It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Theistic Evolution: The ONLY WAY!

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 05:16 AM
and that there were a variety of 'trees' in the Garden of Eden.., but what I would like to point out is that the Bible, "THIS IS THE BOOK OF THE GENERATIONS OF ADAM" , is what the theory of evolution has already convinced you to discount - that Adam and Eve were created and placed into the world to produce the Saviour - Jesus Christ. The Bible tells us that SIX DAYS, with a day being equivalent to a thousand years, is God's Divine plan for these three Ages. We are at the end of the sixth day! You have rejected the very people that God put into this world in His Plan to bring the Saviour - the SECOND ADAM. This is where believing theories leads you - away from the mind of God and all that He has to share with us. So what if some Christians believe in a literal six day creation, at least they don't reject the "First Adam".

posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 07:23 AM
Origen of Alexandria, in a passage that was later chosen by Gregory of Nazianzus for inclusion in the Philocalia, an anthology of some of his most important texts, made the following very modern-sounding remarks:

For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally

The New Testament contains an allegorical interpretation of a passage in Genesis. In Galatians 4:21-31 KJV, Paul treats the Genesis story of the sons of Abraham as an allegory.[11]

Other New Testament writers took a similar approach to the Jewish Bible. The Gospel of Matthew reinterprets a number of passages. Where the prophet Hosea has God say of Israel, "Out of Egypt I called my son," (Hosea 11:1 KJV), Matthew interprets the phrase as a reference to Jesus. Likewise, Isaiah's promise of a child as a sign to King Ahaz (Isaiah 7:14 KJV) is understood by Matthew to refer to Jesus. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews saw symbolism in the rituals of ancient Israel, foreshadowing events in the life and death of Jesus

If you believe in a literal Genesis and a singular Adam and Eve, I ask you - do you also agree Unicorns exist, and do you also agree you should go pluck out your eyes? because i KNOW you've looked at women you also believe God condoned incest amongst adam and eves offspring?

posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 10:11 AM

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by Iason321

First, Micro-evolution is the only valid scientific form, and does not contradict the bible in any way.

Macro evolution is irrelevant to science, and no one needs to embrace it because the secular world does. In fact, if you read your bible you would have the opposite opinion.

I was a 3.9 student and aced all my biology courses, I even corrected several professors and text books and introduced current research they were unaware of. I am unconvinced that macro evolution has taken place, the evidence is not there. I'm sorry you feel people need to believe it, I didn't.

On a side note, the only question I scored wrong on in one of my biology classes was in determining whether the use of mouthwash is evolution.

The populations of various bacteria change with the introduction of mouthwash to the environment, however after some time has passed the populations returned to pre-mouthwash levels. I argued evolution is change over time (citing the exact definition we were given), and while there was a temporary shift there was no change over time.

My professor said I was wrong, and there was a change, and it was evolution. I then created a scenario. I asked my professor if on an island there were 50 white people and 50 black people when a catastrophe killed 20 white people changing the populations to 30 and 50 respectively, but within 50 years the populations returned to 50 white people and 50 black people, is that evolution? My professor said yes that was evolution. At this point I gave up, knowing no amount of logic would win me back my lost points.

Tell me how the fanaticism for evolution is any different than that for religion?

Macro and micro are just descriptions for long term vs short term. It boils down to genetic mutations and natural selection. I don't know why people just flat out ignore that. Small changes add up over time. Small changes add up MORE over LONGER time. Macro evolution is not a separate process or some magical barrier that says changes suddenly stop adding up after enough time. It's funny when people bring up their education, despite the fact that they clearly are misunderstanding the theory of evolution. You are saying that a temporary shift is not "over time". Why? Did no time pass in between then and now? That's why you got the question wrong. The island with races is a poor example of evolution, as it doesn't span over several generations as the bacteria and mouthwash scenario, plus it's probably wrong to boot. You are taking 2 races of the same species, and then claiming evolution when after only 50 years (2 generations max) the population caught back up. There could be many factors involved in that, but evolution is the least likely, IMO, because it doesn't change people from white to black in that short of a time. Light skin took 300,000 years of evolution at the very least to become part of the homo sapien gene pool.
edit on 20-4-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

new topics
<< 1   >>

log in