/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

I don't. Because evolution is real. God guided it and made us humans his most precious creation.

I think the easiest way is to ignore it. It is of no consequence. History , as well as science, is subject to so much revisionism that most of it can not be taken on anything more than faith. But who is your faith in? Will you take a leap of faith for a teacher, some researcher, or any scientific authority? At the end of the day, who cares what people say about human origins, we are here now, and must give all glory to God.

>>569309

Evolution isn't real. It's possibly the most absurd idea anyone could imagine, especially with what we know of genetics.

>>569312

Actually it's quite the contrary. The more we know about evolution, more we refine it and understand how it works. And it's so astonishing that God can't be excluded from this process like everything in the Universe.

>>569316

>The more we know about evolution, more we refine it and understand how it works

Possibly the stupidest statement anyone can ever make.

>And it's so astonishing that God can't be excluded from this process like everything in the Universe.

The universe, specifically as Quantum mechanics tries to portray it, has no room for God.

>>569316

>God created death

Evolution is heresy

COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE, CANON CIX

>That whosoever says that Adam, the first man, was created mortal, so that whether he had sinned or not, he would have died in body— that is, he would have gone forth of the body, not because his sin merited this, but by natural necessity, let him be anathema.

>>569318

>The universe, specifically as Quantum mechanics tries to portray it, has no room for God.

Also this, QM is a total lie and basically the Jewish kabbalah repackaged as physics.

>>569319

>Adam was the first man

There's no contradiction of the theory of evolution here, man.

>>569323

Yes there is, and it's clear as day! To believe that God "used" evolution would mean that God created death and killed millions of creatures in order to create the world. But we find no such account in Scripture, nor in any other writings. In fact, the early Church Fathers even warned against some heretics who claimed that humans came from animals. But back to my main point, Scripture says that death entered the world after Adam sinned, and the Ecumenical Councils affirm this view. The Council of Carthage clearly states that, unlike what the Pelagians claimed, "death" in scripture referred to both physical AND spiritual death.

Secondly, if God "used" evolution to produce man, that would mean that man would be created mortal (which would contradict the canon) because evolution can only create mortal creatures, not immortal ones.

>>569327

I got rekt.

>>569327

>because evolution can only create mortal creatures, not immortal ones.

If we would go that way, evolution apologists would have do deny evolution over the fact that it can't generate the spiritual world, like souls and shiet.

>>569304

Learn about epigenetics. It explains 80% "evolutionary" examples without Darwinian science fiction. Also scientists have recently discovered that new species can arose just within two generations by observing Darwin's finches.

>>569355

It's a tough redpill to swallow, but transitional fossils (as well as dinosaur fossils) are fabrications largely carried about by the British Royal Society. This is mainly due to the fact that the British had a long-standing bone to pick with the French (going back hundreds of years), and so when the French began to work more and more with Biology (many of the most famous Biologists in the 1700s were French) the British felt they had to "one-up" them by coming up with their own theories, so when Charles Darwin came along, the British eagerly fabricated evidence for his theories, and it soon became "too big to fail" so scientists have been parroting the fossil meme ever since.

>>569355

It's a tough redpill to swallow, but transitional fossils (as well as dinosaur fossils) are fabrications largely carried about by the British Royal Society. This is mainly due to the fact that the British had a long-standing bone to pick with the French (going back hundreds of years), and so when the French began to work more and more with Biology (many of the most famous Biologists in the 1700s were French) the British felt they had to "one-up" them by coming up with their own theories, so when Charles Darwin came along, the British eagerly fabricated evidence for his theories, and it soon became "too big to fail" so scientists have been parroting the fossil meme ever since.

>>569363

oops, sorry for the double post.

>>569363

>>569360

>a bone to pick

Good one

>>569327

Death of animal differs from death of humans. God didn't create death is talking about "death" of immortal beings like humans (both bodily and spiritual) and angels (spiritual). If it would be same for animals or plants, then we wouldn't have had right to kill them.

>>569304

Africans being a different subspecies would not affect the basics of Christianity. Unless Adam was a neanderthal, they're still descended from Adam.

According to Genesis 2:

1. God made the human body out of the dust of the Earth. This process isn't detailed further. All we can take from this is that the human body comes from non-living matter. God could have created the human body from nothing, but He didn't. He used dust. Was the human body literally shaped by God's hands? (Likely the author had in mind how Mesopotamians made their idols out of clay. The idea of God making humans out of clay then has a certain irony.) God is previously described as having created animals. Could God have first created animals from nonliving matter, then refined those animals into the human body? Could this process have been evolution?

2. After God created the human body, He only then breathed spirit into the body. Is this a spirit in the animal sense, the spirit of bodily life? Or a different type of spirit, as in the soul? Could God have first created a human body with an animal spirit, then for the first true human bestowed a soul within that body?

3. Only then did God take the newly spirited human and put him in the Garden of Eden. The Garden of Eden was a closed, controlled environment seperate from the rest of the Earth. The first human's innocent soul might have rendered his body immortal. What is the significance of man first being created outside of Eden, then bring brought into Eden? Could God have used evolution to produce a human body, then took that body, and put a soul in it, then put the resulting human in the Garden?

4. Mankind then sinned, and became subject to death. Are animal bodily death and human spiritual death be different categories of death, and did mankind's sin introduce spiritual death, while animal death having existed before?

The creation of man in Genesis 2 can be reconciled with evolutionary theory to a degree, I think, depending on the answers to the above questions.

>>569395

>1. God made the human body out of the dust of the Earth. This process isn't detailed further. All we can take from this is that the human body comes from non-living matter. God could have created the human body from nothing, but He didn't. He used dust.

The main point here is that God made "heavens" (aka immaterial world) and Angels there, then made "earth" (material world) and animals here. And at the end, highest of creatures, i.ehumans were to be union of two worlds, both material and immaterial, hence body-soul dichtonomy. Thats why our bodies were made of dust, i.e. matter.

>Was the human body literally shaped by God's hands? (Likely the author had in mind how Mesopotamians made their idols out of clay. The idea of God making humans out of clay then has a certain irony.)

No, he did shape us by his own "hands" which here denotes The Word, Son (All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.)

>Could God have first created animals from nonliving matter, then refined those animals into the human body?

IIIRC St. Theophan the Recluse or St. Simeon Stylites had similary theologoumena

>2. After God created the human body, He only then breathed spirit into the body. Is this a spirit in the animal sense, the spirit of bodily life? Or a different type of spirit, as in the soul? Could God have first created a human body with an animal spirit, then for the first true human bestowed a soul within that body?

It was definitely a immortal human soul and Church is unanimous about it. The prime confirming fact of this is the factor of "Image and Likeness of God" of Mankind.

>3. Only then did God take the newly spirited human and put him in the Garden of Eden. The Garden of Eden was a closed, controlled environment seperate from the rest of the Earth.

This is too materialistic. garden of Eden is most likely a representation of prefall universe, where Humans were much, much influential every creature obeyed us unlike now when even lowest of beasts disobey us.

>The first human's innocent soul might have rendered his body immortal.

Yes, but immortal is an incorrect word here to use technically. Incorruptible is better.

>What is the significance of man first being created outside of Eden, then bring brought into Eden?

I view it as sort of act of enthronement of Adam, rather than literal change of places. could be wrong though.

>4. Mankind then sinned, and became subject to death. Are animal bodily death and human spiritual death be different categories of death, and did mankind's sin introduce spiritual death, while animal death having existed before?

its definitely different. Animal death isnt anything special, for they are solely material and dont have immortality at all. as it was said here >>569386 if it would be so, than killing them would be a sin. Human bodily Death is separation of our immortal soul from our body. (For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.)

>>569322

Here we go… what's wrong with that?

>>569414

An Abomination

>>569327

The pre-Fall preservation of Adam from death was a special grace. How is its existence contrary to evolution?

>>569437

>grace

It was nature

>>569465

So the Fall affected the material world?

>>569467

Uhm…duh?

<19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.

<20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,

<21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

<22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

>>569467

Yes, sin caused man and beast alike to die. The bible says that death is the penalty for sin, that's central to biblical salvation doctrine, so if things didn't die because of Adam's sin alone Christianity is a false religion

>>569478

>sin caused man and beast alike to die

nope, it doesnt say anything about beasts dying.

>>569465

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm#VI

>>569482

The bible says that people's property are part of their household (Gen 17:12-13), that animals were Adam's property (Gen 1:28), and that death came to Adam's household because of his sin (Rom 5:12). Therefore beasts died because of Adam's sin.

>>569507

I'm not interested in some innovation Thomas Aquinas cooked up, the bible teaches the covenant between God and Adam was founded on natural law, not grace

<And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

>>569550

>The bible says that people's property are part of their household (Gen 17:12-13)

<12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

<13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

Its talking about Human bondsman in the family and humans are DEFINETLY NOT property (. Chattel slavery was and is an abomination. Bible describes Debt Slavery.

>and that death came to Adam's household because of his sin (Rom 5:12).

<12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

It doesnt say this. It is talking about Mankind, descendants of Adam dying. Entering of death is talking about death of Humans.

You're adding to God's word, which is not a good deed to say at least.

>>569320

> QM is a total lie

Sause pls

>>569559

>the Baptist uses a Hovind video

Figures

>>569555

>humans are DEFINETLY NOT property

Then why does it say "bought with money"?

>It doesnt say this. It is talking about Mankind, descendants of Adam dying. Entering of death is talking about death of Humans.

And why does it come to humans? Because we are his posterity. The bible says death is the penalty for sin, so why do animals die, except for sin?

>You're adding to God's word

Wrong.

>>569395

>The creation of man in Genesis 2 can be reconciled with evolutionary theory to a degree, I think

No it can't, because all of the events you described in the first three points happened in a single literal day, or else Exodus 20:11 is a lie.

>>569563

>Then why does it say "bought with money"?

Because of Debt Slavery. One sells his services to someone if he didnt had any possible options left. That was a general economic system of ancient times. You are also bought by money in modern days by your employer, it just got fancy things, such as contracts and "workers rights".

>And why does it come to humans? Because we are his posterity…

That generically inherited our sinful nature from Adam.

>The bible says death is the penalty for sin, so why do animals die, except for sin?

Again, it is saying about bodily death of Humans, that is separation of body and soul, caused by dis-harmonization of both after sin.

Death of animals doesnt have any kind of significance AT ALL, except for ruining mans wealth, because they WERE NEVER IMMORTAL. Only immortal beings that were created were Humans and Angels.

Death of Human is tragedy, Death of an animal isn't.

>>569568

>One sells his services to someone if he didnt had any possible options left

It says "bought with many of any stranger". It means buying them from a salesman. It isn't the slave they're giving the money to, here

>You are also bought by money in modern days by your employer

>>>/leftypol/

>That generically inherited our sinful nature from Adam

And also the curse of death

>Again, it is saying about bodily death of Humans

Again, it is talking about the curse coming to Adam's household

>because they WERE NEVER IMMORTAL

Is the bible lying when it says death is the penalty for sin?

>>569571

>It says "bought with many of any stranger". It means buying them from a salesman. It isn't the slave they're giving the money to, here

No, it means from buying from an employer. Slave trade was actually punished by death. Again, you are misunderstanding old economic system, prior to feudalism.

>>>>/leftypol/

>If you use analogy of capitalistic system, you are a socialist

Fact remains: You are bought by your employer and bound to him by obligation.

>And also the curse of death

yes, curse that HUMANS inherited

>Again, it is talking about the curse coming to Adam's household

that HUMANS inherited

>Is the bible lying when it says death is the penalty for sin?

no, because it is referring to HUMANS.

Ok, I have to go now, Its 2 AM here, but I'll leave a few articles for consideration

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/was-there-death-before-the-fall

https://biologos.org/common-questions/human-origins/death-before-the-fall

>>569581

>Slave trade was actually punished by death

That's funny considering God explicitly authorized it in Leviticus 25:44-46

>you are misunderstanding old economic system

No, I'm not, I'm letting the word of God speak for itself

>You are bought by your employer

>>>/leftypol/

Work isn't slavery you commie, it's man's natural state

>yes, curse that HUMANS inherited

Because we are Adam's household

>no, because it is referring to HUMANS

No, it's referring to death. Animals die too.

>(((https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/was-there-death-before-the-fall)))

>(((https://biologos.org/common-questions/human-origins/death-before-the-fall)))

wew lad, these both deny that death is the penalty for sin

>>569404

It's stupid.

>>569318

>>569320

>>569322

Quantum mechanics proves that this reality is the false one and that we live in a created universe, with everything responding to God.

The true reality is the spiritual world, which we will see when the veil comes down and the angels and other beings are visible at the end times.

>>569643

>Quantum mechanics proves that this reality is the false one

shoo shoo gnostic

>>569643

>This entire post

This proves to me, once again, that QM is a mental illness.

>>569742

>>569751

Willful ignorance is also know as stupidity. Materialism leads to atheism. Quantum mechanics is not Gnosticism.

>>569765

>Materialism

>Not QM

Not only does QM not make sense, it's also deeply atheistic.

>>569304

Only Biblical literalists and "young earth creationists" would bother trying, and both of those positions are heretical and very, very recent.

The "scientists" are only guessing, and regardless, the specifics and mechanics don't matter.

>>569591

>>Slave trade was actually punished by death

>That's funny considering God explicitly authorized it in Leviticus 25:44-46

And several times in the Epistles of Paul, slavery is recognized as sound, legally, and not spoken against. Slaves are instructed to serve their masters well, and Paul asks, but doesn't demand, that a runaway slave who became a disciple under Paul be freed, and asks that if the slave owes anything or stole anything, to charge it to Paul's account, and never ever once says anything like the protestants of Britain or America would have said about the "evils of slavery" in the last hundred years or so.

>>569768

>it's also deeply atheistic

>>569788

>atheistic and materialist

So you're just retarded. My mistake.

>>569793

This video is terrible and anyone who appeals to QM to justify Christianity is not only ignorant of QM but also just plain stupid. According to QM, cause and effect don't exist and reality is just mathematical probability with no actual meaning. You are just atoms rapidly assembling and disassembling millions of times per second. Just look at this bullshit. Does this seem like science to you?

>>569800

>According to QM, cause and effect don't exist and reality is just mathematical probability with no actual meaning.

Not true, you can keep determinism if you give up causality and allow future events in your model to influence past ones. QM only tells you they can't both be true.

>>569813

That first implies that time is an actual thing. That implies that time is something other than the measurement of magnitudes.

>>569813

>Not true, you can keep determinism if you give up causality and allow future events in your model to influence past ones. QM only tells you they can't both be true.

Exactly. But both of those positions are bullshit. You're telling me you can witness an effect before a cause? Give me a break!

>>569567

If you read all of Genesis 1 and 2 with the days as ages then you can read Exodus 20:11 the same way with the days of the week as metaphors for the day ages of creation.

>>569404

Nobody actually understands it, but a lot of people try to base woo or fringe beliefs off of it anyway.

>>569320

>>569322

there is literally no reason for Christians not to believe in quantum mechanics. Evolution and junk can be passed off as "nobody's ever seen it or tested it" but you actually can't with quantum mechanics because it's being tested constantly. in addition, there is no biblical text which opposes quantum mechanics (if there is, please direct me to it). the kabbalah comment doesn't even make any sense. It *is* used for crappy new age ideologies, but that's because new age ideologies will grasp for any fucking thing that they don't actually understand. If there is any other complaint to be made about quantum mechanics, please let me know.

[very assblasted]

>>569788

>>569768

>>569765

>>569643

The proper way to approach QM is to "shut up and calculate". They are just a mathematical description, said description's interpretation is a whole other thing.

Problems appear because people get their knowledge about QM from pop-sci, and not academic, resources.

>>569793

Seems pretty cool and like solid science, but the conclusion that "nothing exists unlrss you look at it", kid of like if the tree falls in the woods and nobidys around it didnt really fall, seems like taking a huge leap from what the experiments showed. Maybe one of you can explain?

>>570039

There's no logic behind.

>>569309

God is the invisible hand.

>>569322

Quantum Mechanics is literally just God's Will

>>570035

I'd go as far as to say that if you don't understand the match behind the physics, you don't understand the physics at all, and it's effectively useless to discuss quantum mechanics with layman's language.