Why do Christians compromise the Bible for the religion of evolutionism, in which there is no proof?

Attached: 1516442792556.png (625x626, 55.31K)

Better question:
Why compromise the teachings of God with the political world of man?

THOU FOOL

I don't faoloow what the church fathers say but I'm prettybsure they all believed creationism besides origien.

Also this is probs b8

Evolution is compatible with Christianity.

God creates everything that exists, and can make small changes to His creations over time if He wants to. Why is this an unchristian statement? Where can I educate myself if I'm wrong? Yes I read the Bible

Attached: 754F8AB2-688C-4C20-A1E5-795FD7741651.jpeg (4032x3024 3.58 MB, 3.65M)

We're talking about the pagan cosmology which was designed as an alternative to the biblical worldview, not the scientific fact of microevolution.

Yes
But he didn't
Because it contradicts the Bible
Read the Bible or watch the playist in the OP post
You sure?

Repent

Attached: F452A4B4-F0F8-475F-9567-F33C7CD720C4.jpeg (300x225, 44.29K)

And the evvidence he left in the Bible and in the world show closer to YEC than Evolutionism

...

Attached: EFD0B129-F1F0-4B3E-8909-55FF488246EE.jpeg (300x225, 45.06K)

...

...

Fool

Pual warned us about thee
2 Peter 3
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

He's a pre-trib rapture retard so he obviously has never read the Bible anything else he says is instantly disregarded. Trying to pretend he's any sort of authority on scripture is laughable

Will ya look at that. You're still an absolute retard.

Attached: 33EAA342-12EE-4EFE-87FC-CCB79BFFFA87.jpeg (2860x1265, 1.12M)

Jesus spoke in parables. Why would we take something like Genesis literally when it's meant to be poetic? It's not too bizarre to think God would teach with symbolism.
Are you aware of the hundreds of DNA strands we have in common with mice and such that a virtually useless?
I recommend the book The Language of God. I'd probably give it an 8/10 overall but 10/10 on explaining evolution and DNA without contradicting the Bible. Written by one of the world's top biologists who worked on the human genome project. He started out an atheist but then converted as he studied more about DNA.

Damage is done

Larables don't give names of people or referenced 200 times or by the narrator or literally in the freaking 10 commandments

pretrib isn't that bad of doctrine compared to the complete heresy and comrimisng to evolutionism

Someone post that webm of how Genesis literally matches up with science's understanding of the creation of the World then delete this shit thread.

We may not even live up to the tribulation and post trib is gaining some traction

And you're completely denying what the Bible says hundreds of times and actual science
I already did here

youtube.com/watch?v=d4EaWPIlNYY

...

Not among heretical evangelicals who fell for the Satanic (((Schofield))) translation.

I think I know which one I'll agree with.

Hovind?

Is this your first time baiting on Zig Forums? You made a solid go at it tbh

Why do whales have leg bones but are the most legless mammals

Attached: image(2).png (292x328, 74.5K)

excuse me what?

Actually no, St. Augustine also said effectively that God created a series of potentials which unfolded into the universe as we know it.

Also the Church Fathers for the last time weren't winnie the pooh scientists so analyzing Bible stories from a scientific accuracy perspective is idiotic. You first have to think like the people of the period before you can understand it. Like how the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil furnished the beams of the cross (Apocrypha).

In short it's not all literal, the divinely inspired writers were speaking in an idiom that has to be comprehended on its own terms.

wow that is some big brain nibba shiz right there

smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/promiscuous-whales-make-good-use-pelvises-180952620/

He meant land animals before water mammals(whales, dolphins). Because evolutionism teaches that whales cane for cows

Attached: 95B06EA3-82AC-4190-8E6B-C2D8F5ACF3D1.jpeg (428x610 173.78 KB, 45.1K)

No, it says they both came from a small digigrade animal.
Your example is like saying americans came from New Zealand.

I guess whale noises kinda sound like mooing.
God BTFO

Attached: 4B12D7BE-CFF7-4D40-9B1A-250AD8EF6028.jpeg (500x375, 39.3K)

Attached: Moving-the-goalposts-300x2402.jpg (300x240, 29.71K)

...

Attached: 80DB990F-3104-46D0-BB24-80561CAFBC59.jpeg (640x412, 54.23K)

Got any proof of that reasoning?

I don't. Any time somebody asks me about evolution, I explain to them that I don't understand how radiation from the Sun causing mutations in life forms on Earth could add information to the genome in order to make an extremely simplistic organism like bacteria into more complicated multi-cellular organisms

You're asking the wrong question.

Evolution and Christianity are compatible. Only if you are 100% literalist then not.

Because the only proof that exists its a book that says it's the proof.

0/10

God made whales the 5th day and cows the sixth

...

Ha no

...

So which day did these critters come about? Fifth or sixth?

Attached: Southern_Cassowary_7071.jpg (1200x800 179.07 KB, 263.21K)

Proabably the sixth since they can't fly

evolution has lots of 'circumstantial evidence' since animals share so many traits and genetics and it has materialist explanatory power. It's not a bad theory on paper, actually pretty convincing. Add to this fact that the schools and pop-culture all push it as a default "fact" and it shouldn't be hard to see why Christians believe it and try to reconcile the bible with it.
Genesis is poetic and has very little "science" to it so some Christians want to use evolution to fill in the gaps that Genesis doesn't even begin to address

So some birds were created on the sixth day, despite the day prior being entirely devoted to birds and fish?

God may not count them as birds. Like how he counts bats as birds and whales as fish. He could have though the 5th day.

Attached: 905.jpg (346x250, 7.55K)

Okay maybe he did make them the 5th day then.

But if that's the case, then they'd have to have been capable of flight in order to "fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven" (Gen 1:20)
The ratites are a very confounding group of birds. Same with penguins

Okay then he made them the 6th day, and doesn't count them as birds since they can't fly.

Then why make them like the birds if they're separate?

So ge can't make things similar to birds without being birds? Squirrels and chipmunks are quite similar but not the same

Both are rodents, and are by definition "creeping creatures," which puts them on the same day. With ratites, you have animals seem to belong to either day depending on how one looks at ir.

And it depends whether or not God counts them as birds.

...

Besides the ability to fly.

Flight is thing that makes a bird a bird

And whales are older than cattle, taxonomically, anyway.

Your argument is retarded, and is being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse.

Whales come from cows just as much as irish comes from siberian dialects of russian.

Attached: a51.jpg (500x500, 38.97K)

Then how are whales one day older?

21 And God created great whales,
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle,
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Oh for crying out loud.

The "tailbone" is an essential part of our bodies and has nothing to do with tails.

If you take so simplistic completely literal view. I don't respect that, I don't agree with it.

...

Daily reminder that questioning the Official Narrative is basically illegal outside of the United States of America. The second I hear a disgusting British or European accent, I know I'm listening to a damn fool.

So uh this was shown off a few months ago. Single skeleton, at least 90% complete, resembles the standard bipedal australopithecine that creationists have denied for years. Saw some AIG/CMI articles mocking the discovery decades ago, yet have fallen silent now that it's been unveiled to the public.

Any thoughts?

...

So you're saying it's a fraud then? No other evidence than a man too stuck in his ways to listen to anyone else?

Not saying for sure that it's fake but a lot have been so throwing out your religion for what may be fake is retarded as hell. Also how would that prove that we came from it? People used to be 900 years old, they would look quite different

Name a fraud that occured within the last half-century.

In the same way one can tell family members are related. Study the various traits they possess, and compare and contrast them to determine who's closer to whom.

Well first you have to provide reasoning for that claim that doesn't fall flat under scrutiny. Humans tend to become more gracile and fragile as they age, Neanderthals display a more robust form with more dense bones and thicker brows.

Attached: 1-neanderthal-fossil-skull-la-ferrassie-1-science-photo-library.jpg (800x600 74.95 KB, 52.45K)

How about the fact it's taught in the bible?

If you just mean neanderthal ones then I dunno any off the top of my head but for any thing then archaeopteryx. Also why would they stop making frauds now but do it before? Did they realize lying is immoral and stoped? And their religion is even more popular now so they would be more people wanting to prove it to be real.

Homology doesn't prove they're related. Can just prove a common designer. youtu.be/BcYMUJV5pKg

Genesis 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

The great age can explained mostly by the canopy theory, it would increase the amount of oxygen and the oxygen pressure. Hovind has a whole seminar explaining it youtu.be/cfgPHs9e3Cc

So the bible says old people look like neanderthals? I wasn't challenging you on the age, I was challenging you on your assertion that neanderthals are extremely old people. It seems like a rather large leap in logic.

Mistakes were made, and quickly corrected. Archeraptor was a good lesson in how not to fossil hunt.

You can claim anything you wish, but unless it can be verified, it won't be taken seriously. Also Hovind seems to have a very horrid grasp of how certain structures work together in organisms, and tries to make it seem as a fabricated as possible.

I'm not even gonna try to touch that. Others (including other creationists) have done so already

Sure, this is an easy one. This can be classified as a beast of the field.

Or a lot of the so called proof for evolutionism is faked, pic related

And you can claim it's proof of a common ancestor and you can't prove that either.

Attached: Slide448.jpg (351x260, 35.35K)

ncse.com/creationism/analysis/icon-4-haeckels-embryos
ncse.com/creationism/analysis/exaggerations
ncse.com/creationism/analysis/haeckels-drawings
ncse.com/creationism/analysis/richardson

Fossil record certainly seems to support it. (Inb4 "out of place" shit)

Attached: richardsonvhaeckel.img_assist_custom (1).jpg (360x215, 17.62K)

Attached: a6d.png (2550x1650, 376.96K)

Oh sorry was that bigoted?

Nah it's just bullshit it all.