How does this not disprove the Bible? No original sin with evolution. No Adam. No patriarchal lineages. No Jesus.

How does this not disprove the Bible? No original sin with evolution. No Adam. No patriarchal lineages. No Jesus.

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >No Adam. No patriarchal lineages.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam

    Ahem.

    • 3 weeks ago
      {

      I assume you’re joking, but Y-Adam and Mitochondria-Eve (or whatever) didn’t live together, they weren’t in the Garden, they didn’t disobey God by eating the forbidden fruit.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I know, just a bit of funsies.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There's no hard evidence for the belief that men descend from apes, it's just educated guesswork at best. "This skeleton looks like this one so it's his granddad from a million years ago." etc. For the Atheist this is accepted because it is the only atheistic explanation of the existence of Mankind that has been produced, so believing it is an article of faith for their ideology. For the Theist it can be rejected for theological reasons and the fact that it is just a theory.

    • 3 weeks ago
      {

      The “just a theory” cope. You do know the universe is 15 billion years old right? Any society which rejects modern scientific knowledge is condemning itself to the Stone Age.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah it's much more credible that Satan distributed ERVs in mammalian genomes in such a way that they map onto the phylogenetic trees constructed before we knew ERVs were a thing in order to lead us away from God.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >There's no hard evidence for the belief that men descend from apes
      Maybe that's because we didn't descend from apes, we *are* apes.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        If we *are* apes, then we also descended from apes, dumbass.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          His point is genuine. You people really don’t seem to understand that we are closer related to chimpanzees than chimpanzees are to gorillas. Firmly in the great ape family
          If you said rats are descended from rodents it would be perfectly justified to point out that rats are rodents.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Very simply and obviously: a man is not a monkey. Please, by this so-called force of nature, that you should be able to locate and reproduce, give rational powers and language to a pet poodle, or any animal you like. Please, show us your work.

    • 3 weeks ago
      {

      No one is saying that’s possible.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        But it should be testable and repeatable if we are to believe you.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Also, I have a much simpler refutation:

      Jesus rose from the dead, after lying in a tomb for three days. Therefore, the naturalistic evolutionary account of human origin is false, because God obviously exists.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Counter refutation:

        Take your meds.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Show us the work that Jesus didn't rise.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Is this Jesus with you in the room right now?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them? And as for us, why do we endanger ourselves every hour? I face death every day—yes, just as surely as I boast about you in Christ Jesus our Lord. If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus with no more than human hopes, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Paul didn't take his meds.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I believe Paul certainly more than any Last Man.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Paul says 4 times in his letters that he's not lying. The israelite doth protest too much if you ask me.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Christian calling others "Last Man"
            Now you're simultaneously larping on two opposing fronts, lmao.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            ‘I understand, I’ll open my ears once more (oh! oh! oh! and hold my
            nose). Now, at last, I can hear what they have been saying so often: “We
            good people – we are the just” – what they are demanding is not called retribution, but “the triumph of justice”; what they hate is not their enemy,
            oh no! they hate “injustice”, “godlessness”; what they believe and hope for is not the prospect of revenge, the delirium of sweet revenge (– Homer
            early on dubbed it “sweeter than honey”), but the victory of God, the
            just God, over the Godless; all that remains for them to love on earth are
            not their brothers in hate but their “brothers in love”,36 as they say, all
            good and just people on earth.’ - Nietzsche On the Genealogy of Morality essay 1 section 14

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It isn't the Christian that strives to make the world small, take the example of this thread, that best describes the man without God. The Christian dreams, loves, cries and dies and all in boundless joy. His dream spans Eternity.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No, the ChristCucks dream is,of getting into heaven after rupture, therfore their time is not "eternal" i don't actually know what gave you that moronic idea in the first place.
            So shut up you idiot.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What is love? What is creation? What is God?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You’re just not used to seeing humans covered with thick body hair, our closest extant species cousins are very clearly in our cousins. The DNA and ERV DNA confirms this and the fossil record also matches up

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Make him a man if this power is so evident to you.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Wow you truly don’t understand evolution. You know that even children get this right?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Then please explain this completely unaccounted for force, that you claim is a law of nature, yet cannot at all repeat or describe, that could give an animal rationality, which is a completely immaterial power? Like comes from like. You cannot get the immaterial from matter, and if you insist that you can, then prove it.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Also, for any interested readers, this topic is actually a lot more complex than you've been lead to believe by the mainstream. This actually long essay delves into many of the problems with naturalistic evolution:
            https://www.thepostil.com/the-philosophical-impossibility-of-darwinian-naturalistic-evolution/

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >yet cannot at all repeat or describe, that could give an animal rationality,
            Not all humans have rationality. For example you’re an adult man with an internet connection and you don’t understand evolution. Now brushing past a piece of middle school science curriculum that you don’t get, you want me to fight with you about neurobiology and consciousness. Literally asking me why I can’t turn a chimp into a man.
            Get the frick out of here, get one of your more intelligent friends to talk.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            All humans have rational powers or they wouldn't be human. Take this example, a significant and completely unique feature of man's rationality is his ability to understand universal concepts. While anyone can imagine a man or woman, no one can imagine things like humanity, injustice or even concepts themselves, because these are immaterial. You can't pinpoint to a landscape and find "concepts", because these exist only in a mind with the ability to grasp immaterial universals. This ability is uniquely human and what makes possible our capacity for language. The naturalist has to demonstrate how this ability could even in theory arise by purely material forces. And therefore I believe his attempts will always fail.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            All humans have an immortal soul made in God's image. Animals don't.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >blocks you're path
    ackchyually Adam and Eve were a Cro-Magnon couple who lived 750,000 years ago

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because this is false evolution
    there were many species at war having all been gathered from many different planets
    humans were engineered to imitate the ape-like cavemen who were themselves uncontrollable brutes. humans were designed to desire leadership and easier to control and manipulate maintaining that they tend to like to mimic behaviors as a means to learn and are more likely to copy neighbors in order to survive. Cavemen were more solitary and dug into the earth to avoid us. There's a reason there's more dinosaur bones than cavemen being found. There is no linking evolutionary step because we were manufactured from them. We're about as similar to them as we are a head of cabbage. Which is incidentally significant.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Not defending evolution but here's what a theistic one said

    Basically, the hominids were without rational souls and separate from humans. Adam and Eve were specially made with Eve being made from Adam. Animals and hominids died because they didn't have a rational soul.

    Adam and Eve though were made to be immortal and have no diseases and never go to hell since humans were special creatures made in God's image. Adam and Eve fell into original sin after Satan tempted them and they ate the fruit so they weren't immortal and could get diseases and go to hell. All humans descend from Adam and Eve. He also said that Adam's descendants could breed with the humanoids without rational souls and the kid would have a soul. Only humans have rational souls and all Humans are from the original pair. The rest of the humanoids without rational souls just died Noah's flood so they're gone now.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Only humans have rational souls and all Humans are from the original pair.
      There is no original mating pair of humans. The first man or woman had several partners if you even can nail down the parameters to constitute human. Evolution is a sliding scale inside of reproductive isolation

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That's the thing. He distinguishes Adam and Eve as having a rational soul and being made to be immortal and without disease or possibility of hell. Those other humanoids and whatever came before could die because they weren't made in God's image and didn't have a rational soul. In his theology, Adam and Eve were specially made in God's image and nothing else was. He also specifies that Eve was directly made from Adam. There was an original pair made for immortality that came far later on in the story and the rest did not count as human.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Did neanderthals have rational souls? Did this original pair have offspring with the other non-ensouled humans? If they did how does original sin fit into this? Did they spread their sinfulness to their offspring? Overall this is adding things into an ancient Near East mythology that was never intended to be there.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Did neanderthals have rational souls?
            According to him no and they were outside of the paradise garden.

            Did this original pair have offspring with the other non-ensouled humans?

            According to him yes but the kid had a soul not the other parent.

            > If they did how does original sin fit into this?

            According to him, if they had stayed in the garden and not eaten the fruit, they would have had forever immortal offspring without disease. Their bodies would live forever. But now any offspring they have even together can't live forever. The original sin passes on because now their descendants can go to hell and burn which wouldn't be true of Adam and Eve before the fall and not true of Neanderthals who just died and went nowhere. If they had not disobeyed, all humans would be born in the garden paradise and never die or get disease, also never go to hell (unless some other person in the future disobeyed and got kicked out).

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            And they did spread their sinfulness to the offspring according to him. It made the offspring far more likely to want to sin than any of their ancestors. There's much more of a desire to sin than before Adam and Eve fell. According to him, this original sin also makes them unable to reach heaven unless God forgives their original sin. They are born too tainted for heaven.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Where are you getting this from, because the creation account is awfully silent as to how humanity spread from Adam and Eve. It is silent about a lot of things that people like to fill in with Greek philosophy (this whole rational souls talk) that attempts to fill in the gaps. Wouldn't Adam and Eve genetically have been drowned out by the already established population of humans? Also another thing the writers of the creation account wouldn't have even known what a neanderthal was.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            According to him, no because the established population didn't have rational souls and didn't count as human. They weren't made in God's image so God didn't care if they died unlike humans who were made in God's image.

            All humans with rational souls would descend from Adam and Eve. Also according to him, all of the humanoids without rational souls drowned in Noah's flood. Then only humans with rational souls were left after the flood.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            And they did spread their sinfulness to the offspring according to him. It made the offspring far more likely to want to sin than any of their ancestors. There's much more of a desire to sin than before Adam and Eve fell. According to him, this original sin also makes them unable to reach heaven unless God forgives their original sin. They are born too tainted for heaven.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            How does one know if they have a rational souls or not? Are their humans alive today that don't have this rational soul that you speak of?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            According to him no because he said they all died out when God made the flood during the days of Noah's ark.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >The first man or woman had several partners if you even can nail down the parameters to constitute human.
        Noah and his family would have been the starting point, not Adam and Eve.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >I didn't come from no monkey
    >I am the proud product of population bottleneck of Adamite and Noahide breeding
    >Remember brothers and sisters easing your hands is israeli virtue signaling, but incest is wincest.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This is what broke the camels back for me and helped be leave Plato's cave. The cognitive dissonance that Christians seem to have regarding this is maddening and the whole story falls apart of you think about it for more than a minute.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What about the idea that science tells us “how” but religion tells us “why”?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        My question would be how doesn't answer the why? The Genesis (and the Flood) account does not make sense in the light of scientific discovery unless you start twisting the narrative.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          How doesn’t answer the why, no. Because there is always the entire universe to explain.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I always believed the story of the forbidden fruit to be a metaphor for the sedentarization of humanity.
    History shows that women invented/discovered agriculture, which forced humans to settle down and grow their own food due to that forbidden knowledge they have acquired.
    Humans were telling the sedentarization tale through generations for millenias.
    Over time the story has been subjected to numerous transformations like every other tale to become the one we all know and love today.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    homosexual Habilis was Adam and Jesus is the next step in our evolution homosexual Divinus

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      homosexual habilis was an extinct ape not our ancestor

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I don't know. I haven't kept up with pop culture.

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It could disprove the Bible if you could demonstrate that it happened.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >he says with every cell in his body having proof that he’s literally distant cousins with a chimpanzee

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Wouldn't it be evolutionarily beneficial for Lions to be omnivores?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Not enough to warrant the changes in teeth and digestion. They get by just fine killing and eating animals. Maybe in the distant future some population will evolve into that niche but it’s not necessary.

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Adam and Eve weren't the first humans, they were the first humans with a awareness of a higher power

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why is awareness is a higher power a good thing especially when one is condemned to hell for knowing this?
      Also how do you know they weren't the first humans? The creation account says nothing about humans outside the garden?
      Adam's name (which is a term for man) derives from adamah which means earth and this alone implies he was the first man made. Even Genesis 2:7 (New English Translation of the Septuagint) claims "And God formed man, dust from the earth, and breathed into his face a breath of life, and the man became a living being." The Hebrew old testament states for the same verse "And Yähwèh Élöhîm formed man (adam) [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
      This was taken by the majority of those who believed in the Bible that Adam was the first man created even 1 Corinthians 15:45 disagrees with you.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Not him but they were the first humans. Awareness of a higher power was good because it meant they were the God imagers made with an immortal soul, creativity, and rationality. You say it means they could go to hell but they could never go to hell until they got kicked out of the garden since they were made physically immortal. Anyone without this awareness was not as valuable and couldn't get to heaven. So, no heaven for chimps.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Ok this is more consistent with what the creation account says, but this is now stepping all over evolution as their was no first human. It would be a gradient of species that very gradually shifted to what we see as the modern human.
          Another issue with this is the assumption that Adam and Eve were made as immortal beings. The creation account never says they were immortal but that they would "die by death" (NETS) on that same day they eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Since Christians inherited this text they started throwing the idea of spiritual and physical death to try to make the text more consistent. Why was there a tree of life in the garden if they were made immortal?
          Lastly how did they have rationality since they hadn't eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? They don't display their "rationality" until after they have eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. How would they have even known that disobeying god was a bad thing?

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    me on the left

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >No original sin with evolution.
    The acquisition of the power to manipulate fire was the original sin
    >No Adam.
    The first human XY-chromosmekin capable of walking upright and formulating sequences of identifiable phonemes in a certain pattern (i.e. spoken language) was our Adam.
    >No patriarchal lineages.
    What are Y-chromosome DNA haplotypes?
    >No Jesus.
    I've met a lot of people named Jesús.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *