That is why I made this submission. The object is to talk about a specific topic, but to avoid messy arguments that only drive people apart. If everyone can remain friendly and respectful, things will go more smoothly, regardless of the topic at hand.
And for now that topic is the existence of the Christian God. This is obviously a controversial topic, and nobody has to join if they don't want to. The choice is yours, and yours alone, to participate. You don't have to believe in what I believe, but I hope that you at least learn something about why I, and many others, believe in the presence of the Christian God.
I understand that this can easily turn into a heated debate, but I shall repeat my intent on a friendly and respectful discussion. There is no need to call people names or get angry in general.
I would like to begin with what you believe. And please tell me why you believe in your belief. I'm genuinely curious to know. But it's still your choice.
Another thing is the origin of life. How could any organism, even single-celled organisms spontaneously be created out of inanimate materials and minerals? The conditions for life, and life itself, are interdependent. Even the establishment of proteins would be impossible in the lifeless conditions scientists believe the Earth was in millions of years ago.
However, the idea that animals adapt to new enviroments, via micro-evolution, isn't hard to grasp. I just see no evidence of it creating the entire animal and plant kingdoms we know of today from a single organism.
Second, is how everyone accepts it as fact. It's a theory, an untestable concept. We cannot really confirm it's existence as a fact. It's an educated guess, true, but we weren't there to record it. Science is really only effective in what is here and now, in what we can observe. If we're talking about a process that takes place over millions, if not, billions of years, we can only explain it with what we see at the moment. And since only so many animals and plants were preserved long enough for us to study them, there's no way to tell if there are missing links or not, and what may have happened to them. Just identifying similarities between organisms is not enough to prove evolution.
Please excuse me if I sound incoherent or ridiculous at any point, I'm kind of known around my household for not being able to explain myself very well. >~<
I will, however, as is my nature, try to be polite and not get mad. There won't be any name-calling from me, I'll try to keep things mature.
I'm an atheist, I do not have any beliefs. My views on the world are based on scientific, factual evidence, things that have been proven real. The reason for this? Well, what reason would there not be for it? There's no evidence of a god, and therefore I do not believe in one, which I think is a reasonable thing to say. In fact, that's what all atheists think. I believe it would be hard to find one who doesn't have that as a reason.
Also, are you one of those Christians? The ones that deny evolution, fossils, the age of the Earth, etc., because you seem like a nice guy and I really don't wanna get frustrated with you. :s
I am actually a Christian and a creationist, but I don't like it when arguments get so heated that people almost seem ready to come to blows. That's why I usually don't voice my mind. I know a lot of people who believe in different things, and I don't want to come across as a Jehova witness or someone like that. I've taken a closer look at evolution because I've heard people say things like, "If you believe in the Creation story, do you not believe in DNA?" and stuff like that.
I don't want to frustrate you, or force my beliefs on you, you seem like a nice person as well. If you don't mind I can tell you what I believe in and why I believe in it (again I respect your beliefs). I belief that there is reasonable logic in the existence of God. Yes, there is a lot of faith that needs to be contributed, but there seems to be evidence that supports a higher power. We all can say the Universe began at some point in time. Some people believe the universe began with a singularity, I (and others) believe that God created the Universe in 6 days like it said in the Bible. Either way, I think both theories prove that something or someone created the universe. Take the Big Bang theory for example. Beyond reasonable doubt, scientists agree that the universe began out of nothing. And it's also agreeable that the universe will end at some point in the future. According to Newton's Laws forces are needed to cause movement or some other kind of action. So what caused the creation of the Universe out of nothing? Or what caused the singularity that caused the Big Bang? It would have to be a force that existed before and outside our Universe.
I would like to repeat that you don't have to believe in what I believe, I'm just stating my opinion. As for evolution, that's a touchy subject for me. I read that there are two categories. Macro-evolution and Micro-evolution. Macro is the idea that all life on Earth comes from a single celled ancestor, and that over the years, life evolved from that ancestor to life as we know it on Earth. Micro-evolution focuses on the varieties of the genome caused by mutations. For example we have several breeds of dogs and cats. I believe in micro-evolution, but not macro-evolution. The Bible says that flying creatures were made at the same time as sea life. And it says plant life was made before the Sun, Stars, and Moon. To most scientist that reasonably sounds impossible. I believe that God is capable for making the universe that way. But in the Bible, it says the animals multiplied after their "kind." I think that the animals made first were just variations of the species we know today. Not quite the ancestors of macro-evolutions, but still part of the same family.
I would definitely like to know what makes you believe in what you believe. As a child I tried to convince myself I believed in God, but I never really did, and over time I completely stopped believing and just pretended I did, then later stopped pretending completely and identified myself as atheist. The idea seemed silly to me, so I never really understood how people could believe this.
Alright, the universe being created by a force. I sort of understand that, but why the Christian god specifically? There are many religions, what makes Christianity the correct one?
Another thing I don't understand is how one could believe in the Bible. Would you mind explaining?
Okay, now I really gotta clear this up for you, because this mistakes a lot of people, especially religious folk. Micro-evolution and macro-evolution are not different things. They are ways of classifying the time period and level of change between evolution. You can look it up, scientifically they are not considered as different things. They're both evolution, micro and macro evolutions are just ways of classifying it. Therefore you can't really believe in one but not the other.
Plant life made before the sun? I've never heard of that. But then again, I never read the Bible before, I've only read it to find the part that video game "The Binding of Isaac" was based on so I could joke around with my little brother, we both love that game, haha. If God made plant life before the sun, the plants would all die. The sun is absolutely essential for all life on Earth, how would that be possible?
For example, let us describe the New Testament and the story of Jesus' resurrection. One way historians analyze text is by seeing how many manuscripts portray a specific event. They see how often the event is recorded, how early the recordings of that event are, and how different are specific recordings in comparison to other recordings. The earliest known account of Jesus' death and resurrection was recorded roughly 40 years after the event (by eyewitnesses), there are several accounts of the same event, and just about all of them are exactly the same. If you use the same technique for Plato, you would find that the account for Jesus Christ is more accurate than the account of Plato.
You probably already know this, but Jesus was born on the first Christmas (Jesus Christ's birthday is "Christ"mas). He grew to be about 33 years old, and I believe he is one of the Holy Trinity of God. Jesus is God on Earth. Jesus showed miracles, and began Christianity as an official religion. The Romans persecuted and killed Him. Upon His death, Jesus took all the sins and evil in the world upon Himself, so that all of humanity had a chance to enter Heaven's gate for eternity. But beforehand, Jesus told everyone He would rise after three days. The Romans assumed that Jesus' body would be stolen, so they sealed Jesus' corpse behind a stone, and had some of their best soldiers to guard the tomb. However, Jesus still rose from the grave, spent a few days on Earth, and returned to Heaven.
To this day, people have searched for the body of Jesus Christ to disprove Christianity. If His resurrection was ever disproved, all of Christianity would unravel. It's our Achilles heel, and the foundation for our entire belief system. Christians were the minority then, but many people knew about Jesus' death. So if Jesus didn't come back from the grave, why didn't people just show Jesus' corpse. If I were to say Christopher Lee came back from the dead, people could show his grave and corpse and prove me wrong. It should have been that easy, if not easier, to disprove that Jesus never rose from the grave. If the earliest known manuscript was written 40 years after the event by eyewitnesses, why didn't anyone go "Here is the body of Jesus, you Christians are wrong?"
According to this website evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibr… "Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species."
And according to this website www.icr.org/article/1156/285 "Macroevolution refers to major evolutionary changes over time, the origin of new types of organisms from previously existing, but different, ancestral types. Examples of this would be fish descending from an invertebrate animal, or whales descending from a land mammal. The evolutionary concept demands these bizarre changes.
Microevolution refers to varieties within a given type. Change happens within a group, but the descendant is clearly of the same type as the ancestor. This might better be called variation, or adaptation, but the changes are 'horizontal' in effect, not 'vertical.' Such changes might be accomplished by 'natural selection,' in which a trait within the present variety is selected as the best for a given set of conditions, or accomplished by 'artificial selection,' such as when dog breeders produce a new breed of dog."
They are ideas to classify the time period and level of change like you said, but micro evolution still looks more valid for me because it occurs within a population and we can witness such changes today. However, the idea of this occurring as a process to explain all life coming from one ancestor seems more fantastical than anything else. To begin with, scientists tried to recreate the conditions of Earth billions of years ago, but they were unable to turn elements into essential amino acids for life to begin. They were unable to bring about life in an environment without life. There are also millions, if not billions of "missing links" out there. Scientists are still unable to find the transition species for just about all life. Like from land animals to whales or dinosaurs to birds. Evolution is supposed to have a very, very slow rate, so we should be able to see a gradual change from one species into another, but we don't see any evidence of that.
Here's how it worked in the Bible. God created the Universe in 6 days. He made like and darkness on the first day, but he didn't make the Sun, Moon, or Stars until around the 5th day. You're right when you say plants can't survive without Sunlight, but a couple days without sunlight wouldn't kill them. Besides, it's God I'm talking about, if he can make the universe in 6 days, he can make plants a couple days before the sun (fully grown) without the plants dying.
Oh, no, don't worry about me, I don't like getting angry at people over the web, so if I do get frustrated, I wouldn't really show it in any way, I feel I'm more mature than that, lol. Idk if that's healthy, whatevs. d:
By the way, prepare for massive wall of text. It's a bad habit, my friends know all too well, haha!
Honestly it wasn't the idea of a God that really turned me off the idea of Christianity, that part was just kind of, "Eh, okay, whatever, maybe."
It was the Bible that completely convinced me it was false. I just don't understand how anyone could believe any of the things it says, its morals aren't even good.
Let me explain myself:
First of all, what I find to be one of the most insane stories of all, Noah's Ark.
If you believe in what the Bible says, you believe this story. You can't cherry pick, it's really uncool. The Bible claims to be the absolute truth and word of God, so you either believe all of it or none of it.
If I remember correctly, here's how it goes. Tell me if I get anything wrong -- God is displeased with the people he's created and how they're all misbehaving and going against him or something, so he decides to wipe the Earth clean of the terrible people. But he doesn't want to completely make them extinct, so he finds this loyal, faithful man named Noah and tells him to collect two of every animal -- a male and a female -- and build a giant ark so that he may repopulate the world after God floods the place to get rid of all the tainted residents. So Noah spends like, 100 years or something (Which is impossible, I'll remind you, unless Noah was like, 1-22 years old.) building this huge ark. When he's done, he gathers the animals and his family and boards the vessel. God floods the world, killing everything and everyone, except of course the passengers on Noah's ark. The ark sails for seven days and seven nights, then Noah sends out a dove (or some kind of bird, maybe a magpie?) who returns a few days later with an olive branch. This means the bird found land and the flood is retreating. So finally the ark reaches land and Noah lets all the creatures out to repopulate the cleansed Earth.
Sure, it was a good story when I was a wee lad, but that's all it ever was to me -- a story.
Why would God do this...? Can't he do everything? Couldn't he just go *snap!* and all the evil would be gone? It seems he makes some real bad decisions. Also, it's extremely unlikely that Noah was the only good person on Earth. He probably ended up killing a lot of good and/or innocent people. It's really crazy. The only possible thing I can think of is that God is a psychopath who loves revelling in everyone's misfortunes.
The vessel was smaller than the Titanic...it's literally impossible to fit two of every animal in there. Not to mention how some animals have very short lifespans, like the mayfly which lives for 8 hours at the most, if I'm thinking of the right insect. What about the waste those animals would've built up? It would've been inhospitable in there. And the food? Some animals would eat the other animals, and even if they don't, what about the diseases one of them inevitably carries? Everything in the ark would be infected and probably turn ill, even Noah. Here -- there are 950,000 types of insects alone. Fish, 30,000. Mammals, 5,413. In total, there are about 2-50 MILLION known species on Earth. How many passengers fit on the Titanic? 2,228. Meaning this story is factually impossible.
And, alright, let's say since God is God and therefore can do anything that this story would actually be possible. Where's the evidence for this? If this happened, we would be finding billions of fossils of various species on the same rock layer. But hey, we don't. How about other geographical evidence of a world-wide flood occurring? I mean, if it happened, there would be an overwhelming amount of evidence.
If you have any evidence, please show me it. Oh, by the way, no Christian websites. They always have this bias, they make things up and it's always unfair, unreliable and unscientific. Show me a real, scientist-run website that has a non-bias perspective.
Alright, maybe that story's untrue, but maybe God was having an off day. But, the morals in the Bible are all good to live by, right?
Eh, no. For this example, I'll use the story that I was talking about earlier, the only one I actually read straight from the book -- The Binding of Isaac.
Yeah, you're probably rolling your eyes at me right now, knowing exactly what I'm gonna say, but just hear me out.
On the low chance you haven't heard it, here it goes:
There's this dude named Abraham who's loyal and faithful and stuff, and one day, God talks to him. He says something along the lines of, "Abraham, to prove your faith to me, and to prove you love me above all else, sacrifice your son, your only son whom you love, Isaac, to me." And so, Abraham takes Isaac up to some mountain saying that he'll be sacrificing a goat or something to God and wants him to come along. When they reach the mountain (or whatever it was), Isaac asks where the goat is to sacrifice. Abraham says, "Uh, well, here's the thing, you're the sacrifice." So he ties Isaac up on the alter-thing, and just as he's about to plunge the knife into him, an angel comes down from the heavens and stops his hand. The angel says that he has proven he loves God above everything else and instead provides Abraham with a lamb to sacrifice in place of Isaac.
I don't need to say how screwed-up that is. Also, it was completely unnecessary! If God knows everything, he'd know if Abraham was loyal to him or not. That's not a good moral.
Also, more moral stuff, the sins are ridiculous. First of all, you can't be an atheist turned Christian, because you've committed the ultimate sin which you can't be forgiven for, so there'd be no point. Also, if a child disobeys their parents they can be stoned to death? Debate is also a sin. They're trying to scare people out of exploring alternative options, and I believe that's wrong.
Anyway, enough immature ranting from me, I'd like to see this evidence of the Bible being historically sound, would you mind providing links? Once again, no Christian websites, they have an unfair bias.
As for Jesus...uh, what?
I do believe in Jesus. Meaning, I believe Jesus was a real guy. But not the son of God and not miracle-preforming. He might've travelled around claiming he was the son of God and gained followers, and they probably did have him crucified for whatever reason. As for his body...the fact that nobody's found his body is hardly evidence of him being revived. There are millions of possibilities of what could've happened. Maybe it was stolen, maybe it was eaten, maybe we just haven't found it yet. A lot of human remains are probably out there somewhere waiting to be found. Do we know where the huge cave with a stone was? His tomb? Have we found that area, or not? If we found that and there was no body, it would at least give some credit.
'Scuse me, I could say more on that, but I'm a little brain-dead right now since I've been working all day. ;~;
As for the evolution part, alright, fine, let's say micro and macro are super different just for the sake of argument and keeping this short. The problem is evolution as a whole has already been proven. It's a fact. It's not just a hypothesis, denying evolution is pretty much denying gravity. For someone who has more experience and knowledge on this, I'd refer to this video. It...might, maybe be offensive in a way? Idk, sorry if it is. www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdQsZ_…
Also, what? Evolution does not explain how life began, it explains how species changed to better suit their environment.
Alright, missing links.
No. There are not millions and billions of missing links. Let's start out with "dinosaurs to birds". May I introduce you to the archaeopteryx? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeop… It's a perfect example of a transitional species. You really just gotta look at it to see how it's obviously like a dinosaur/bird hybrid. It's also widely believed that raptors had feathers, sooo...
Monkeys to humans? Meet Lucy. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Au… And of course the neanderthals en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neandert….
Land animals to whales? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutio…
Speaking of whales...
Also, we do see a gradual change from one species into another. Rock layers tell so many stories, it's amazing.
If you'd like more, you can just search up "evolution" on Wikipedia, but to deny the mountains of evidence that proved evolution correct would just be turning a blind eye. I don't really care if you're Christian, what I care about is when people get brainwashed and ignore science. I know the reason you've denied evolution is because it clashes with your religion. And fellow Christians who deny it come up with these untrue "facts" like there are so many missing links it has to be false, or that there's little to no evidence of transitional species. Unfortunately, I know there's going to be no changing your mind. I would like you to actually listen and think about what I'm saying, though. I don't want it going right through you. I'll repeat it one more time -- evolution has been completely, 100% proven. It is a fact. It's just as much as a fact as the Earth revolves around the sun. Believe what you want to, but don't deny hard facts. You're only hearing what you want to hear, and I believe that's not healthy.
Not meant to offend. Sorry.
Alright, the plant thing.
You're right in one way -- the plants don't die if they don't have sunlight for a day. But keep in mind there's no source of heat anywhere. The Earth would be completely inhabitable. The universe is cold. The sun is very powerful. And plants need heat. Even at night time, the sun is still there, it's just that the Earth is tilting away from it at night. Remember how some children think the sun turns off at night? If it really did, we'd all die immediately. Here, think of Pluto. Is Pluto able to support life? No. We live in a goldilocks zone, the perfect balance of heat and cold. Without the heat, bye-bye life!
But I guess if you believe God can do anything, that's not outside the realm of possibilities.
Too lazy to proof-read, might end up being rambley, nonsensical and uncoordinated. Sorry. As I said earlier, I'm tired and not good at this to boot. d:
Have a nice evening.
It may take me a long time to respond again, once again, I kinda leave these to whenever I feel like answering them, which isn't really cool of me, but I can't always process walls of text, haha.
I'm sorry to say you may be facing a huge wall of text as well.
I think you misunderstand the Bible a bit, and I think it's common to misunderstand the Bible.
I shall start with the story of Noah because you did. At Noah's time and before, human lifespans were far longer than they've ever been. In the Bible you will find people before Noah that lived hundreds of years. It wasn't until after the flood that human lifespans became as short as they were around his time. This was also before the formation of Egypt, and most other cultures we knew of around that time, so it was thousands of years ago. I'm not entirely sure how large their population was, but I don't think it was even close to a billion. Now picture this, the Bible said that the hearts of the people were so dark and evil, it was hard to look upon them with any sympathy. Which means that all the evil we're having today would seem like a child's temper tantrum compared to the people in Noah's time. Noah was not saint, but he, has his family, were the only ones faithful to God.
Yet God still loved every single person that lived, now live, and will live in the future. He didn't want to kill them, but justice was still needed. It was worse off to just let the evil fester like a pool of maggots. He didn't enjoy causing the Flood, but those people already doomed, and it would have been evil for God to instantly force them to be good, he still wanted to honor their free will. But then it wasn't exactly God who killed them. In being as evil as they were, the people killed themselves spiritually. Also God promised, after the flood, that he would ever cause anything like that again. The Rainbow is really the sign of that promise.
As for the Ark, it's hard to judge the context. I believe the animals were merely horizontal variations of some of the species we have now. Like a variant of the dog/wolf. There could have been variations of certain cat species just for example. It wouldn't necessarily have to be millions of animals, it was mostly land and air animals (much of the bacterial and aquatic species wouldn't need the Ark anyway). From those select few they could have horizontally filled the list of species we know today.
I don't necessarily agree 100% with this article, but you wanted articles that weren't Christian based. abcnews.go.com/Technology/evid…
I've also heard one theory that God had a mist of water high in Earth's atmosphere and used that to cause the heavy flood and supply most of the water found in the oceans and the ice caps. Either way, I still believe it was a worldwide flood. And there is loads of evidence for such a flood. There are sedimentary layers across the globe, there are fossils of aquatic creatures in even the highest peaks. And the only way for fossils to be preserved naturally are to be rapidly compressed or buried. Preserved fossils cannot occur over millions of years. I found a scientific fact from one article stating,
"The fossil sequences in the sedimentary rocks do not constitute a legitimate exception to this rule, for there is a flagrant circular reasoning process involved in using them to identify their supposed geologic age. That is, the fossils have been dated by the rocks where they are found, which in turn had been dated by their imbedded fossils with the sequences based on their relative assumed stages of evolution, which had ultimately been based on the ancient philosophy of the "great chain of being." Instead of representing the evolution of life over many ages, the fossils really speak of the destruction of life (remember that fossils are dead things, catastrophically buried for preservation) in one age, with their actual local "sequences" having been determined by the ecological communities in which they were living at the time of burial."
I know you didn't want me to use any Christian articles, but the article I used brings up disproved the counter argument with valid logical, and scientific facts, not unprovable claims. www.icr.org/article/842/ It also works against the argument of evolution.
Speaking of evolution, here is another point of my view. Just because different species have similar genomes doesn't mean they are related and came from the same evolutionary ancestor. God created every living creature, He knew what genes would benefit certain species in specific environments. Perhaps having similar genes is a kind of signature. Many of those "transition" species were perhaps just separate species or sub-species of their own. And the ancient "humans" could have been different kinds of apes, similar to man, but died off before mankind spread across the Earth.
As for Abraham, God was never going to kill Isaac or let Abraham kill Isaac. God promised Abraham that Isaac would spawn a nation, and God never breaks his promises. It was more of a test of loyalty in a long, long line of loyalty tests. Time and time again, Abraham denied and laughed at God. Yet God proved that a woman hundreds of years old, and barren for all her life, could have a child. Abraham laughed and kept telling God it was impossible. Nobody but Jesus/God is perfect. Every prophet and disciple makes mistakes and deny God when God promised to do impossible miracles. There was no way God would have allowed Isaac to die before his time.
Also when God asks a question to the people on Earth, it isn't implying that God doesn't know the answer, it was for the person to answer for themselves. God know all things actual and possible. There isn't anything that God doesn't know.
You misunderstand sins as well. There is no "unforgivable sin." God forgave everyone and died for our sins. He sacrificed himself and suffered on Earth with us. The Bible never said debate was a sin. and the whole stoning thing was taken out of context. Much of that was written when Egypt was the largest (or one of the largest) world powers. And those "stoning and harsh punishment" verses were written in a time where every nation used harsh punishments. And the punishments listed were mild in comparison to the punishments of other nations like Syria and Egypt. Punishments of that era were changed and now we have different punishment, but many of them are still harsh like the electric chair. It doesn't mean "we" have to issue the same exact punishments that people had thousands of years ago.
Many of the Bible's morals helped build the moral laws we have today. We can both agree that killing is wrong. Rape and incest falls under adultery. While people don't like the first and second, and third commandments, it still applied to idolatry. Many people still honor Sunday as the Sabbath day. And it's generally agreeable to love and respect your parents (even if they end up as monsters). It's generally agreeable that stealing is wrong, and so is being a false witness to your neighbors. Most of the Bible's rules hare generally agreed to across cultures and nations.
The Bible also teaches us to forgive all wrongs against us, and to love everyone (even your enemies) as much, or more so, than yourself. How many cultures or sacred texts ask us to love and accept everyone around us regardless of their differences. God asks us to love the poor, the rich, the white, the black, people of every race and culture, people of both genders, the straight and the gay, the righteous, the unrighteous, the good, the evil, your friends, your neighbors, and your enemies. The Bible teaches us that every human being that ever lived on Earth, still live on Earth, and will live on Earth in the future are all God's people, and that they all have souls of their own. The Bible taught us acceptance far earlier than all other nations and cultures do. That is partly why I respect you beliefs.
As for Jesus' resurrection, the body wasn't stolen or eaten. The body was placed in a cave that was very, very easy to find. The cave had only 1 entrance, and that entrance was blocked off by a boulder that could only be moved by rolling it downhill. It would take dozens of strong people to push the boulder out of the way. Then the Romans had guards patrolling the cave night and day. If these soldiers failed in their duty, they would be executed. Jesus' body was wrapped in linen so tightly bound, he would have needed other people to free him. The linen also works as a preservative. No animal could have entered that cave under the Roman's watch. If anyone tried to get past the guards they would have been slaughtered. The soldiers were the best of the best from the Roman army.
The Romans took these measures because the body disappearing would have humiliated the Empire. The Romans wouldn't have humiliated themselves by moving or stealing the body. The only logical explanation is that Jesus rose from the grave. Disproving that would unravel the fabric of Christianity. If you could disprove that, you could end Christianity forever.
The reason for this is the message. You've heard of killing lambs to atone for your sins. For all of the humanity in the past, present, and future, Jesus Christ was that lamb. He took every sin there ever was or ever will be on himself. So that in His eyes, all of humanity would be innocent. He opened a door for every single human being. That door leads to heaven and Eternal happiness. It's a Utopia we could never find on Earth. We can never be truly satisfied while we live on this Earth. The only way to find true satisfaction is in heaven.
I gotta cut this short, I can't continue reading or typing walls of text, and we don't seem to be getting to each other anyways. I kinda turned this into something bigger than a simple conversation and it's kinda getting old.
I'll just bid you adieu. Have a nice day.
However, I will start off by saying that I believe in both evolution and God. I believe that we did come from apes and all of that, but I also believe that evolution is possible because of God. I know, it's kind of odd, but it is what I believe in.
That's an interesting belief. I'm not a big fan of evolution, but you can believe in it if you want to.
I hear you there, I have many if friends on here and my only one in real life doesn't believe in evolution either.
I did look up some things about evolution though. There is macro-evolution, which is the belief that all creatures have a common single-celled ancestor, and that life grew more complex over millions of years. And there is micro-evolution which focuses more on variety, like different dog breeds, or other small mutations like eye color. I agree with micro-evolution, but I'm not a big fan of macro-evolution.