyes before it’s too late. I’ll be praying for you. God bless.

      Report Post » Lux  
    • HankScram
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 10:49pm

      @Bishop,

      Darren just did some independent research of mormon history about the White Toad that was guarding the golden plates – then morphed into a man – and knocked Joseph Smith to the ground. He wants to talk to you – something about “paperwork” he has to turn in.

      @Lux,

      Are you saying you haven’t read about the White Toad?

      Report Post »  
    • ashestoashes
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 11:05pm

      @Simple Truths…You really need to study the Bible before you make such statements. No we Christians are not so arrogant as to think that God created everything for our benefit. We are to serve Him as He is our Creator and our Master. God loved the world so much that He sent His only begotten Son to die for us. At that time, most were so arrogant that they lived as they pleased, kind of like now. But God did create us in His image. We each have the opportunity to accept Jesus and His sacrifice and live by His laws, or we have the free will to reject Him. It is your choice He said to work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. Of course, you can choose not to believe Him, then your only glory will be in this life, short as it may be.

      Report Post »  
    • Darren
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 11:05pm

      Hank;

      “Are you saying you don’t believe that mormon church history shows that Joseph Smith said a white Toad was guarding the golden plates at one time – and the toad morphed into a man? ”

      Yes, Hank, i’m saying this is stupid and total nonesense. Feel free t oshow what you know but i’m telling you right now it is NOT part of LDS history, nor part of Joseph Smith. You do not care one iota about learning about the Mormon Church, only ot mock it. You lie about it and then lie about your lies. there is nothing crazy, nonsensical, and certainly not unbiblical or unchristian to say that jesu was the only beng to have ever lived a perfect life and to have ever been infallible. All men besides Jesus have been and always will be fallible. This includes Mormon prophets. You do not have to look anywhere beyond Joseph Smith Jr.’s own words to conclude that Mormons do not believe prophets are infallible. The infallibility concept in teaching morality came into existence during the eary to mid twentieth century. Before that it was perfectly acceptable to accept all people as fallible. so, journals kept regarding LDS prophets are NOT part of official church teachings. The never have been. They may be used to support LDS doctrine bt they in an of themselves are not a standard for the LDS church.

      Now, if you desire to show yourself a fool once again, by all means tell us about the toad.

      Report Post » Darren  
    • Darren
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 11:13pm

      Lux;

      Thanks. “Lux” means “light”, correct? I like it as your usernsme. I can’t quite make out your gravatar. Is it Jesus in the heavens looking down/

      The reason I isolate Hank and call him a liar is because I know he knows that I know he knows better. ;>)

      Report Post » Darren  
    • HankScram
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 11:22pm

      Smith saw something in the box like a toad that grew larger and struck him to the ground.[58] Although Smith’s followers do not mention a toad-like creature, they agree with several non-believers that Smith said he was stricken by a supernatural force that hurled him to the ground as many as three times.[59]

      ^ Chase (1833, p. 242) (account of Palmyra resident Willard Chase, who heard the story from Smith’s father in 1827 and was a non-believer); Saunders (1884a) (account of Benjamin Saunders, a sympathetic non-believer who heard the story from Joseph Smith in 1827); Saunders (1893) (account of Orson Saunders, a non-believer who heard it from Benjamin Saunders).
      ^ Writing with Smith’s assistance for a church periodical, Oliver Cowdery said that Smith was stricken three times with an ever increasing force, persisting after the second blow because he thought the plates were held by the power of an “enchantment” (like hidden-treasure stories he had heard) that could be overcome by physical exertion (Cowdery 1835b, pp. 197–98). Smith’s mother said he was stricken by a force but did not say how many times (Smith 1853, p. 86). Willard Chase said Smith was stricken at least twice (Chase 1833, p. 242). Fayette Lapham, who said he heard the story in about 1830 from Smith’s father, said Smith was stricken three times with ever-increasing force (Lapham 1870, p. 306). Two neighbors who heard the story from Smith in Harmony in the late 1820s said Smith was knocked down three t

      Report Post »  
    • HankScram
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 11:29pm

      @Darren,

      the White Toad would not be that odd. FARMS wrote an article explaining why the White Salamander letters from Mark Hoffman fit into mormon doctrine – before they found out the articles were forgeries. If there could be a white salamander, why not a white toad?

      “Preliminary Report: Why Might a Person in 1830 Connect An Angel with a Salanmander?,” STF-85b, FARMS Staff, Foundation for Ancient Research & Mormon Studies,, copyright 1985

      (2) “Moses, Moroni, and the Salamander,” FARMS Staff, in FARMS “UPDATE,” transcript, copyright June 1985, p. 1. “The ‘Preliminary Report’”

      Report Post »  
    • mils
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 11:31pm

      I don’t believe it all happened in the cutsie way the christian bible sets it out…i’m not a christian or an evolutionist…we do have other opinions out here…

      Obama..hhmmmm he’s a throw back in evolution, a jackazz and a pelosi.. BPOS is the ending product.

      Report Post »  
    • Darren
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 11:47pm

      Hank;

      Umm, nice toad story. Except for obvious observation that you did not have sufficient space to make your entire post, you did an excellent cut and paste job. Now, ummm, where did you find it from?

      Like Elder oaks, which you properly mistrepresented even aftet I linked you an article where he cited himself at that very 1985 Doctrine and Covenants Symposium where he explicitly expressed doubt as to the authenticity of the Salamander Letters and urged all members to be skeptical as tothe authenticity of anyting that pops up regarding LDS history, you’re likely misrepesenting FARMS. now, you do know that FARMS are scholars and have no bearing on LDS teachings and especially not its doctrine, correct? They do, however, an excellent job at researching LDS history at a scholarly level based on LDS doctrine and teachings. That’s why I like them so much. They are scholarly and doctrinal though not officially. Now, like Elder oaks, my guess is that the works you cited pointed out that “salamander’ has a spiritual component to it. It does not have to mean a reptile but it could be used as an angel. My guess is that this is what they meant. But I’ve no desire to lool it up now.

      If by some quirk inthe universe you actually represented them accurately, then they are, well, wrong. is that simple enough to understand?

      Report Post » Darren  
    • HankScram
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 11:50pm

      @Darren,

      I understand your explanation about Church doctrine. I’ll try to be careful not to attribute anything to the mormon church but just to statements made by Prophets or others. I guess sermons by the Prophets or journals from the time seemed like reasonable sources to me, but I understand very clearly now from your persistence how important the distinction is to you and others. On the whole I’m not interested in the details of mormon doctrine, I’m more intrigued with a group of people believing something in the face of overwhelming evidence its false, in light of the written history – things like putting a rock in his hat, most of the witnesses and his wife leaving the mormon church, etc. It’s intriguing because I think we all do it in various ways in our life – leading, in my opinion, to an unenlightened state. Believe it or not, reading about the mormon church gives me insight into myself and how I think. There are many groups that do the same thing as mormons – I just stumbled across and into mormonism quite by chance. I know I tend to ridicule it – because I do think its ridiculous and harmful. Nothing personal. Keep reading and you may look for the exits.

      Report Post »  
    • RCScrolls
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 11:58pm

      All the evidence of Evilution dosent even fill the bottom ofa single casket,
      there would be and rightfully should be tons and tons of evidence, not to mention the fact that two of those dead evolutionist declared their own falsities before they died, Like I said Evolution is dead has been dead for a long time, even Darwin was predisposed with the rightful fact that there would be interlinking secies found by the thousands before His life was up.
      Yet none to this day exist. It takes more to believe in evolution that it does the Bible wich gives thousands of evidences, something evolutionists dont have. rcscrolls@aol.com

      Report Post » RCScrolls  
    • thomas
      Posted on August 10, 2011 at 12:12am

      golly jee “commonsense” whatever, you just quoted and did not “ ” give credit. Dumb leftterds always the parrot never the originators.

      Report Post » thomas  
    • JJ Coolay
      Posted on August 10, 2011 at 12:13am

      JZS writes: “…..those who view the literal Genesis view of the creation of life on Earth are a “dying breed”…..”
      _____________

      That’s completely erroneous.

      Report Post » JJ Coolay  
    • Darren
      Posted on August 10, 2011 at 12:14am

      hank;

      I appreciate you wanting to try better and I‘ll take your word for it but there’s another problem in your representing anything Mormon. That is context. You’re horrible at it. you have never presented the adam-God theory in context and you consistantly look for crazy stuff for the sole purpose of making LDS leaders look crazy. They’re far from it. they are among the most accomplished indviduals in hoistory. They’ve made accomplihments in science, art, politics (except for Harry Reid, he puts mormon politicians into the dark ages, now, Mike Lee, ahhhh, he’s the man!), and you may have heard of the Brownings. They revolutionized gun making and established one of the nation’s primary weapons manufacturers. Their weapons have helped keep our nation safe for generations and to this day their guns are somewhat ‘coveted” tamong gun enthusiasts. The LDS faith holds dearly to the US Constitution (except, again, for Harry Reid, he’s a constitutional imbecile) and has no problem sending its members out to fight for our nation. Pat Tillman was a Mormon. Mormons also promote stong families. Yet you’re so gung-ho at presenting mormons as crazy nut cases. Why? Why is Mormon belief so dangerous?

      Now, the only thing I can trace the white toad story to is the (gulp) Salamander Letters. Please don‘t tell me that’s what you’re relying on to represent Mormon history. Mark Hoffman confessed in court to fraud and murder over those letters that he produced.

      Report Post » Darren  
    • HankScram
      Posted on August 10, 2011 at 12:23am

      Not everyone that looks into the subject of mormonism is a liar. I’m not giving you information selectively – this Board doesn’t allow for all information. btw, I read Dallin Oaks letter in full – sorry you found his stuff on another site. The internet is full of testimonials from people who left the mormon church – some of whom felt compelled to create websites to share their truth.

      Your fellow mormons, intelligent, thoughtful people, have read and struggled with what they learned. I guess the mormon church unofficial doctrine tells you you can’t read any of it because its satan at work – as though your faith can’t withstand hearing someone else explain why they left.

      http://www.postmormon.org/exp_e/index.php/magazine/pmm_feature_full_text/native_american_dna/

      “He confirmed that scientists at BYU had tested 3000 American Indians from Peru and they came up with the same problem of virtually all the female DNA lineages coming from Asia. Now I knew that all three major civilisations in the Americas the Aztecs, Maya and Incas were comprised of people who trace their genealogy back to Siberia.”

      Report Post »  
    • HankScram
      Posted on August 10, 2011 at 12:39am

      I explained before – I see in America groups trying to claim God is on their side of economic policy, etc. – God being used as a political tool. I think that leads to terrible things in a society – see Islamic countries. We are nowhere near that obviously – but who wants to even go there. Mormons find themselves in a strange spot – trying to wiggle into the right-wing religious/political movement – while at the same time being rejected by these very people. Admittedly, I take advantage of this paradox. Surely you see the hypocrisy of the right-wing evangelicals when it comes to your faith.

      On another note, I do think mormonism, and many other systems, is destructive to many individuals. any time a person is afraid to read a book or article because it does not agree with their faith – that’s scary to me. I also know from talking with mormons that most know very little about the church’s history. I can‘t tell you how many people have told me I’m full of it when I tell them about Joseph Smith using a rock as a seer stone or say that he married Fanny Alger when she was sixteen.

      Finally, I throw some information out there because I happen to know that many mormons who begin to research the mormon church’s history leave. I think that’s good. You guys proselytize, so do. I have many mormon friends and one of my favorite professors was mormon – and we discussed it. I don’t think mormons are crazy – they’re good people. The mormon church is crazy, IMO.

      Report Post »  
    • Darren
      Posted on August 10, 2011 at 12:46am

      hank;

      “I guess the mormon church unofficial doctrine tells you you can’t read any of it because its satan at work – as though your faith can’t withstand hearing someone else explain why they left.”

      Again, you are lousy at context.

      “The internet is full of testimonials from people who left the mormon church – some of whom felt compelled to create websites to share their truth.”

      They are free to do so but I smply advise you to not allow them to lead you. You’re far more likely to find more accurate depictions of the LDS Church outside their websites. In fact, I can pretty much guarantee that.

      The “no DNA” argument again hank? Have you forgotten Haplogroup X? I got family to spend time with tonight as I promised them . I’ll give you an excellent webpost from a top scientist in human genetics. Just remember that it‘s nice ot have scinece on your side but if the Mormons don’t it should not affect their faith. That would be rendering that which is God unto Ceasar. it doesn’t work that way.

      http://www.fairblog.org/2009/02/06/current-biology-smgf-and-lamanites/

      Report Post » Darren  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on August 10, 2011 at 1:36am

      A science that is no science.

      I agree not all descended from Adam and Eve. Some races came about with the Sons of God went unto the daughters of men. Gods creation was perverted.

      Maybe these two “Christians” did indeed come from Barney the Purple Dinosaur, and Lucy. There are a bunch of monkeys in this world. Just look at McCain, Al Gore, Barack Obama. Is there any doubt that something certainly went wrong in their genome? Their distant relatives were probably raped by the same demons seen in the movie Constantine! It would certainly explain their complete and utter ignorance!

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • Lux
      Posted on August 10, 2011 at 3:20am

      @Darren, nope its the picture of the two witnesses, the Book of Mormon over the new world, and the Bible over the old world. Its kinda hard to make out at that size.

      @Hank

      Lets deal with the generic issue of fallible prophets. For detailed information on this topic, see the book, Victims: The LDS Church and the Mark Hoffman Case by Richard E. Turley, Jr. (Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1992), much of which can be read online at Google Books). Also see Wikipedia’s article, “Salamander letter,” which contains the transcript of the letter.

      Darren did a good job explaining the issue of fallible prophets. The premise of the question about
      prophets, is that a prophet should continually act under direct guidance from God so that nobody could ever deceive him and that no mistakes could ever be made. However, there is no Biblical basis for such a belief. Prophets are mortal men who have been ordained and chosen by God to be a mouthpiece for revelation and guidance, but that revelation only comes when God wills it, making it somewhat sporadic in both ancient and modern times. There is no expectation that every act, every decision, and every purchase by a prophet will be divinely and infallibly guided. As Joseph Smith said, “a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such.” Critics of the Church say this is a cop out, but it is true and Biblical. Cont…

      Report Post » Lux  
    • Lux
      Posted on August 10, 2011 at 3:28am

      The blaze is posting out of order again see page 9 for the comment that should have been posted before this one….
      Cont..
      This seems to indicate that Paul was just giving his best judgment but did not feel that he had direct revelation from God on the topic. This passage made it into sacred scripture. Surely there were many other things Paul did, said, and even purchased that were not guided by infallible, direct revelation from God. But when God chose to give revelation to Paul, then he was acting as a true prophet and those revelations can be trusted (to the extent that they have been properly preserved and translated in our modern Bibles).

      Cont…

      Report Post » Lux  
    • en2deep
      Posted on August 10, 2011 at 6:45am

      More theorizing by scientific community, not a lot of facts in this story. Evolution is as believable as global warming; evidence does not support the rhetoric. What we do know is the oldest human remains are a little over 5,000 yrs old, which supports the Genesis story. Stick with the facts and not presumptions, tha’ts what real science is.

      Report Post » en2deep  
    • Jamescagney
      Posted on August 10, 2011 at 6:49am

      If human life is so complex that only God could have made it, then who made god? Surely god is more complex than man and thus could not have spontaneously appeared or evolved, right? Who made the watchmaker??

      Christians demanding / talking about facts and proof for evolution is absurd, given the overwhelming lack of proof for Satan’s existence, for woman being made from Adam’s rib, miracles, magic, etc. Te Christian church has so far always lost when opposing respected scientists like Galileo & Copernicus in thinking the Earth was the stationary center of the Universe.

      Several Christians here say Evolution has been factually proven false. Bull. You’re bearing false witness. Post a credible accepted scientific source for this proof.

      Several Christians here say Evolution can’t be true because all primates are supposed to disappear and evolve into humans simultaneously. Several others said the exact opposite, that Evolution can’t be true because there should be more versions of humans walking around. Well, which one is it? It can’t be both. These two “facts” are opposite and contradictory. And both these “facts” were made up by Christians who clearly know little about evolution and the evidence supporting it. You can make up your own opinion, but you cannot make up your own “facts.” The fact is, the vast majority of science and scientists support evolution as being real.

      Report Post »  
    • Jamescagney
      Posted on August 10, 2011 at 6:56am

      If human life is so complex that only God could have made it, then who made god? Surely god is more complex than man and thus could not have spontaneously appeared or evolved, right? Who made the watchmaker??

      Christians demanding / talking about facts and proof for evolution is absurd, given the overwhelming lack of proof for Satan’s existence, for woman being made from Adam’s rib, miracles, magic, etc. Te Christian church has so far always lost when opposing respected scientists like Galileo & Copernicus in thinking the Earth was the stationary center of the Universe.

      Several Christians here say Evolution has been factually proven false.  Bull.  You’re bearing false witness.  Post a credible accepted scientific source for this proof. 

      Several Christians here say Evolution can’t be true because all primates are supposed to disappear and evolve into humans simultaneously. Several others said the exact opposite, that Evolution can’t be true because there should be more versions of humans walking around.  Well, which one is it? It can’t be both.  These two “facts” are opposite and contradictory. And both these “facts” were made up by Christians who clearly know little about evolution and the evidence supporting it.  

      You can make up your own opinion, but you cannot make up your own “facts.” The fact is, the vast majority of science and scientists support evolution as being real. 

      Report Post »  
    • RustyElbows
      Posted on August 10, 2011 at 7:36am

      The question of Genesis….. I cannot believe that “something” was created from “nothing”. So just how did the big bang theory occur when there was nothing there to begin with?? Of all the non-beliving scholars I have heard or read on the subject of creation none have ever addressed this fact – that something cannot be created from nothing. I can much more believe, and do in a Spirit, God, who always has been and always will be.

      Report Post » RustyElbows  
    • Rice Water
      Posted on August 10, 2011 at 8:36am

      I’ve never understood the resistance to the idea that God works via nature and science.

      Report Post » Rice Water  
    • mishagale
      Posted on August 10, 2011 at 8:44am

      I don’t know if this will be read, but some of the comments here are phrased as questions, so here is my humble effort to provide some answers:

      >loriann12
      >Posted on August 9, 2011 at 4:27pm
      >
      >If man evolved from apes, why do we still have apes? [...] And where are all the missing links that >prove the statement From goo to the zoo via you?

      “man evolved from apes” is a bit of a simplification, and strictly incorrect. In fact, no evolutionary scientist makes this claim; the claim is rather that the apes alive today (chimps, gorillas & orangs) evolved from a now extinct ancestor, the same ancestor humans evolved from, Ardipithecus ramidus. That makes the apes more like our cousins than our ancestors.

      It’s also not true that evolution always “replaces” the original species. If both species share an ecological niche (i.e. share the same food source or habitat) then they will compete and one may die out (“survival of the fittest”). However, if the new species has evolved to take advantage of a new niche, then it won‘t compete with it’s progenitor species.

      As for “missing links”, archeologists have uncovered hundreds of fossils which show an intermediary stage between species. That the family tree remains broken in places is expected, since only a tiny percentage of all the animals that lived actually got fossilised.

      I hope that is helpful in answering your question.

      Report Post »  
    • HankScram
      Posted on August 10, 2011 at 8:59am

      @Darren,

      Haplogroup X? You don’t get it? All the DNA evidence shows a connection to Asia – not Israel. Now, I understand that you argue for possible reasons that the DNA does not link to Israel, like you argue for possible explanations why the Egyptian funeral pyre doesn’t talk about Abraham, or possible reasons Joseph Smith used a seer stone or rock in his hat, or possible reasons Brigham Young talked about Adam being God. I hear all the rationalization . . . but the response is never something as simple as showing DNA evidence that there is a link to Israel.

      Let’s keep this simple. Can you or Lux tell me where I can go to a museum to see even one artifact from the great civilization the Book of Mormon says was in America. The book of Mormon says millions lived, fought and died in America. Can you refer me to a museum with any artifacts from that civilization? I looked on LDS.ORG and they don’t refer to any LDS museum that has anything artifacts.

      Report Post »  
    • SamIamTwo
      Posted on August 10, 2011 at 9:03am

      Jack2011

      What you think God is a man or something. LOL How could you (speaking in general of course as we are all mere humans) with a finite mind understand the infinite wisdom of God and His good works?

      I love scientists, they are real seekers of the truth. Some are biased lairs others thru their scientific work have come to believe that there is a God.

      God created a void in all of us that needs to be filled…that void is what causes mankind to seek the truth. God challenges us to seek. It is our only purpose on earth. In the vast continuum of time we are but a whisper. Our time on earth is short.

      Report Post » SamIamTwo  
    • Enuma
      Posted on August 10, 2011 at 9:28am

      Asking the question, “If man evolved from apes, why do we still have apes?” is every bit as stupid as asking, “If Americans are descended from British people, why do we still have British people?” Following up that question with a straw man definition of evolution only proves that you don’t understand the theory you think you are debunking.

      Report Post »  
    • affinnity
      Posted on August 10, 2011 at 10:47am

      I think you finally caught on to what we’re saying. Everyone is going to die and it doesn’t matter what anybody thinks we are all going to DIE.

      Atheist believe they will die and their body will simply rot.
      Christians believe they die, their body is an empty vessel that rots and their soul goes to heaven.

      Facts don’t matter because nobody will know what the facts are until we are DEAD. I’ll make a deal with you. You die first and send me an email with the facts.

      Report Post » affinnity  
    • Miguelito
      Posted on August 10, 2011 at 2:54pm

      Is it in the Bible? There ya go!

      Report Post »  
    • imreddog
      Posted on August 10, 2011 at 3:01pm

      Denying Adam and Eve is just one more attack against the God of Christians and Jews. This is also part of the falling away that is mentioned in 2nd Thesallonians chapter 2.

      Report Post »  
    • ADMcDonald
      Posted on August 10, 2011 at 4:18pm

      “I don’t know, I’m a thinker, and I think that if evolution DID occur, it would STILL be occurring, and we would see some of that “IN-BETWEEN” stuff going on, but alas, we don’t.”

      It is still occurring, and we do see the in-between stuff.

      Why do Creationists assume humans are in a “final form”?

      Report Post »  
    • SpeckChaser
      Posted on August 10, 2011 at 8:26pm

      I feel conflicted on this one. Like my man Phil Robertson said, “you want me to believe no one plus nothing equals everything?”

      At the same time I am quite certain I have been evolving three new sets of arms to make chasing specs more efficient.

      Report Post » SpeckChaser  
    • joel228
      Posted on August 11, 2011 at 2:59am

      Hankscram,
      I believe Brigham Young’s only fault in what you quote is the way he worded it. But unlike you I prefer not to make one an offender for a word.

      I do not believe he meant to say or imply or that he believed that Adam was God the Father. If you read the whole thing you have to conclude either what I said or that he is contradicting himself within a paragraph.

      1) Brigham Young said “He [Adam] is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS!”
      2) In the next paragragh he said “the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael, these three forming a quorum”

      Eloheim is the name used for God the Father, Yahovah is Jesus and Michael (the Archangel) is Adam. Brigham Young clearly shows he made a distinction. He did not believe that Adam is God the Father.

      Hank I’m sure you never said or wrote anything that could be misinterpreted or misconstrued have you? But even the LDS defenders I think miss the mark on this one and sometimes imply that Brigham Young had it doctrinally wrong. It’s more logical that this is a syntactic or grammatical problem.

      Just remember this good advice and warning
      Isaiah 29
      20 ..and all that watch for iniquity are cut off:
      21 That make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought.

      Matt 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you

      Report Post » joel228  
    • Wayner
      Posted on August 11, 2011 at 4:14am

      The National Geographic offered some insight????

      Report Post »  
    • beggindog
      Posted on August 11, 2011 at 10:15am

      Ah, they forget about the story of Lilith, created from the earth like Adam, who in the tale stood up to Adam and so was banished–Only then did God create Eve–The Bible, esp. the Old Testament, is a collection of various writings, many likely stemming from neolithic oral traditions that may or may not be related, all seeking to explain a raison d’etre…

      Report Post »  
    • Darren
      Posted on August 11, 2011 at 12:23pm

      hank;

      This’ll perhaps be my last time posting on this thread.

      Haplogroup X is **distinctly** European and even Israeli. It is NOT Asian and yet found among Native american Indians. The Book of Mormon does not make an exclusice claim that the American Indians descended from Israel. The book is very open to the idea that other groups, like from asian, may have inhabited the American continent. but, frankly, DNA is not important to me to know the Book of Mormon is Gods’s true word.

      “you or Lux tell me where I can go to a museum to see even one artifact from the great civilization the Book of Mormon says was in America”

      There’s artifacts all over the place regarding great civilizations in the Americas. I don’t know about the numbers but the literal interpretation of those numbers are up for interpretation. I take them literally but others may not. So be it. That really does not bother me.

      http://www.mormonfortress.com/elph.html

      http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/DNA.shtml#x

      Report Post » Darren  
    • Darren
      Posted on August 11, 2011 at 12:40pm

      hank;

      i forgt to segway into my second link. It’s an example of how the scholarly view of elephants and horses have changed. The changes favors the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Archeology and science change all the time. And they should. But Mormon doctrine does not without direct commad from the Lord. Like the concept of horses and elephants have changed, many times key cristicisms against Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon have proven to authenticate the claims made by both sources. There’s no reason to conclude this will not continue.

      Report Post » Darren  
    • herbie52
      Posted on August 11, 2011 at 1:11pm

      The bible never refers to Adam as the first man. It calls him , the first man Adam. There are clearly two creations in Genesis, that would explain the earth being older than 6000 years old and also jive with the truth of the scriptures. The story that we christians ought to be interested in begins with this man Adam that God breathed his life into and was given dominion over the whole earth.Then he decided he didn”t need god, that he was able out of his own intellect to { be as gods, knowing good and evil, [ which translates , to dictate what is right and wrong. Through his fall all of mankind fell with him. You have to understand Adam and all that he brought upon mankind to really understand what Christ did on the cross and that through his resurrection we are back in union with God and thus we are new creatures in Christ Jesus. No longer bound to live out of the Adam nature, but through the spirit of Christ that now dwells in us . This is “HIStory that is the focus. Maybe it is time for all the churches to come together and lay down some of teachings that have caused confusion, and allow the spirit of truth to lead and guide us into all truth. The same reason the Jews missed his coming the first time , is why the church has missed his coming a second time. Their peception of how he would come and how his kingdom would be was wrong. I would say that we have the same problem. Each denomination can tell you their version of right and wrong, or how to get to heaven.

      Report Post »  
    • Ezekiel2230
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 10:33pm

      Amazing! The evolutionists are wrong; the short creation believers are confused with their arguments. The whole science/Christian divide is easily rectified; the issue focuses on the wrong argument.
      Evolutionists dismiss the Biblical account based on their belief in billions of years of creation time for the universe and Earth. Creationists base their argument on the Genesis wording of 7 days of creation (some will say 1000 year-days). This stumbling block is easily removed if you realize the original language used in Genesis had several meanings for the word translated “day”. The original word could mean – the time of daylight, a 24 hour period, or an era (a long period of time). We use this phraseology in English; we refer to the Day of the Dinosaurs, or of the Romans; we recognize we aren’t speaking of literal days. It was true in the original language of Genesis. If Christians would accept the understanding of 7 long periods of creation it would undermine the main issue that evolutionists have to scoff at their religion.
      Aside from this, evolutionists have a problem with a “God”, some being who could manipulate this universe at his whim. And Christians, again going back to the “day” block, sometimes restrict God by thinking time is a part of his existence, it isn’t. Time is a dimension or component of this universe…not God’s. An omnipotent being (God) could create the universe in 7 seconds, 7 days, 7000 years, or 7 billion years. Why should He hurry or be

      Report Post » Ezekiel2230  
    • Ezekiel2230
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 10:40pm

      God sits outside the confines and rules of this universe, looking back at what is going on, yet able to manipulate it whenever He feels like it. Somewhat like a person with a fish bowl; you can watch from a distance or manipulate what’s inside and rearrange it any way you like.
      For the evolutionists – where did the original material for the universe come from? You may not like the answer Christians give that it was created by a being outside the system, but it is a hell of a lot better than your current argument that the primordial elements were just there and always have been.
      Previously existing, extinct animals are another stumbling block, and one evolutionists grab hold of to piece together their animal “family trees”. And another incorrect interpretation of Christians. God created for 5 days (eras) prior to man’s arrival; during the era (day) of animals, he could create and re-create as He desired. Christians mistakenly take the stance that God created all existing animals in the beginning and nothing changed. The Earth was not a perennial Garden of Eden; the Bible states the Garden was a place on Earth, not the whole Earth.
      Evolutionists state genome similarity with humans and primates is “proof” of common ancestors. Why? If there is a God, and He had a formula for life that was well suited for this planet, why would the make-up of his final creation not be genetically similar to creatures He already had developed? By the way the 2% difference is huge; no

      Report Post » Ezekiel2230  
    • Ezekiel2230
      Posted on August 12, 2011 at 10:42pm

      Genetic variety within the species; this is a paper tiger. Too little time to develop the variety? Yes, if you adhere to the dogma of evolution and also Christians believing in a short creation time frame; not however if you adopt the long creation time of a Creator. Again, if there is a Creator, what would preclude Him from creating variety, either inherent in the “first humans” or at a later date?
      From their own evolutionist perspective, how can it be said that there is not an original man and woman? Logically, whether by evolution or divine interference, there has to have been the “first humans” from which we all descended. Man spontaneously erupted worldwide?
      A couple final remarks; SCIENCE has determined through genome and mitochondrial research, that there is a gap between the oldest common male ancestor of humans, and the female; the man being older.
      SCIENCE has gaping holes in the evolutionary theory, most glossed over by the its faithful adherents; as mentioned, the genesis of the primordial elements of the universe; the explosion of life on earth during the Cambrian period, even the simple difficulty of the genetic building blocks of all life being completely incompatible outside the nucleus of a cell.
      In conclusion, this silly argument for Christian evolutionists and the throwing out of the logic of the Creation account of the Bible, boils down to a debate over time and semantics, something simply fixed by interpreting correctly the original language i

      Report Post » Ezekiel2230  
    • AssassinActual
      Posted on August 13, 2011 at 5:04am

      God, these comments make me glad for my degree in microbiology. “I have not seen Pigs with wings…” at least take the time to understand what you disagree with, such simplistic arguments are not worth the bits they are stored on. Read Lenski for heavens sake.

      Report Post »  
  • 1TrueOne55
    Posted on August 9, 2011 at 3:27pm

    The biggest issue is in the Translation of the Older texts of what we know today as the “Bibliography”. The original texts were written in a dialect of Hebrew and then into Latin since the Catholic Church in Rome was the premiere version after the 3rd century take over of the religion by Emperor Constantine.

    The current version of the Bible was not “Cannoned” until the 16th Century and there were fights about the book of Revelation and some other “Gospels” that should or should not even belong in there. And then there is the method as to which you see the text of the bible, it explains things Generally to begin with then comes back later on to fill in the details. If you look at it that way then you can see things like God made the animals first from the seas to the land and the land animals were created from the same “Dust of the Earth” as “Adam” was.

    Then there is the use of the word “Adam” as a proper noun instead of what it could be as the Original Hebrew word used to describe either an individual or the version of the same would that describes a group of individuals. There is more to the bible if you would only do your research and not close your mind to it.

    God is not defined by the box or book we put him into.

    Report Post » 1TrueOne55  
    • rose-ellen
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 3:48pm

      Adam in hebrew comes from the word for man which comes from the word for clay which comes from the word for red.[dust to dust?]. When even the evangelicals abandon a literal interpretation of genesis,you know Christianity is in trouble.[of course Christ yesterday,Christ today and Christ forever remains true whether people cease to believe or not].One day we may be a nation of secular humanists and look back at those fanatical muslims who insist on theocracy in their homelands as the last defenders not just of islam but of all religions!

      Report Post »  
    • agameofthrones
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 3:49pm

      Thank you for your comment. In the ancient language translation the word “Adam” meant man. It was not a proper name but a noun. And I don’t see how science and religion need reconciling when God is the ultimate scientist. It is man who seeks to diminish Him and define him by our limited understanding. He can do whatever He wants. It is up to us to seek to understand and open our minds to the things we may think are “impossible.”

      Report Post » agameofthrones  
    • JJ Coolay
      Posted on August 10, 2011 at 5:58am

      Christianity is not in trouble because it was not founded by men. Whatever men do is completely irrelevant to the everlasting sovereignty of Christ.

      Report Post » JJ Coolay  
    • mils
      Posted on August 10, 2011 at 12:42pm

      ANY book that a church had anything to do with is suspect and should just be thrown on the fire heap…no value. If god had something to say..i seriously doubt he’d have it written on paper by a human. grasping at straws..

      AND…I DO NOT UNDERSTND why any time religion comes up the MORMON BASHING HAS TO START… YOU DON’T LIKE THE RELIGION…GREAT, I DON’T CARE…I’M NOT MORMON OR CATHOLIC. I KNOW A LOT ABOUT EACH..but I don’t put myself out as an expert. such stupidity over something you do not live.is overwhelming

      Report Post »  
  • spreadcommonsensenot pc
    Posted on August 9, 2011 at 3:26pm

    No Adam or Eve—no sin, then WHY??? did Jesus even bother coming and dying for the SIN of the world………………..wow
    You can not do away with “original sin” like these HERETICS are trying to do

    Report Post »  
    • chevy65
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 3:30pm

      my thoughts exactly! well put.

      Report Post »  
    • GodHatesFigs
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 3:39pm

      Exactly! In order to be a Christian you must believe in a literal talking snake that outwitted early man

      Report Post » GodHatesFigs  
    • Favored93
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 3:53pm

      ……And WHY???? Does our New Testament call Jesus the SECOND or LAST Adam?…. This kind of stuff is what the Anti-Christ will use to deceive the globe. Stay alert all ye people of the living God!!!

      Report Post » Favored93  
    • WhiteFang
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 3:54pm

      Is it logical to believe that there was no original human pair?
      Is it logical to believe that there was two original human pairs?

      Where did the original’s come from?
      How did they come about?
      Who designed their wonderful bodies?
      Did they create themselves?

      These “scientists” and “theologians” cannot answer these questions if they continue to reject logic.

      Report Post » WhiteFang  
    • Favored93
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 4:02pm

      @GodHatesFigs
      God made a donkey talk or don’t you believe he can? It is not a stretch to believe that the Devil would use a snake to deceive our first earthy parents. And for all you people who blame Eve for the sin of man kind read ch-3 again and you will see that it says….”and she turned to her husband WHO WAS WITH HER…..” Adam was right there the entire time and could have and should have stopped this whole thing. The new testament says that sin came through one MAN… Just thought I would toss that out there.
      God is who He says He is and has done ALL he said he would.
      (the only thing left is the end of the book.) Stay awake and alert guys!!! They are attacking us from within now!

      Report Post » Favored93  
    • turkey13
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 4:09pm

      These people that have lost the faith have been hanging around the queers that only talk about Adam and Steve.

      Report Post »  
    • rose-ellen
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 5:12pm

      “Hide you renowned of the earth.Disappear you wise men of the world lest these babes whom God has chosen put you to shame! Be still in your hideouts and know the true God…Truly the poorest people are they who cannot understand what it means to offer oneself to Christ. Let them therefore live their prosaic lives and walk on the black asphalt.Let them be guided by traffic lights.They have never been able to see Him who sends out the light and it goes forth,who makes the sun rise and bids the dawn to break,who lights up all the universe. Let them hasten to the sound waves in the air-they can never hear Him who calls out-‘he who thirsts let him come to Me and drink’.”
      from In Search of True Wisdom-visits to eastern spiritual fathers]

      Report Post »  
    • HawaiiDonald
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 6:53pm

      Perhaps one needs to remember God is a God of love. If you read the Eden story as a story of an angry God who kicks his kids out of the garden for disobedience you don’t understand God or the garden. The garden was imortal and perfect, Adam and Eve while there were not mortal, and could not multiply and replenish the earth. They could neither die nor could they sin. God gave them two commandments, to multiply and replenish the earth, and to not partake of the tree of knowledge – but added with the last commandment they were free to choose. They chose to become mortal so we all could be born. We all die, because of their choice, but because of Christ can all live again based on our choices and his mercy and grace. Eve isn’t the villian, she and Adam are the couragous who stepped out of the garden and were willing to risk death to bring life and choice to us all. Satan’s plan was to prevent us from choice and force us to be equal and obedient to him. Christ’s choice in heaven was to volunteer to sacrafice himself, having done no wrong to be unjustly punished so that he had the moral authority to pay for God’s mercy on our behalf for our inability to be perfect. Read Genisis again with this in mind and tell me you don’t see how Eve wisely acted and God kindly offered advice on what the earthly world would bring for hardships and challenges. Opposition in all things, good and bad, joy and pain. He was teaching them what to expect, not punishing them by eviction.

      Report Post »  
    • JJ Coolay
      Posted on August 10, 2011 at 6:11am

      Hawaii that is one messed up theory.

      Adam and Eve were courageous by sinning? That’s one of the most absurd things I have ever heard.
      God was sorely disappointed and yes, He kicked them out of the garden.
      Just because they were immortal before sin does not mean they could not procreate. I don’t know where you get that from?
      Satan’s plan was to prevent us from choice and force us to be equal with him? Oh, that’s why he deceived Eve into MAKING A CHOICE?
      Adam and Eve chose to be mortal? Hardly!
      You should re read Genesis. The devil lied to them and told them THEY WOULD NOT DIE.

      Report Post » JJ Coolay  
    • JJ Coolay
      Posted on August 10, 2011 at 6:16am

      God is a God of love, but He is also a God of judgement. The bible is riddled with His judgement as much as it is His love.
      You’re blind if you think differently.

      Report Post » JJ Coolay  
    • JJ Coolay
      Posted on August 10, 2011 at 6:22am

      Read Genesis 3:16-24. God delivers judgement. He doesn’t offer up condolences to Adam and Eve and tell them, “hey guys, this is what you should be expecting when you go out of the garden”.
      No, He tells her, “I will make your child birth pains severe”
      He forces Adam to work the land.
      He puts angels with fire in front of the tree of life. HE KICKED THEM OUT.

      Report Post » JJ Coolay  
    • nysparkie
      Posted on August 10, 2011 at 1:56pm

      ROSE_ELLEN: “Hide you renowned of the earth.Disappear you wise men of the world lest these babes whom God has chosen put you to shame! Be still in your hideouts and know the true God…”
      Rose has been in the cooking Sherry again…..

      Report Post » nysparkie  
    • mils
      Posted on August 11, 2011 at 9:45am

      he didn’t…so you’re free and clear

      Report Post »  
  • OneofMany
    Posted on August 9, 2011 at 3:23pm

    The Great Apostacy gains strength….. sad but predicted.

    Report Post » OneofMany  
  • ChuckJ
    Posted on August 9, 2011 at 3:18pm

    Again we are faced with “Christians” who do not even believe their own scripture. How can you call yourself a Christian if you do not believe in the Word of God. Next Christ’s death and resurrection will be attacked.

    Report Post »  
  • Patricia Ward
    Posted on August 9, 2011 at 3:17pm

    If the Bible says it, I believe it and that settles it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Report Post »  
    • HUNITHUNIT
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 6:17pm

      Then I have a question for you..is ignorance truly bliss?

      Report Post »  
    • Jamescagney
      Posted on August 10, 2011 at 1:49pm

      So then I assume you never eat shellfish and never shave, as the bible forbids. You never keep or worship graven images, which by definition includes crucifixes, paintings, sculpture and movies that depict god or Jesus, even in your church, as these violate the ten commandments. You never get flu shots, since these only work if evolution is true.

      Report Post »  
  • ...EriK
    Posted on August 9, 2011 at 3:15pm

    IMO (and belief) the scripture are clear enough to true believers, and so designed as to confound those who are not. I also believe in several verses that refer to, “…a thousand years is but a day…” I also believe in the omnipotence of God, hence He can make any or all people, believe any or all things. Maybe yesterday is but a collective memory!

    Report Post » ...EriK  
  • vennoye
    Posted on August 9, 2011 at 3:14pm

    You nearly have to wonder if these people read their Bible. Noah was a descendent of Adam, and only had three sons..mankind had to start over from these three sons and their wives…..so depends on how you look at it. Aren’t people having lots of fun these days EDUCATING us on how the Bible is wrong!!!! I’m sooooooooooo impressed with their intelligence!

    Report Post » vennoye  
    • LetUsReason
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 3:45pm

      I don’t think their point is that the Bible is wrong. The point they’re making is that the Bible can be interpreted with a cultural and linguistic lens that might shift your paradigm from conventional tradition. I personally believe in Adam and Eve as the parents of the human race, but I’m clarifying their argument for you. We don’t need to feel defensive by opposing ideas or opinions.

      Report Post »  
  • Gypsy123
    Posted on August 9, 2011 at 3:14pm

    As God said to the Atheist who wanted to make a man get your own dirt.
    The new emergent churches will pick this up to indoctrinate their people just like they have turned their backs on Israel Saddle back as an example

    Report Post » Gypsy123  
  • Christian Kalgaard
    Posted on August 9, 2011 at 3:14pm

    the Muslims don’t have this self-deprecating doubtfulness, why should Christians?

    Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,
    2 Thessalonians 2:3

    Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God.
    Hebrews 3:12

    Report Post » Christian Kalgaard  
    • Lloyd Drako
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 3:59pm

      “The Muslims don’t have this self-deprecating doubtfulness, why should Christians?”

      Isn‘t that one of Christianity’s main strengths?

      A religion that will not expose itself to doubt, criticism and historical self-awareness isn’t much of a religion, is it?

      Or perhaps that was your point?

      Report Post » Lloyd Drako  
    • AlmostaCowboy
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 4:57pm

      The only doubts real Christians have is whether they‘ll be able to live up to God’s plan for us or not. My doubts certainly don’t come from these “I’ll decide which parts of the Bible to accept or reject” self-proclaimed Christians.
      I accept the Word of God as it is.
      Your mileage may vary.

      Report Post » AlmostaCowboy  
    • Christian Kalgaard
      Posted on August 10, 2011 at 8:12am

      How stupid, why would I take your anti-religionist advice, Lloyd?
      Islam succeeds because its NOT caught up in politically correct western whiny self-DEPRECATING (do you know what this word means?) suicidalist wimpiness.

      Report Post » Christian Kalgaard  
    • Christian Kalgaard
      Posted on August 10, 2011 at 8:17am

      What do I mean by “suicidalist”?
      Am I talking about suicide bombers? No, here’s why:
      I don’t know of any Protestant suicide bombers, yet the religion shrinks.
      Islam practices suicide bombing, yet it grows.
      I’m not advocating suicide bombing, rather I’m pointing out that Islam apparently can afford to sacrifice some of their own, whereas Protestantism has none to spare.
      Protestantism is objectively superior to Islam, yet is held back by its own modern affectation of a self-deprecating nature and by the western atheist culture.

      Report Post » Christian Kalgaard  
    • Lloyd Drako
      Posted on August 13, 2011 at 3:22pm

      Christian:

      I appreciate your points. There has always been a “fanatical” quality about islam. The idea of a jihadist going to Paradise to enjoy virgins predates the idea of a Crusader going to be with Jesus by several hundred years. Suicide bombing is abhorrent to all Christians I know.

      But I was thinking of Christianity long-term, Catholic as well as Protestant, as a religion which has encouraged intellectual endeavors: translating, editing, researching, criticizing, and so on. This goes back to the medieval universities, which really have no analogues in Islam. Even today, what few Muslim scholars have won Nobel Prizes have mostly worked in Europe or America!

      I don‘t think it’s being at all anti-religious to suggest that Christianity has reserves of intellectual vigor, which will prove useful in a long-term civilizational struggle, that Islam as such does not have. Here I would most certainly include many varieties of Evangelical as well as “lamestream” Christianities.

      Report Post » Lloyd Drako  
  • MODEL82A1
    Posted on August 9, 2011 at 3:13pm

    Just imagine what we’d be and look like had we not suffered from the certain, horrible genetic effects of total inbreeding. Makes you wonder what “image” we (meaning Adam, in the Biblical sense) were originally created in, because it would bare very little resemblance to modern humans.

    Report Post » MODEL82A1  
    • MODEL82A1
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 3:16pm

      Sorry, “bear” very little resemblance…I certainly don’t want the grammar police here ignoring an important point just to feel (falsely) superior.

      Report Post » MODEL82A1  
  • olddog
    Posted on August 9, 2011 at 3:13pm

    Adam and Eve, what a total fantasy. Anyone in LA can tell you it was Adam and Steve, where do you the the HO came from? HO=B. Hussein Obama, ho ho ho…

    Report Post » olddog  
  • Bravefaith.org
    Posted on August 9, 2011 at 3:12pm

    Be very careful of biologos. They are a secularist group operating behind a faith labeled organization. A wolf in sheep’s clothing. Check out CMI

    Report Post »  
  • Locked
    Posted on August 9, 2011 at 3:12pm

    Who cares? There are only three distinct positions to take here:
    1. Faith is faith and science is science. For a true believer, whatever science says should not matter, because faith in the supernatural is not based on facts found in nature. This is the “they are irreconcilable” position. This is the basic conservative Evangelical position, and a popular position in the US.
    2. Science and faith can overlap to an extent. Here, the Bible is not taken literally, but often called “divinely inspired.” Some stories are parables, others are truth. Most Christians fall into this category.
    3. Science works to explain faith, or replaces it. This can extend to the polar opposite of the first view (ie, the atheist position), or be toned down to the point where the Bible is seen as an allegorical explanation each time one of its stories is explained through science. This is probably the least popular position in the country.

    In the end it’s never made sense to me. Faith is based entirely on that: faith. Science is based on observation and testing. They don’t need to conflict: people can “believe” whatever they want.

    Report Post »  
    • joe1234
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 3:27pm

      your ‘science’ of evolution is nothing more than atheist faith.

      Report Post » joe1234  
    • paulusmaximus
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 4:40pm

      I must disagree with your hypothesis, not all science is fact IE no one has ever traveled at the speed of light though many experiments have been done that attempt to prove it. while the Bible the basic tenet of those with faith has proven facts many which were not the excepted science during and many years after its writing IE the structure of ocean currents (rivers of the sea).

      Report Post » paulusmaximus  
    • Locked
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 4:54pm

      @Paul
      “I must disagree with your hypothesis, not all science is fact”

      Sorry if I wasn’t clear, I meant that science is based on fact (as opposed to just belief). Science encompasses all sorts of things, and you’re quite right, hypotheses are not necessarily facts but merely educated guesses. Theories would be the layman definition of “fact” (ie, under repeated observation and testing, they have never been disproven).

      Report Post »  
    • woodyl1011fl
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 6:01pm

      “Science is based on observation and testing.” By your definition of science which absolutely correct; evolution is absolutely false! This is absolutely true! The God who created the heavens and the earth and all that is in it and on it gives you the choice to believe any thing you want but to reject His Word brings eternal consequences But as a evolutionist none this matters because matter is all there is anyway, and there is not eternity when you die it is just finis! Better read Pascal’s wager!. Any of these people who claim to be Christians and hold that Genesis is false are in eternal danger, Jesus, who is the Creator of Adam and Eve said in Matthew 7:21-23 21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. 22 “Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23 “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’. They have rejected the living Creator God and have no answers for death and suffering in this life, their life has no meaning or purpose and their delusion is great just like mirage of a person with/out water in scorching desert. They follow and serve their earthly master who is originator of the delusion of lies and death!

      Report Post »  
    • fatjack
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 9:46pm

      When The WORD and science are in conflict it means man has erred, as God is the author of both.

      Report Post » fatjack  
  • ObserverMI
    Posted on August 9, 2011 at 3:12pm

    There will always be doubt. Why else would there need to be faith?

    Humans are not perfect, they can’t understand or do everything. Yet God is, and he can.

    Report Post »  
  • bullcrapbuster
    Posted on August 9, 2011 at 3:10pm

    I will go with the scriptures. Scientists change their minds too often.

    Report Post » bullcrapbuster  
    • meaningful_answer
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 10:45pm

      Scientists “change their mind” so often because they are continually challenging and refining their theories. In the scientific world it is considered a great honor to disprove a long-held theory. Consider figures like Copernicus, who demonstrated that the earth revolved around the sun, not the other way around; Pasteur, who disproved spontaneous generation, a hypothesis that suggested that organisms could simply appear out of nowhere; Einstein, who refuted the classical idea of a static universe; and Darwin, who of course demonstrated how natural selection produces evolution of species. Because these theories are all so prominent and widespread, there are correspondingly widespread attempts to disprove or otherwise refine them…this is what you refer to as “changing their minds”. In a century or so of rigorous testing, there has never been an experiment done that suggested that general relativity or evolution by natural selection are flawed theories.

      This is why I stick to scientific observation rather than some kind of church doctrine…the body of scientific knowledge only becomes greater over time, but over time the meaning behind a rigid, unchanging, body of religious dogma can only become muddled through schism and mistranslation. And besides, everyone changes their mind, scientist or not. If you felt like the Bible had it down perfectly, why aren’t you selling all your possessions for charity? Someone had to change their mind about that somewhere along the li

      Report Post »  
    • CaptMickeyd
      Posted on August 10, 2011 at 1:19pm

      “and Darwin, who of course demonstrated how natural selection produces evolution of species”

      Actually, Darwin looked at a couple of finch species that had changed some characteristics because of their environment. He never demonstrated any evolution of a species. Those same characteristics went back the other way when the descendents of those finches went back to their ancestors original environments. Why is it so hard to believe that this can happen? A human that lives their entire life in the desert can get extremely cold in 60 degree weather. If they have children in 60 degree weather, they will acclimate. Is this evolution or acclimation? Adaptation, maybe? Darwin was an idiot that got his job on the Beagle based solely on his parents position and status in society, and if he truly knew anything about genetics, he probably wouldn’t have married his first cousin.

      Report Post » CaptMickeyd  
    • meaningful_answer
      Posted on August 10, 2011 at 4:22pm

      @captmickeyd

      Just because you don‘t like the scientist doesn’t mean you can question the validity of the science. Isaac Newton was purportedly a bit of a pompous ass, but that doesn‘t mean we can’t use his equations to calculate the mutual effect of gravity between two bodies. And for the record, Darwin DIDN’T know anything about genetics. That field was pioneered by Gregor Mendel, famous for his experiments with pea plants; he was Darwin’s contemporary but Darwin never knew of his works. And it would be almost a century before Watson and Crick nailed down the structure of the DNA molecule that ties the fields of evolution, genetics, and abiogenesis together.

      DNA is in fact the reason that your theory that the finches were adapting rather than evolving is demonstrably invalid. Adaptations certainly do occur in organisms, yes, but they don‘t change the DNA in every cell in the organism’s body. If the finches were adapting rather than evolving we would expect that their children would not share their adaptations because only genetic material can be passed from generation to generation…after all, two rats with their tails cut off will still produce fully-tailed children.

      The theory of evolution by natural selection is irrefutable given three assumptions:

      1. Random mutations occur as DNA is being copied.
      2. Beneficial mutations will help an organism pass on those mutations.
      3. This process of natural selection has been occurring for billions of years.

      Report Post »  
  • riverdog1
    Posted on August 9, 2011 at 3:07pm

    you guys will believe anything. fun to read. NPR by the way is a lot more fair and balanced than beck or fox.

    Report Post »  
    • warner
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 3:25pm

      lol…..

      Report Post »  
    • paulusmaximus
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 4:43pm

      No, actually not so I for one don’t believe NPR.

      Report Post » paulusmaximus  
    • AlmostaCowboy
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 5:01pm

      Beck and Fox aside, your statement is absolutely laughable.

      Report Post » AlmostaCowboy  
    • fdfargher
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 7:37pm

      I beg to differ. Anyone who believes in evolution, NPR, the mainstream media, the Democratic party and the Obama administration will believe anything. The ignorant and gullible run our universities and elect a Marxist Muslim for President.

      Report Post » fdfargher  
    • Jamescagney
      Posted on August 10, 2011 at 6:32am

      Obama is a Marxist Muslim? Oh please. You have no credible proof for that.

      Report Post »  
  • sWampy
    Posted on August 9, 2011 at 3:06pm

    The Bible doesn’t say Adam and Eve were the only humans god created.

    Report Post »  
    • This_Individual
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 3:31pm

      True that.

      Report Post »  
    • Greenwood
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 4:00pm

      Romans 5: 12 That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned_.

      If you don’t believe that then you are not a Christian and Christ died for nothing. Since a perfect human life was lost, no imperfect human could buy it back. What was needed was a ransom equal in value to what was lost. Jesus , whom the bible calls the last Adam paid the price for Adam’s sin.
      John 3: 16…………..

      Report Post » Greenwood  
    • Howyinthehills
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 8:16pm

      True Swampy, after all, eligible marriage partners were women from the kingdom of Nod. since they were capable of breeding with Adam’s offspring we might assume they were human.

      Report Post » Howyinthehills  
    • Greenwood
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 8:57pm

      Adam & Eve had many sons and daughters during his life of 938 years. Genesis 5:5

      Report Post » Greenwood  
  • Weiners Wiener
    Posted on August 9, 2011 at 3:02pm

    Take any biology class, and you‘ll learn that the elements that make up the ’dust of the earth’ are almost identical to those that make up human flesh – only in different quantities. Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, phosphorous, etc. Through 2 years of biology and anthropology classes, I found science and the bible very much in agreement — just written in a different voice.

    Report Post »  
  • GodHatesFigs
    Posted on August 9, 2011 at 3:01pm

    If the Genesis story of Adam and Eve is purely metaphor then there was no actual original sin, and therefore no purpose for Jesus.

    Report Post » GodHatesFigs  
  • Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
    Posted on August 9, 2011 at 3:00pm

    I will put the matter very direct and clear from my perspective: Adam and Eve were created by the Almighty and that ends the discussion.

    Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
  • Arcangel Michael
    Posted on August 9, 2011 at 3:00pm

    Jesus, I trust in You

    Report Post » Arcangel Michael  
    • WhiteFang
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 4:05pm

      Do you,,,,really?
      What does it mean for you when you say; “Jesus, I trust in you.”?

      Report Post » WhiteFang  
    • Old Truckers
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 4:40pm

      whitefang,

      That is the only thing he can say, he has no other thoughts it seems. Just look at his comment history.

      Report Post » Old Truckers  
    • AlmostaCowboy
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 5:04pm

      @ old truckers – once you’ve said that, there is little else that needs saying.

      Report Post » AlmostaCowboy  
    • Old Truckers
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 5:50pm

      AlmostaCowboy,

      It is very good to trust in Jesus.
      But is that is a solve all answer to every question or statement, it is not really appropriate in all cases is it? Come on Michael, I wonder what is really in your mind. At least two of us are wondering what is in there, just waiting to come out.

      Report Post » Old Truckers  
    • Big Book Harry
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 9:53pm

      Jesus said “I am the way the truth and the life no one come’s to the Father but through me” I believe He is who He said He was and in what He said. Hence I trust in Him ;-)

      Report Post »  
    • Jamescagney
      Posted on August 10, 2011 at 9:53am

      How do you know Jesus isn’t Satan? Because He said so?

      Why does an all-powerful being need your love? For what purpose? And why would he damn you to hell if you don’t? It makes no sense. Those are the actions of a jealous insecure four year old, not the creator of the universe.

      Report Post »  
  • Gonzo
    Posted on August 9, 2011 at 2:59pm

    “You would have to postulate that there’s been this absolutely astronomical mutation rate that has produced all these new variants in an incredibly short period of time.”
    Yet, evolutionistst have no problem with apes “mutating” into humans? You can’t have it both ways.

    Report Post » Gonzo  
    • Locked
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 3:17pm

      “Yet, evolutionistst have no problem with apes “mutating” into humans? You can’t have it both ways.”
      Sure you can; apes didn’t mutate into humans. Evolution says they have a common ancestor. It’s best to understand what position the other side holds before you argue against it!

      Report Post »  
    • xoke
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 3:33pm

      We just haven’t ever found any remains of that “other” species? Quit being a wise ass, you know what his point was.

      Report Post » xoke  
    • 1TrueOne55
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 3:33pm

      Yeah Darwins “Missing Link” and that link is God and since no man can stand in the presence of God and live they will keep looking for that link when the explanation is hiding in plain sight.

      Report Post » 1TrueOne55  
    • Gonzo
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 4:23pm

      xoke
      Couldn’t have said it better.

      Report Post » Gonzo  
    • Drives Like Jehu
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 4:55pm

      Are you talking about that magical, invisible “common ancestor” that the evolutionists all slavishly worship???

      Report Post » Drives Like Jehu  
    • Locked
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 4:57pm

      @Xoke
      “Quit being a wise ass, you know what his point was.”

      Either Gonzo doesn’t know what evolution entails (unlikely, he’s usually pretty sharp), or he’s purposely misrepresenting it. Of course I know the point, but that’s no reason to use fake arguments to prove it, in my opinion. Some people might actually think evolution says that humans come from apes, and misinformation like that is probably why.

      Report Post »  
    • AlmostaCowboy
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 5:07pm

      Is that the “theory” of evolution that’s being being discussed? :-)

      Report Post » AlmostaCowboy  
    • Infidelephant
      Posted on August 10, 2011 at 11:53am

      “Are you talking about that magical, invisible “common ancestor” that the evolutionists all slavishly worship???”

      The IRONY!!! It HURTS!!!

      Report Post » Infidelephant  
  • joe1234
    Posted on August 9, 2011 at 2:53pm

    Biologos…oh yeah those christians who think they can appease the darwiacs…not a chance. Darwinism is pure atheism, there is no room for christianity, or any other religion.

    Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.”

    Provine, William B. [Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University], “, “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life”, Abstract of Will Provine’s 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address.

    Report Post » joe1234  
  • coloradolifer
    Posted on August 9, 2011 at 2:48pm

    I’m sorry, but I had to stop at “NPR.”

    Report Post » coloradolifer  
    • TMunson
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 2:59pm

      Agreed!!!

      Report Post » TMunson  
    • SimpleTruths
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 3:11pm

      Right, why bother to actual learn something when you know everything already.

      Report Post » SimpleTruths  
    • UlyssesP
      Posted on August 9, 2011 at 4:28pm

      @SimpleTruths
      Yes exactly! That’s what I told Obama about the economy at http://www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT/

      Report Post » UlyssesP  
    • coloradolifer
      Posted on August 10, 2011 at 10:56am

      SimpleTruths, I certainly don’t claim to “know everything,” having once been a knee-jerker, heart-bleeder, touchy-feely kinda lib. Knowing is a process of learning, and when I began actually studying the Bible and how various media represent it, I did come to some conclusions that have served me well for many years. One is that “learning” about the Bible from NPR is like “learning” how to argue a case from watching “Law & Order.” I have read the Bible, all of it, many times, and I believe it is the Divinely Inspired Word of God. The KNOWLEDGE I have of its truth is is in my heart, not necessarily in everything I see going on all around me (although if you — YOU — were to read the Bible, you would see much of this spelled out very clearly in many, many, many Scriptures). We walk by faith and not by sight.

      Report Post » coloradolifer  
1 2 3 ... 15

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love