CreateDebate


Debate Info

35
3
Creationism is absolute. We were apes once.
Debate Score:38
Arguments:36
Total Votes:38
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Creationism is absolute. (34)
 
 We were apes once. (1)

Debate Creator

Dr_Batman(384) pic



Is Darwin's Evolution flawed?

I will give you a hint. We never began as animals and the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye proved one thing, Bill lost to Ken by proving Ken right. It's funny as Bill Nye was never a science guy. 

"Sciencerules" will be banned immediately for his subjective toxic opinions that support crime, truthphobia, Christophobia and heterophobia.

Creationism is absolute.

Side Score: 35
VS.

We were apes once.

Side Score: 3
1 point

Bill Nye argues subjectively that creationism is bad for kids. How? Is it demeaningful to humans overall? Nope. Creationism is all about God's creations and how they all came to be. It is a wonderful part of life. Darwinian evolution is bad for children due to these reasons:

It doesn't support our intellectual development

It puts us on a wide scale of "morphing" beings when humans are not changelings. Darwin's evolution is a mere fantasy and theory. It's been debunked and will continue to be debunked.

It shows that we cannot control ourselves when we definitely can make the effort. We are not uncapable to do so. We learn quick and we can think for ourselves.

Animals communicate differently then we do. Whereas they have an animal kingdom/hierarchal system of a food chain, we do not necessarily need it and it's actually harmful when we do. Humans don't eat each other unless they are cannibalistic and that is morally wrong. Yes. Cannibalism is evil. Anyone who defends cannibalism will be debunked and arrested as it is against the law and will always be against the law.

Some animals are asexual. Humans are not asexual. Biology states that males need a female partner and females need a male partner. Why? Because of the sperm and egg combining to make an infant. Evolutionists are aware of this, yet they think we evolved from apes? Nope. They may argue, "apes have that similarity of birth", well I can argue back and say, "That's only because we are mammals but that doesn't mean we are the same." Yes, I wage war against bill nye and his subjective lie to control schools. Liberty shalt not die to believe in Christ. I AM NOT ASHAMED.

Side: Creationism is absolute.
srtrnc43331(86) Clarified
2 points

I don't believe in evolution either. God created the world in seven days because He is powerful. I used to believe in evolution, but after reading your one hundred posts about anit-evolution, not anymore (I didn't read all 100).

But do you believe in dinosaurs?

Anyway, if God created the first Homo Sapiens, Adam and Eve, and there were neanderthals... then that can't be right. Those skulls are ape skulls. Some animals have gone EXTINCT, but they have never evolved into another species.

I don't know if dinosaurs are real, but if they are, then they had to have lived the same time as the early humans.

There is no such thing as homo sapiens, it is "humans". I've seen skulls of "neanderthals", which are actually apes.

Yo May see other messages that say that I believe in evolution, but that’s before this message

Side: Creationism is absolute.
1 point

Dinosaurs is another thing my friend. That will be a topic we need to discuss, agreed?

That's correct, we can't have been homosapien apes aka neanderthrals when God created us. Plus, there is evidence to support that we came from the inheritance of Adam & Eve not neanderthrals. So the homosapien thing is fake. It's made up, solely because of Darwin's theory. He didn't live long enough to actually do deeper research and back then during his time, he had no tech to check DNA etc.

I used to believe in evolution as well, srtnc, at least back in the olden days of school. However, I gradually realized we aren't animals despite the minor similarities like we were both created by God and because I met this girl in high school and she told me this. I love her so much for opening my eyes to this truth. Yes she loves me too ;D. Even my teacher in high school was like "I am a believer in God", "don't believe everything you see about today's science taught to kids like you." he said to us. At first, I was skeptical of his words, speaking out about science being wrong for once. I didn't know any better. He then turned to me and said unto me, "One day soon, you shall realize the truth". His words echoed in my head once more when years later, after watching the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye, I realized something; Bill Nye betrayed science the moment he agreed with the "gender spectrum" in an earlier video. I knew Ken Ham was onto something. He wasn't incorrect about Darwin being wrong etc. He was right about schools being infiltrated by naturalists and pseudoscience believing evolutionists. I believe dinosaurs probably were real but biblically, you and I both know, creation was in 4004 B.C. This was way before or after dinosaurs right? What if in the first two days or so they got wiped or dinosaurs lived on an entire different island away from the early humans because somehow God knew they were a big danger and wanted dinos to have their own private home. Only later, they were wiped by volcanoes nonetheless like Pompeii later on in the time of Rome. I agree wholeheartedly that neanderthrals are actually just apes and not humans. Obviously we also know this, I don't think in real history, humans ever encountered dinosaurs when they were alive. It was only after that people discovered the remains and fossils etc. We both know the earth isn't 4.5 billion years old, it's probably the lifespan of the earth though right? (Possible and probably most unlikely too. This is just me guessing. What I do know is, 4004 B.C to 2022 A.D (Present Day) is over 6000 years so far.

In all honesty, I am also unsure about dinosaurs. But it's possible they could have lived on an entirely separated island with a volcano that caused them to die. Thinking back to all the Jurassic Park and Jurassic World films, I am beginning to think they might've lived in an entire different place away from civilization and were wiped by a volcano. But that's just my own thought on this. There is also Drumheller here in Canada. There are fossils of dinosaurs and early creepy crawly creatures and God definitely did create those creepy crawly creatures aka insects. Since Creation lasted 7 Days, it could have been so many years to God perhaps? Or rather, it could've taken years in earthly timing when all things were created. God's timing and our timing is usually separated. What if 7 days to God was 700 earth years in between when the dinosaurs lived and died before we came long right? (I am unsure but yeah please bear with me here) These are things we must think critically about.

Then again, the facts are, there were 7 Days of Creation. I was just sharing my thoughts on if maybe there were more years to Creation then just 7 Days you know?(My thought and opinion was 7 Days to God but 700 years to humans.) I've also just done some YouTube researching; Dinosaurs weren't real, so I am going to look into this and see what I can find out. I recommend watching the Museum of Creationism including Noah's Ark with Ken Ham there and Bill Nye, again, having a big debate over the topic. Ken Ham is a good man. Trust nothing Bill Nye says. He's a certified pseudoscientist who wants creationism out of schools etc. Even though dehumanizing evolution is so bad for kids. Bill is a hypocrite.

Side: Creationism is absolute.
1 point

The theory of Darwin's evolution is certainly uncertain. It was never proved. Even Ken Ham has explained that there is no such thing as being evolved from a mere ape to a human. Otherwise, wouldn't apes be humans today? And wouldn't newborn babies be more hairy? Except human babies are not apes eh? Exactly and apes are still not humans too. Therefore, Darwin was wrong about that part. The part about survival of the fittest was taken from the observation of animalistic behavior within the animal kingdom. Darwin believed that we are similar in that light and claimed that we have animal origins. But it's revealed, there is just no evidence to support that. Rather, it's been fabricated and called "fact". Although animals of the mammal sector can sometimes mimic human behavior, it doesn't mean they are about to become human. It is humorous to see talking animals these days on tv. But it doesn't make them real humans. Now, just because humans can mimic animals, does this mean we are animals? No. Same process. It's just part of humans and animals forming a bond...sometimes. We do not have sex with animals because it is wrong and harmful. This is why bestiality is outlawed and will continue to be outlawed. The goal of evolutionists these days is to discourage believers in creationism. They believe that humans are suppressing their hidden "natural animalistic behavior". What they are actually trying to do is cause anarchy of sexual and violent behavior without self ownership of one's own individuality. Animals do not talk and instead growl, yap or sit there looking at you with cute eyes for a reason. While humans have been created by God to be more intelligent in communication, self control and being civilized. Are naturalists going for civilized behavior? No. They want everyone to be naked and that is what I call inappropriate NSFW content. If you cannot handle these truths and facts I have just written down, you are marked as a truthphobe; irrationally in fear of the truth and facts presented.

Gender theory, a most popular issue we have today, fabricated by subjective toxicvists(Toxic activists) and hypocrites claim that it is "factual" that we can change our gender. Biology says otherwise. Our chromosomes cannot be changed nor altered. To mess with our own biological structure can mess up alot of things. We may end up looking distorted and ugly. Gender theory can never be proved either, just as Darwin's evolution has already been debunked many many times. Gender and sex are the same. The reasoning behind the different use? Well, kids used to laugh when they heard the word "sex". Gender is meant to reflect upon your biological sex features. This either means manhood or womanhood. Penis or vagina + boobs. Men do not have boobs and if you argue "man boobs", that's another subjective opinion. There is no gender spectrum. Why? It is simple. You are either male or female. There is no in between. Do birth defects determine a new gender? No. Toxic subjectivists will claim "yes". For a fact? No. Intersex isn't a new gender. It is in fact, a birth defect due to chromosomal disorder. People who are born with a male and female genitalia mixed together is still male or female otherwise. You can tell by the voice of the individual. Eunuchs are males without a penis. Hermaphrodites are females with both and no, it's not normal and no, it does not make them special enough to promote rights for them to be of a "different' gender. No, you do not get to promote men to be women because men are men, women are women. Should we have gender neutral bathrooms? No. It will make boys and girls uncomfortable. People need privacy. Theories are often uncertain because there is little to no evidence to support them.

Side: Creationism is absolute.
1 point

In light of the end of the Ken Ham-Bill Nye debate on Creationism vs Evolution, why did Bill lose?

Simple. He failed to answer "Who created us", he failed to provide reasons why he believes in evolution. He fails to realize that there is barely any evidence to support it because it was indeed a theory. He dehumanizes everybody into animals when we aren't animals. He gets applauded for doing so and attempts on youtube most recently to control people in thinking that evolution is better rather then creationism. Yet the Bible has foretold of people like him who think they know better than God. The pride, the vanity, the wrath, the hubris etc, yea, all of that contributes towards what Senator Padme Amidala had said from Star Wars, "Liberty dies with an applaud."

So who is controlling who? Bill Nye and every subjective evolutionist seeks to control institutions by degrading people into mere apes. Yet apes aren't humans today and neither did we start off from there. "Sciencerules" has lost every argument and has failed to defend science for it's true meaning. Therefore, he or she is a fake scientist and a fraud just like Bill Nye. There are only 2 genders. Christianity is the one true faith. Corruption within church communities are caused by humans not by God. The devil has influenced many to think he doesn't exist and has also influenced them to deny God and the existence of His Son, Jesus Christ.

However, I stand here, fearless in the face of growing opposition. My faith is undying and unbreakable for I have built it upon the rock of Christ. All opposing arguments are subjective, toxic and debunked in an absolute manner.

Side: Creationism is absolute.
1 point

Was Charles Darwin a racist?Yes. Evolutionists are racists because they believe that humans are divided into different races. There is only one race, the huma race. No, we did not develop from animals. Apes are not humans. Humans are not animals. Our intelligence was never so low compared to animals. But evolutionists demeaningfully dehumanized humans to dumb apes. Teaching this lie in schools is unacceptable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YD2RHTpnJEAhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTKyWM8qhQg

Continued resistance against Darwin's theory of evolution will march onto atheists. You stand zero chances. Anyone who denies it are truthphobes. Your irrationality is your downfall.

People who blindly agree with evolution do not understand it has flaws. We are not apes and apes would be humans today if it were true but it isn't. That's why people who argue against me have lost and will continue to be debunked.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/darwin-evolution-crispr-microbiome-bacteria-news

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/mar/19/evolution-darwin-natural-selection-genes-wrong

Ken Ham won: (Watch the debate to further understand why evolution is flawed. Hijackers of science claim creationists can't be scientists. They are wrong. Secularists have indeed hijacked it.)(Evolutionists love to force it onto people that we have evolved from animals. We are not animals)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI&t=2s

Creationist science is focused on how God created us. It is the absolute truth of how everything began. Darwinian evolution is also the fallacy behind racism between different human beings from different ethnic backgrounds. We are not animals and "survival of the fittest" exists only in the animal kingdom. Humans learnt a similar thing but it is not the same. As higher intellectual beings, we are able to think about preventing such violence and to talk instead of constant yapping at eachother like apes do. Fossils have been discovered that never crossed with each other. But evolution states that apparently, humans developed from apes to what we are today? OBSERVE THE APES TODAY. They aren't humans and we aren't animals. All fools who oppose the absolute objective truths have an IQ of zero. Any further uphill attacks will be silenced. Subjective opinions and toxic retardation will not be tolerated.

I have won every debate and my efficiency is 99%. Creationism is absolute. Many today will use the common strawman failed argument that "We are wrong for believing". Your hypocrisy has already been exposed and I will not hesitate to debunk all who deny God's existence. Evolutionists love to push the idea of anti God evolution onto kids and lie to them. We are not animals and for thinking you are dumb animals, you really do not see the truth that we are not them, neither are they us.

In defense of the faith, more and more links will pop up. God exists and God prevails.

https://answersingenesis.org/charles-darwin/ken-ham-declares-darwin-was-wrong-day/

Ken Ham explained in his debate against Bill Nye that Darwin believed in multiple races of humans. Who's the real racist here? You and every evolutionist in existence. Your hypocrisy will continue to be exposed. You stand zero chances. Bill Nye had nothing, NOTHING to debate back about evolution. He only could talk about ties. He admitted that Ken Ham was right and then backtracked because he refused to surrender. Who is the idiot in the room? Bill Nye. Bill Nye The Indenial Guy.

Evolution has never been proven:

https://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/15/opinion/l-theory-of-evolution-has-never-been-proved-151289.html

"If the world hates you, it hated me first." - Jesus to the world.

More proof that evolution is BIOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

https://www.icr.org/article/evolution-biologically-impossible/

Jesus is my Lord & Saviour. God created the world. God prevails. It is very clear that I am explaining macro evolution being a fallacy. Micro evolution exists. There are two types. For those of you downvoting, you are invalid because you have failed to read. Darwinian evolution=anti God macro evolution.

The opposition who has used "That's not how it works" have been debunked and will continue to be debunked. You hold no facts. It is clear, I am dominating this debate and all opposition have lost in failing to present evidence. There is no evidence of Darwinian evolution. It has and always has been a theory. That is an absolute objective truth.

Side: Creationism is absolute.
1 point

Creationism is absolute. Go on with your rants about how wrong I could be. You can never win because there is sufficient evidence of Christianity being supported by several sciences; Biology, Archeology and Creationism. You might want to take a course or if you wish to continue this uphill battle, you will find yourself surrounded by truth. Scared? Then you are irrationally fearful of Christians, Christophobe. You are no supporter of science because you clearly deny facts.

Facts about Christianity:

https://www.cnn.com/2013/11/12/world/christianity-fast-facts#:~:text=Beliefs/ Practices&text=Christians believe in one God,is the son of God.

Your slander will continuously be destroyed.

Side: Creationism is absolute.
1 point

It is false and will always be an unproven theory. Darwin never knew the true Foundation of Life. He tried but he never found that answer. God created us and that's simply a fact.

Why evolution is wrong? (The foundation of life did not begin with humans starting off as an animal or an organism.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLOoWdGDR4c

Side: Creationism is absolute.
1 point

Expert manages to debunk Darwin's evolution under five minutes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oyuonzGE

"Sciencerules" once again fails to support scientific fact

Side: Creationism is absolute.
1 point

It is false and will always be an unproven theory. Darwin never knew the true Foundation of Life. He tried but he never found that answer. God created us and that's simply a fact.

Why evolution is wrong? (The foundation of life did not begin with humans starting off as an animal or an organism.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLOoWdGDR4c

Side: Creationism is absolute.
1 point

Darwin's evolution has always been a lie and a theory to control us. We never began as apes. Apes today aren't human. Evolution is bad for the kids because it is harmful and it dehumanizes us to mere animals. We can definitely learn self control. Animals can't.

Side: Creationism is absolute.
1 point

Darwin's evolution is flawed and bill nye is a false scientist. Anyone who supports him are equally ignorant and stupid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMt1EqUBH0k

Side: Creationism is absolute.
1 point

Another expert explains how "The theory of evolution" is not our story.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaAfgYifUgA

Side: Creationism is absolute.
1 point

A mathematical challenges the theory of evolution:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noj4phMT9OE

Side: Creationism is absolute.
1 point

Humans never evolved from apes. If that were true. today's apes would be humans. The logic doesn't fit for evolutionist supporters. Therefore, all evolutionist supporting snowflakes have lost this debate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjgHN_8CdVE

I am absolute and right all the way. Opposition will be shot down by truth and facts.

Side: Creationism is absolute.
1 point

The top five misconceptions of evolution:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCD06j45WGc

Evolution affects all species not just the human race. Darwin only thought that chimps were somehow interchangeable into humans? Yeah, we never began as apes, otherwise apes today would be humans in cages.

In other words, Darwin came up with a theory where "evolution only affects humans". That's a misconception. It affects everybody and I will say that doesn't mean that humans evolved from apes.

Side: Creationism is absolute.
1 point

It's a funny thing. Evolution can never explain how life began nor originated. That's the whole point of creationism existing and being against Darwin's theory of evolution and ofc not going against how evolution did affect all living organisms, humans included. Though again, humans did not evolve from apes and that is a fact. Creationism is 100% good for kids to learn how life originated and how it began. It will connect towards the evolvement of all living beings; that includes how animals were so unique and how humans stand out from the animal kingdom. Although all species may have similarities, it doesn't mean they are all ancestors, especially between the flawed theory that apes are related to humans. Apes would be humans today and it would get rid of the point of women giving birth to children. Therefore, once again, Darwin's evolution is only a theory and has been 100bunked. This lecture will continue until all subjective snowflakes surrender.

Side: Creationism is absolute.
1 point

Destroying transgenderism:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtuqmThPE5c

If you think gender is changeable for humans like how a lizard can, you got it all wrong. "Transgenderism" is ultimately hypocritically sexist towards men and women. It is harmful to both boys and girls. You wonder why? Because it is ultimately messing with your biological structure that you are born with. It is irreversible and very harmful.

Side: Creationism is absolute.
1 point

Adam and Eve have a long history of being scoffed at by skeptics. Almost from the beginning, opponents of Christianity have dismissed the opening chapters of Genesis – including the story of our first parents – as pure myth, on par with other creation myths from the Ancient Near East.

Over the past century or so, with the advent of Darwinian naturalism, these assertions have grown more insistent, buttressed with bold claims that “science has proven” Adam and Eve could not have existed.

In recent times, even believers in growing numbers have come to question the historicity of the first human couple. They’ll insist Adam and Eve weren’t real people, just metaphorical stand-ins for humanity. At most, they’ll allow that perhaps God may have plucked a pair of hominids from the evolutionary stream, named them Adam and Eve, and infused them with souls and with his image.

These efforts can stem from an earnest desire to resolve an alleged conflict between science and Scripture. Or else, they may be an attempt to avoid looking ignorant in the eyes of secular culture. Whatever their motive, they wind up undermining the actual pursuit of science, to say nothing of the Gospel narrative of Scripture.

The genre of Genesis

When approaching a text, especially one as significant as the creation account, it’s vital to get the genre right. Genesis is not a modern textbook of history or science. It was written in elevated, stylized language, the first chapter in particular built around an artful pattern of repetition. However, that first chapter isn’t Hebrew poetry per se, any more than the rest of the book is. There’s none of the two-line parallelism that’s a defining feature of Hebrew verse found in Psalms and elsewhere in Scripture. Rather the text is in the form of historical narrative, composed to recount actual occurrences, even though its style is in keeping with the literary conventions of its time.

As apologist Alisa Childers points out, “Although the story is told in a poetic way, the Genesis account mainly exhibits the characteristics of narrative prose, which describes a series of events.”

To be sure, the proper name “Adam” is also a general term for humankind, as “Eve” is for “life” and “Eden” is for “pleasure” or “delight.” Nevertheless, the text presents Adam and Eve as actual people in a specific place and time. And they do actual people things like marrying, having children, making choices, tending a garden, giving names to animals, and conversing with each other and with God.

Moreover, Adam’s genealogical record lists his exact age when his son Seth was born, the fact that he had other sons and daughters, and the exact age when he died. In fact, the entire book of Genesis is built around a series of genealogies that connect Adam to Noah, and then to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and ultimately to Moses and the people of Israel. Moses, who wrote the book, treated Adam and Eve as real historical figures, no less than anyone else in that family tree.

Blurring the Imago Dei

The first chapter of Genesis states that God created humanity, male and female, in his own image. The second chapter provides more detail, describing how God formed Adam directly from the dust of the earth and breathed life into him. God then created Eve, also directly, from one of Adam’s ribs.

It’s difficult to square an honest reading of this narrative with the idea that Adam and Eve were metaphorical, or else a pair of hominids elevated to human status. The text says that when God breathed life into Adam, the man became a nephesh chaya, Hebrew for living creature. That same expression is used throughout the account to describe other living creatures, like birds and animals. So, if Adam were a divinely mutated hominid, he would have already been a nephesh chaya before God ever breathed life into him.

Beyond that, the story of Adam and Eve is essential to a proper understanding of the nature of humanity. As God’s unique image bearers, created by him for that express purpose, human beings possess a dignity and value distinct from the rest of creation. And because all people are descended from that first couple, every individual, male and female, has an equal share of that value and dignity.

If Adam and Eve were pre-existing hominids transformed by God, then humanity’s unique reflection of the Imago Dei is blurred at best and may not even be present to the same degree – or at all – in every individual. And if our first parents never existed, then any objective basis for inherent – and inherited – human worth doesn’t exist either.

Scripture after Genesis

Adam and Eve are mentioned only sporadically in the rest of Scripture after Genesis. But when they are, they’re always presented as actual historical figures. The first book of Chronicles opens with a genealogy of Israel, starting with Adam. In similar fashion, the Gospel of Luke traces the ancestry of Jesus all the way back to Adam. In the book of Acts, Paul tells the skeptical Athenians that God made all human nations from one original man. And when writing to Timothy, the Apostle again refers to Adam and Eve as historical people, as does Jude in his short letter when he quotes Enoch, a seventh generation descendent of Adam.

Jesus himself, while teaching about marriage and divorce in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, alludes to Adam and Eve as real people. Later, as recorded in Matthew and Luke, the Lord also speaks about the literal murder of Abel, Adam and Eve’s second son. And along the same lines, the writer to the Hebrews describes Abel’s sacrifice as an actual event, and places Adam’s murdered son at the head of his list of heroes of the faith.

It would be hard to deny that the authors of Scripture – and the Lord himself – read the Genesis account as historical narrative and viewed Adam and Eve as historical people. But that hasn’t stopped critics from trying. They’ll argue that these authors and their original readers knew they were talking about ancient myths to convey spiritual truth. Or else they’ll claim that the apostles and evangelists – and even Jesus – were simply wrong.

Such claims, however, don’t bear up under serious scrutiny. Reading these texts honestly and in context makes it clear that the authors intended their audience to know they were talking about real people and real events. In each case, the spiritual truth they were trying to convey falls apart unless rooted in historical fact. It’s hard to imagine a rigorous thinker like Paul or a careful historian like Luke getting their facts wrong and using myths to make their case. It’s harder still – in fact impossible – to think of Jesus, the divine author of all truth and reality, making the same mistake.

Dire Gospel implications

From a Gospel perspective, the most significant discussion about Adam and Eve outside of Genesis is found in Paul’s letters to the Roman and Corinthian churches.

In the fifth chapter of Romans, Paul presents Adam and Jesus as the two representative heads of humanity. He spells out in detail how sin and death entered the world through Adam and spread by inheritance to the entire human race. But through Jesus, who took on human nature, Adam’s fallen descendants can receive grace, righteousness and eternal life.

The Apostle reiterates and distills this core Gospel truth to the church at Corinth via a series of vivid contrasts: “For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. . . . Thus it is written, ‘The first man Adam became a living being’; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. . . . Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven” (1 Corinthians 15:22, 45, 49).

There can be no doubt that Paul understood Adam to be just as real as Jesus. But if in fact Adam never existed or was just a hominid plucked from the evolutionary tree, then Paul’s entire case for the Gospel makes no sense. There’s no fall of humanity, no original sin, and no need or possibility of redemption.

Tim Keller addresses the inconsistent idea that Paul’s argument holds up even if he got his facts wrong: “[Paul] most definitely wanted to teach us that Adam and Eve were real historical figures. When you refuse to take a biblical author literally when he clearly wants you to do so, you have moved away from the traditional understanding of the biblical authority. . . . If Adam doesn’t exist, Paul’s whole argument – that both sin and grace work ‘covenantally’ – falls apart. You can’t say that ‘Paul was a man of his time’ but we can accept his basic teaching about Adam. If you don’t believe what he believes about Adam, you are denying the core of Paul’s teaching.”

Old Testament scholar Richard Belcher adds: “If all human beings are not descended from Adam, there is no hope of salvation for them. Christ does not and cannot redeem what he has not assumed. What he has assumed is the human nature of those who bear the image of Adam by natural descent. If there is no redemptive history that is credible, then redemptive history is lost in any meaningful sense. Thus the historicity of Adam has implications for the Gospel.”

And theologian Richard Gaffin is quite blunt in summing up these dire Gospel implications: “The truth of the Gospel stands or falls with the historicity of Adam as the first human being from whom all other human beings descend. What Scripture affirms about creation, especially the origin of humanity, is central to its teaching about salvation.”

The frontiers of science

Naturally none of this has deterred skeptics (and sadly many believers) from assuming that “settled science” has ruled out the possibility of Adam and Eve ever existing, never mind being the progenitors of the entire human race. But science – which at its heart is about discovery and not consensus – has done nothing of the sort. In reality, these bald assertions aren’t based on objective investigation, but on materialist assumptions that dismiss out of hand any non-natural explanations for the origin of life.

Science, of course, can neither prove nor disprove whether Adam and Eve existed, nor does it need to. But studies of genetics, linguistics and the spread of pathogens at least suggest the likelihood that humanity arose relatively recently, in one location, and from a small population, perhaps even from a single pair.

From the field of population genetics, cutting-edge research published in the journal BIO-Complexity has lent strong support for the possibility that humans descend from a single couple, despite frequent claims to the contrary. The authors of the paper, biologist Ann Gauger and mathematician Ola Hössjer, used sophisticated computer modelling to trace the diverse branches of the human genetic tree back to a statistically probable point of origin. Their findings indicate that humanity could easily have originated from a single ancestral couple, as recently as the time when Neanderthals are commonly believed to have appeared on the scene.

Once again, this doesn’t prove the Genesis account, and that was never Gauger and Hössjer’s intention. What they set out to do – and accomplished brilliantly – was to show that contrary to materialist orthodoxy, Adam and Eve are indeed a scientifically feasible explanation for the origin of humanity. Both researchers were forthright about why such a study as theirs had never been pursued before.

Hössjer explained: “Well, the reason is philosophical rather than based on empirical facts. Modern science is very secular. Typically, only those hypotheses are allowed to be tested that can be framed in purely natural terms (i.e. methodological naturalism). A model with a first couple implicitly requires an Intelligent Designer or a Creator in order to answer how this first couple was generated in the first place. Modern science will therefore rule out a first couple model from the start (even if one leaves it to the reader to answer how the first couple originated), before data has been analyzed.”

Gauger was even more to the point: “First of all, who gave scientists the right to interpret Scripture? Why should they care if we believe that we came from a literal first couple? They stuck their noses in where they didn’t belong. Second, they actually didn’t test the thing they were claiming.”

Concluding thoughts

To paraphrase Mark Twain, the reports of Adam and Eve’s non-existence have been greatly exaggerated. As one might expect, nature and Scripture are never at odds with each other. God is the author of both, so there can be no hidden secret, lurking in the natural world, waiting to come to light and prove God’s Word wrong. Of course, it’s vital to interpret both correctly, a principle worth remembering by scientists and theologians alike.

But the historicity of Adam and Eve reaches far beyond drawing proper lines between science and metaphysics. The question impacts the truth of the entire Gospel narrative of Scripture. The creation, fall, redemption and restoration of humanity, the intrinsic value of human life and salvation through Christ, the second Adam, all hinge on the literal existence of the first Adam and his wife Eve, created directly by God in his own image.

Adam and Eve may have borne the shame of plunging humanity into sin and death. However, believers need not be ashamed of the existence of our first parents in the face of skeptical opinion. Quite the contrary, a literal Adam and Eve give us a sense of grounding, humility and assurance for our faith. Their story forms the opening chapter of God’s real, historical narrative through which he’s redeeming his people as well as his entire creation.

Source:

https://www.focusonthefamily.ca/content/ adam-and-eve-really-existed-and-why-that-matters?utm term=&utmcampaign=Focus+on+the+Family+-+Dynamic+Search+Ads+-+Canada&utm source=adwords&utmmedium=ppc&hsaver=3&hsaacc=4036375728&hsamt=&hsaad=617153507457&hsatgt=dsa-61724785219&hsanet=adwords&hsagrp=78929297489&hsakw=&hsacam=2065863790&hsasrc=g&gclid=CjwKCAjwsfuYBhAZEiwA5a6CDK3PwRpimSGCE6h VYdwuhm9XgMcHHwpFVPTqRRMi8yMZQFPJhecYxoCbWUQAvD BwE

Side: Creationism is absolute.
1 point

https://academy4sc.org/video/intelligent-design-appeal-to-purpose/?utm campaign=&utmmedium=ppc&utmsource=adwords&utmterm=cosmological argument for the existence of god&hsatgt=kwd-295706398933&hsamt=b&hsaacc=2755491261&hsagrp=129487346790&hsaver=3&hsasrc=g&hsacam=14183772677&hsanet=adwords&hsakw=cosmological argument for the existence of god&hsaad=593194502762&gclid=CjwKCAjwsfuYBhAZEiwA5a6CDNp88jJT9AhSDOvBPjrjFP1DTLzElPmCAr2tr0IM60KOnClmqLe4zBoC7V4QAvD_BwE

Side: Creationism is absolute.
1 point

Creationists make a comeback against bill nye the subjective guy:

https://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/31/creationists-hit-back-at-bill-nye-with-their-own-video/

Cope and cry me a river. You can never win against God's eternal truths.

Side: Creationism is absolute.
1 point

Why Darwinism is False:

https://www.discovery.org/a/10661/

Side: Creationism is absolute.
1 point

The real truth of how media wants to use propaganda to brainwash people into believing they started off as apes:

"Sciencerules" once again will be silenced and demoralized. You stand zero chances against the truth and once again, your hypocrisy might expose itself because of your truthphobic, heterophbobic and Christophobic tendencies.

https://evolutionnews.org/2021/10/human-origins-the-scientific-imagination-at-play/?gclid=CjwKCAjwsfuYBhAZEiwA5a6CDCa9Q5bnJCDnBVv0Sq3fHen9ueuUjYik5 Ij3fNIXTjdofmgVCj2aBoCHDIQAvDBwE

Side: Creationism is absolute.
1 point

The mathematical impossibility of Evolution:

https://www.icr.org/article/mathematical-impossibility-evolution/

Side: Creationism is absolute.
1 point

Creationism was omitted because under some belief systems evolution and creationism are compatible. For example deism and many Christians. This is about whether evolution is true or not.

Creationism is not omitted and will not be ignored for it is part of which why evolution is disapproved. "Sciencerules" is nothing but a hypocrite who claims he knows all about science. Yet when facts are presented in front of him, he denies biological facts of gender and sex being the same, he denies that there is no gender spectrum and claims there is one when there is in fact none in factual truthful science and never will be, and lastly, God created all things. Darwin's evolution has been debunked over a million times. It's hilarious to see "sciencerules" get addicted with this kind of thing and to be super contradictive in his words. "Claiming to support science yet going against biology and supporting pedophile lusting snowflakes in a dystopia made up of proud sinners who will be annihilated. Ah yes, the pinnacle of hypocrisy. God created us to be smart and we are intelligent beings. However, the stupidity and ignorance of evolution is that "humans evolved from apes". Creationism will continue to be used as an absolute source of destroying evolution. God prevails. Batman wins. Norwich trips over his own words and "sciencerules" will find no light in ignorance and indenial. Fatual approaches will now be taken.

Side: Creationism is absolute.
1 point
Side: Creationism is absolute.
1 point

Within the animal kingdom, you have a food chain. Within human society, we have civility, morality, laws and ofc a different way of communication. Animals don't talk like us. Can humans try though? Yes! We were made to hunt animals for food! Animals can't control themselves and by nature, have to hunt if they are predators and have to run/survive if they are prey. That's just how it works for them. Humans can be cannibals yes but humans can choose not to do that. Animals though hardly have morality. God separated man from all creatures and set us above them to rule over them. It's explained in the Book of Genesis.

Side: Creationism is absolute.
1 point

Darwinian evolutionists are subjective and liars as Jesus prophesied there would be liars and false prophets etc. DNA never proved that Darwin was right about how humans have a common ancestry of the neanderthal.

DNA in fact, proves we are linked directly to Adam & Eve:

https://source.wustl.edu/2020/06/can-science-prove-adam-eve-really-existed/

Side: Creationism is absolute.
1 point
Side: Creationism is absolute.
1 point

6 Reasons why evolution isn't real. It isn't supported by DNA analysis done by professionals and ofc several sciences. Genetics, Biochemistry, Paleontology, Taxonomy, Chemistry. Detailed explanations are for highly intellectual human beings who can take the time to read instead of ranting on about his own subjective opinions. "Sciencerules", that means you. One more word and you will be going to the principal's office!

https://www.businessinsider.com/scientific-weaknesses-of-evolution-2012- 9#-7

Side: Creationism is absolute.
excon(17402) Banned
1 point

We were apes once.

Hello:

And fish too..

Dude!

excon

PS: Need 50 characters... Dunno why. K. Here:

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Side: We were apes once.
Dr_Batman(384) Disputed
1 point

Wrong. You are a troll and hereby banned from this post for trolling and dehumanizing humans into apes. Congratulations, you are now imprisoned.

Puts you in a cage full of apes but they do not recognize you because you are a low IQ human being

Side: Creationism is absolute.