It’s not “creation vs evolution”

Ok the dust argument isn’t actually that strong, especially when you realize that the Bible describes us as being “of dust” as well. As far as any discussions about how much hair they had: I don’t know, the Bible doesn’t say one way or the other. If they had a lot more hair than we do, sure. If they didn’t, also sure!

I will admit that it is not the strongest argument. But I see no reason not to just except it as it says it: if it said 6 days, why couldn't it mean 6 days? If it said made from dust, why can't he be made from dust?

Also, excepting that God made man from dust doesn't actually disprove evolution, In fact, i think it makes it much more believable (though i still dont believe it). Saying that God evolved the world and then specially created man once it was done is more inline with the bible then Saying man evolved with everything else, since then man isn't a special creation

All of what you say is fair. Where we would disagree is what the text is fundamentally trying to express.

and unless someone finds a profound meaning in the bible that hasn't been found yet or there is a huge scientific breakthrough not everyone will agree with what it is trying to express.

about statements being together, it isnt your fault , Chess .com should fix it

when i said fur, i wasnt directly referencing fur in comparison to an ape, professional studies in these areas prove that mankind was a bit hairier in relation to now, and just that is already evolution, so, ill have to rephrase my argument. I believe in the theory of evolution to a certain extent, as in the creation of humans and life by God himself, but then evolution to the modern human = thats the chronological order

I will say that I don't have a problem with MICRO evolution (like men getting less hair or bears traveling north and turning white) what i disagree with is MACRO evolution (like a monkey changing to a human or some sea creature growing legs)

yes, me too. my whole argument only uses micro evolution in the sense that God created man along with all of life, and then he slowly evolved gaining modern-man traits, like lifestyle, personality, complex social nature and etc

@nomolos2 , there isn't actually as much evidence for macro evolution as biologists would have you believe. I read a great book about it, called "Icons of Evolution". That's always troubled me about the theory of evolution, especially as it's become the atheist's version of religion. They aren't looking for alternatives, which is supposed to be the main idea of science. I think there's an explanation that doesn't require a Creator, but we've not found it yet. At this point, I'm not sure anyone's trying.

Yeah I think some people did use to idolize science, but now most atheists are either liberals or conservatives who idolize their respective political ideologies. I think that a vast scientific consensus that is prominent, even among Christians in the scientific world, should not be discarded lightly. We must also consider if our understanding of scripture is wrong.

I've actually written a message (a few days ago) to someone who asked me for scientific evidence for evolution. Keep in mind that science is my weak point when it comes to these things, unlike philosophy or history, yet see how much I was able to write! This is for all in this forum who disagree with evolution.

Here it is:

Well from fossils we have the evidence of how they are found, first of all. For example, in the Grand Canyon, fossils are not found all at the top of the canyon or all in one layer, as one would expect if all the fossils come from a worldwide flood, since animals would swim or climb to the top of the canyon to survive. Instead, they are scattered through and in different layers of the ground, these layers being deposited over time. The best explanation for this is that there was a large period of time in which animals would have had the time to evolve.

Carbon dating is also a thing but I don't understand well enough to explain and use it as an argument so I won't get into it, but I do believe it works.

Fossils have similarities in bone structures which can are best explained by common ancestry, and this is not only seen in the bone structures of fossils of extinct species, but also today. One example is that whales have fingers on their front limbs and also have almost nonexistent hindlimbs which have the same structure of that of a four footed land animal, as well as bats and humans too. That's called the pentadactyl limb. The best explanation seems to be that these species with the pentadactyl limb have a common ancestor from which they evolved. This doesn't follow logically, but the progress in the fossil record does suggest it.

Also, evolution made many correct predictions. For example, evolutionists predicted that whales come from tetrapods that live on land, but they didn't find any transitional fossils from land animals to whales, evolutionary biologists calculated
where in the evolutionary progress these transitional forms are supposed to appear and they found a particular layer of the ground that was available for exploration in Pakistan. So they sent a team to Pakistan and they did actually find multiple fossils of intermediate species between land tetrapods and whales. These expeditions happened during the late 70s to 90s. They found species like the Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus and Dalanistes.

In DNA, good evidence for evolution are non functional genes in certain living beings (and also similarities in DNA but this is not as specific.) For example in humans, there's a gene that leads to CMT1 if it's duplicated, a condition. And this identical gene duplicate is found in chimps in exactly the same place and with the same mutations. It's very improbable that this is simply by chance, the best explanation seems to be that chimps and humans have a common ancestor, so both humans and chimps have inherited this broken gene.

William Lane Craig gives an example on this: "so this would be like thinking
of Ford and Chevrolet manufacturing a similar car. And we could
imagine that Chevrolet would say make a card that would have a very similar door
handle to the Ford, but if the door handle on the Ford were broken and
didn't work, the manufacturers at Chevrolet would not make a duplicate broken handle in their car. And yet that's what we find for example in chimps and human these broken genes uh and so this is strong evidence I think the chimps and humans do share a common ancestor."

So this is a bit of evidence for evolution. The evidence for an old earth is even more and harder to disprove. For example, YEC can't explain this extremely simple thing: if the creation, the universe, were only 6000-10000 years old, how do we see stars that are so far away? We can see stars which are so far away that their light would take at least a million years, many even billions to reach us, but that's not possible if the universe hasn't existed for that long. The most distant star that we can see with the naked eye is around 3000 light years away, so we see it 3000 years into the past, and that is with the naked eye. How many more and how much more distant stars can we see with a telescope? They easily surpass 6000 years. The most distant star observed is currently 29 billion lightyears away and we see it 13 billion years into the past. This simply but directly disproves a young earth. One would have to deny basic science, like the speed of light or idk what else, come up with weird theories, to be able to explain it and make it compatible with a young earth.

I will also share my story of how I came to believe in theistic evolution as a Christian. My whole life I thought that only atheists can believe in evolution and Christians only in "creation". I never thought one could believe in God and evolution at the same time. And the Big Bang for me was the escape of atheists who tried to disprove God. That's how ignorant I was. That was until someone on chesscom recommended I check out ReasonableFaith which is run by William Lane Craig, because he saw I'm interested in apologetics but actually have no clue what's going on. My first video on the app, I decided to watch a video on the Trinity, and Bill Craig mentioned millions of years. I was very confused and went on chesscom to ask the person what that means. It was only then when I realized there are Christians who believe in the Big Bang and in evolution, and I was firmly convinced they were wrong. I did quite a bit of debating, time passed. Then I read Augustine's "Confessions", from which I realized Genesis 1 need not be taken literally. I did further research, continued asking the person that told me about ReasonableFaith, watched more of Dr. Craig's videos. I slowly started becoming more acceptant of it as a doctrine, still disagreed because I had unanswered theological questions, till they got cleared, and then I started believing in it, and now I'm quite convinced it's true.

And now I actually appreciate God's creation, nature, so much more! I can look at a big rock and be in awe at how it existed for millions of years, which I couldn't do when I rejected evolution and an old earth!

Gavin Ortlund is awesome, I actually discovered him because Redeemed Zoomer mentioned him in the video in which he said why he wouldn't do Protestant apologetics anymore, that's the first time I heard of Gavin Ortlund. But everyone also needs to check out William Lane Craig! His website too, https://www.reasonablefaith.org/

Hey Coltey! Glad you could make it. We have similar testimonies on this issue, and I hope you enjoyed reading mine as much as I enjoyed reading yours.

Yes, I definitely enjoyed reading yours!

Not everyone agreeing doesn't make something more or less true, but we can look at the evidence and decide for ourselves.

What evidence for reading the text very literally is there? Why would that be prefered over other kinds of interpretations?

I’ve thought about that second question (why read it literally) and come to an important realization. People like Ken Ham will boast that they are merely taking the natural reading of the text. However, it turns out that no reading is super straightforward. You will always have to qualify a lot of things and bring in ideas outside the text (e.g. planes before the luminaries, that Eve is the “mother of all living,” Cain’s wife and the people he worries will kill him, etc.)

to answer that question, i could counter-argue why should we prefer less-literal translations over literal? if you say, "much of genesis is written to be loosely understood," remember that there are many parts of it that aren't, and that it was supposed to be a history for a people who had lost all of their past, and so was meant to be clear and concise.

I believe that all the similarities between creatures -bone structure, DNA, ect- is not because of "a common ancestor", but rather from a common creator.

I have heard of the excavation in Pakistan, but just because these land creatures are similar to whales(they aren't even realy that similar anyway though) doesn't mean they transformed in to one another.

And as far as the stars go I find the answer fairly simple: the universe was made with the appearance of age. Man was not created a baby, plants where not created as seeds, but everything was made with the appearance of having age, so my answer to the question of how we see stars that ar millions of light years away, is that God created light in transit, as if it had already existed, like everything else.

I would recommend watching Answers is Genesis videos on evolution

I don’t watch Answers in Genesis: if I’m going to watch videos by young earthers I’d rather watch someone who’s less dogmatic about it than Ken Ham. Lol they made this one video where they critiqued something called the “Diversity Bible” about how its notes are open to nonliteral interpretations, but the ESV study Bible says very similar things to it!

Why would God make something to appear old when it’s not? Does that make God a liar? And you did just admit that it looks old: at this point it seems like you’re clinging to pearls here. Would you give more credence to old earth theories?

"I believe that all the similarities between creatures -bone structure, DNA, ect- is not because of "a common ancestor", but rather from a common creator."

What reason would God have to give both whales, bats and humans the pentadactyl limb?

And more than that, how do you explain the duplication of a gene, which leads to CMT1?

William Lane Craig gives an example on this: "so this would be like thinkingof Ford and Chevrolet manufacturing a similar car. And we couldimagine that Chevrolet would say make a card that would have a very similar doorhandle to the Ford, but if the door handle on the Ford were broken anddidn't work, the manufacturers at Chevrolet would not make a duplicate broken handle in their car. And yet that's what we find for example in chimps and human these broken genes uh and so this is strong evidence I think the chimps and humans do share a common ancestor." (this is the transcript from a podcast, it was not written, but spoken by him)

"I have heard of the excavation in Pakistan, but just because these land creatures are similar to whales(they aren't even realy that similar anyway though) doesn't mean they transformed in to one another."

The argument was that evolution as a theory made many correct scientific predictions, such as finding intermediary species between whales and land animals in a specific stratum.

"And as far as the stars go I find the answer fairly simple: the universe was made with the appearance of age. Man was not created a baby, plants where not created as seeds, but everything was made with the appearance of having age, so my answer to the question of how we see stars that ar millions of light years away, is that God created light in transit, as if it had already existed, like everything else."

This is problematic. That would mean we do not see light in the past, but in the present, because God made it so. So we see the stars and even the sun in the present, even though it takes 8 minutes for the light of the sun to reach the earth! How do you explain this? You would have to deny basic science in order to do that. So either the earth is old, or it was created to seem old, but then you have to say that we see the light of the stars in the present, and deny either how far away the stars really are, or what the speed of light is.

"I would recommend watching Answers is Genesis videos on evolution"

I've read many of their articles and I can't believe how ignorant they are! Not only ignorant, but also irrational. For example, they made an article with the question "Did St. Augustine interpret Genesis literally?" and instead of answering the question in the title of the article, they argued that Augustine didn't believe in an old earth! How can you trust an organization that writes such superficial articles from a rational point of view, that they would write articles that are not superficial from a scientific point of view? If you fail in purely rational ways, you will also fail in scientific matters, which requires both rationality and observance of the natural world.

Answers in Genesis is not an organization dedicated to spread the truth, but an organization dedicated to defend views which I believe are held mostly out of either pride or ignorance.