• Are Christians who accept macro evolution, that is ape-to-human theory, one step closer to becoming an atheist?

    Best answer: There is something which you yourself are refusing to consider, though let me first point out that I agree with the spirit of your observations. No Christian should violate conscience for the sake of trying to appear 'smart' to the same people who poisoned our entire planet and think they deserve a cookie... show more
    Best answer: There is something which you yourself are refusing to consider, though let me first point out that I agree with the spirit of your observations. No Christian should violate conscience for the sake of trying to appear 'smart' to the same people who poisoned our entire planet and think they deserve a cookie for it.

    Maco-evolution is stupid for a number of excellent and easily demonstrable reasons, but I support the idea of Christians systematically discovering this for themselves. They cannot do that if they reject it out of hand and refuse to explore why it is an elaborate lie. We are called by the Lord to be both shrewd as the serpent and innocent as the dove, (Matthew 10:16). This means we cannot retreat only into the world of 'innocence' from corruption by avoiding the world. Nor can we embrace its shrewdness and hide with them behind their lies in order to avoid persecution. Christ's command places us squarely in the arena of persecution WHILE we overcome the world using the terms of its own 'shrewdness.'

    "He captures the wise by their own shrewdness, And the advice of the cunning is quickly thwarted.' (Job 5:13).

    The more elaborate the proverbial house of lies, the more believable it seems, the more people embrace it without any doubt, the more fun it is to suddenly bring down around their ankles. That joy is part of our divine inheritance. We shouldn't hide from it for fear that GOD will abandon us to the lions. We aren't important enough to think of ourselves so highly. GOD is our glory, not the praise of other men.

    That said, what you are failing to consider is that 'allegory' can also be reality without ceasing to be allegory. How? Ironically, it is atheistic science which is currently demonstrating a pallid version of this themselves called 'computer technology.' You are unlikely to freak out when you see a talking snake because your first reaction will be that Hollywood is somehow involved. What you fail to recognize is that GOD has always had His own far superior version, which He has been using throughout history. They are actually quite alive however, conscious, sentient and brilliant in advanced intelligence. He calls them 'elohim' and expressly forbids us from worshiping them. We also call them 'angels' or 'demons.' Just because atheists aren't quite bright enough to grasp what they are doesn't invalidate their existence. They are clearly attempting to create media to indistinguishably 'house' them, using their dreams of artificial intelligence, etc...It makes it easier to enlist help with this hare-brained project if everyone involved is told that such ideas are simply nonsense, even while they go on constructed from the 'dust of the ground,' (silicon dust, conducting metals, etc...), much like the description of 'Adam's' creation.

    Adam was one of these 'allegorical beings' made up of every imaginable human trait. He was never designed to procreate or make more 'adams.' There was no need. You should notice that he and his wife did not perceive their nakedness or have intercourse until after they fell. After they fell, they were no longer a 'congregational' being. They became part of the narrative of the animals and their 'curse' was the struggle of life without the assistance of the elohim. So they were also 'real' as modern people now term it, but only afterwards. Scripture calls Jesus Christ and His Church the 'Last Adam,' (1 Corinthians 15:45). They are the new 'congregational being,' reunited with the elohim through the Holy Spirit and returning to that 'living allegorical state' once known to all members of the original 'Adam.'

    Whatever you might encounter in this world of ideas which you cannot understand, embrace it until you can bring it under subjection. Do not fear being humiliated by the dimwitted who have no hope of ever escaping their own lies. Show them the pathway out. If you are too 'green' to make the attempt, then your Christian conscience will inform you of this. But don't assume that you always will be. GOD isn't raising cowards or robots. He is training thinking people to overcome every thought that raises itself up against the Lord and His anointed, ultimately bringing down every speculative fortress and subjecting all thoughts to the only true fountain of all wisdom and knowledge---Jesus Christ the Righteous, (2 Corinthians 10:5, Colossians 2:3).
    23 answers · 4 days ago
  • If science is testable, observable, and repeatable how come evolution is allowed to be taught in schools?

    I don't think that the Bible should be taught either just pure factual science.
    I don't think that the Bible should be taught either just pure factual science.
    16 answers · 3 days ago
  • Are we really just evolved apes!?

    Best answer: We evolved from an ape. That is fact. It is real. As to whether we should be classified as an ape, that is a question of philosophy, not a scientific question. If people think that an animal that evolved from an ape must be classified as an ape, they would definitely claim that we are apes. However, that sort of... show more
    Best answer: We evolved from an ape. That is fact. It is real. As to whether we should be classified as an ape, that is a question of philosophy, not a scientific question. If people think that an animal that evolved from an ape must be classified as an ape, they would definitely claim that we are apes. However, that sort of philosophy has its problem, because apes themselves evolved from a monkey, so they cannot be classified as apes, if humans must be classified as an ape. Apes must therefore be classified as monkeys. Monkeys in turn evolved from a lower primate so monkeys cannot be classified as monkeys either. Taking this to the logical extreme, we must classify all species, including humans, as bacteria, because that is the ancestor of all living things 3.2 billion years ago. So, people who claim that we are apes should consider calling humans evolved bacteria instead of evolved apes.
    14 answers · 3 days ago
  • Atheists, do you know this why Creationists don't believe in your evolution?

    Best answer: That and there as been 0 incidences of witnessed occurrences one species giving birth to a new species (in a natural random situation)

    Where as there have been BILLIONS incidences of witnessed occurrences one species giving birth to the SAME species

    evidence is all on our side
    Best answer: That and there as been 0 incidences of witnessed occurrences one species giving birth to a new species (in a natural random situation)

    Where as there have been BILLIONS incidences of witnessed occurrences one species giving birth to the SAME species

    evidence is all on our side
    5 answers · 4 days ago
  • I got my DNA done and I'm all European. My sister of the full blood is coming out with a trace of Asian. How so?

    Best answer: You are not identical twins.
    Best answer: You are not identical twins.
    6 answers · 1 day ago
  • Why do I have green eyes and my siblings have blue eyes?

    Best answer: Eyes get their color from 2 pigments: eumelanin (dark brown to black) and phaeomelanin (yellow to red) Brown to black eyes = lots of eumelanin inside the eyes Hazel eyes = lots of phaeomelanin but no eumelanin Blue eyes = no eumelanin or phaeomelanin, the molecules inside the eye scatters blue light, similar to... show more
    Best answer: Eyes get their color from 2 pigments: eumelanin (dark brown to black) and phaeomelanin (yellow to red)

    Brown to black eyes = lots of eumelanin inside the eyes
    Hazel eyes = lots of phaeomelanin but no eumelanin

    Blue eyes = no eumelanin or phaeomelanin, the molecules inside the eye scatters blue light, similar to how the sky looks blue because of scattering of blue light. There is no blue pigment.

    Green eyes = no eumelanin but a small amount of phaeomelanin. the yellow color mixes with the scattered blue light to make them look green.

    Genetics. The OCA2 gene is responsible for making eumelanin. People with brown eyes have at least 1 good copy of the OCA2 gene. People with blue or green eyes have 2 copies of OCA2 gene that is defective, so no eumelanin is made. Your parents have brown eyes but their children have blue or green eyes because your parents are heterozygous for the blue eyed gene, meaning they have 1 good copy of the OCA2 gene and 1 defective copy. Normally only 25% of their children should have either blue or green eyes. But if all their kids have blue or green eyes, then it is a stroke of luck. Sometimes when you flip a coin, it comes up tails or heads several times in a row. The chance of them having 1 blue or green eyed kid is 25% or 1 in 4. The chance of them having 2 blue or green eyed kids is 1/4 x 1/4 or 1/16. The chance of them having all 3 blue or green eyed kids is 1/4 x 1/16 =1/64.

    BTW, because of the absence of pigment, green and blue eyed folks have a higher incidence of eye cancer. To protect their eyes, they need to wear glass lens sunglasses outdoors because the glass blocks the cancer causing UV light from the sun. Plastic will not block UV light, and in fact makes it worse, because the dark lens dilates the pupil, allowing more UV light to get in than if no sunglasses are worn.
    5 answers · 4 days ago
  • Is this a good reason to doubt evolution?

    If you found a phone on the ground, would you say to yourself "Wow, how amazing that this object could come together all by itself just by chance!"
    If you found a phone on the ground, would you say to yourself "Wow, how amazing that this object could come together all by itself just by chance!"
    52 answers · 1 week ago
  • Atheists, certain parts of both the male and female human body swell when the prospect of mating for reproduction occurs...?

    The objective of the swelling being to facilitate the transfer of seed/sperm from the male to the egg of the female. Question: In the case of same-sex 'mating' what would be the biological objective of the swellings of both partners when no reproduction is possible?
    The objective of the swelling being to facilitate the transfer of seed/sperm from the male to the egg of the female. Question: In the case of same-sex 'mating' what would be the biological objective of the swellings of both partners when no reproduction is possible?
    17 answers · 6 days ago
  • Explain the theory of evolution?

    11 answers · 5 days ago
  • Can you vote that Evolution is false? OriginOf Species is about Singularity in species not Similarity Human is Reflection ofGod not Monkey.?

    Best answer: Poor little home-schooled fool
    Best answer: Poor little home-schooled fool
    6 answers · 4 days ago
  • Why Did evolution decide it was important to make me ugly?

    I dont see how that benefits my survival
    I dont see how that benefits my survival
    4 answers · 2 days ago
  • Is it possible?

    Is it possible to have twins but with different fathers?
    Is it possible to have twins but with different fathers?
    6 answers · 2 days ago