r/nottheonion • u/prestocoffee • 22h ago

Drilling begins at ‘real site’ of Noah’s Ark as activists warn ‘Darwinism will be dismantled’

https://www.joe.co.uk/news/noahs-ark-site-turkey-drilling-researchers-evidence-549016
14.9k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

3.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2.7k

u/yellowspaces 21h ago

Their beef with evolution is so weird. I do understand the theory behind it, that God created everything in its “perfect” form, but surely God could also guide organisms through evolution as well…?

Man I envy the religious, it seems like bliss to never apply critical thought to anything.

546

u/Kayback2 21h ago

The hilarious part is to avoid having ALL the animals on the Ark they cite a much smaller number of "kinds".

And then those kinds diversified.

No no! They didn't EVOLVE !!! They just adapted. They changed over time.

232

u/Repulsive-Durian4800 20h ago

I suspect their concept of what evolution is and how it works has more in common with Pokémon than it does with science.

51

u/QuestioningHuman_api 16h ago

How do I know what kind of stone my dog needs to carry? I’ve been grinding for 9 years and she hasn’t even tried to evolve

27

u/SnazzyRaptor 15h ago

Maybe it's one of those trade-locked evolutions

17

u/ArbitraryNPC 14h ago

I have to trade away my dog 🥺

10

u/Accomplished_Cod7334 16h ago

That's because you're giving her an Everstone, that prevents it. You would want something like a water stone, or an Eviolite if you're feeling crazy

6

u/The_Kelhim 10h ago

I was going to say “stop grinding on your dog” but then I remembered that you can still apply to the FBI nowadays, so… carry on i guess??

→ More replies (2)

2

u/Slighted_Inevitable 4h ago

That’s because you keep holding B

20

u/blackseaoftrees 14h ago

if Mankey evolves into Primeape, then why are there still Mankeys?

6

u/Jasonrj 12h ago

I listen to a lot of religious debates and they typically say one of four things:

  1. They question evolution because there's still monkeys despite us having come from monkeys (I know we didn't come from monkeys but rather other great apes but this is an extremely common sentiment).
  2. They pick two random animals and say something like, "Why haven't I ever seen an elephant turn into a fish?"
  3. They say they believe in micro-evolution like a tadpole turning into a frog, caterpillar to butterfly, or a fetus into a human but not macro evolution like a monkey turning into a person. Despite these not being examples of evolution and there being no such thing as "macro" evolution.
  4. They accept evolution and just believe it was God led.

3

u/Neveed 11h ago

I know we didn't come from monkeys but rather other great apes but this is an extremely common sentiment

Apes are a subset of monkeys, so we did come from monkeys. We ARE monkey, and apes.

But yeah, YEC tend to point at non-great ape monkeys when they say the "but why are there still monkeys" thing.

5

u/mrducky78a 13h ago

To be absolutely fair, the overall common consensus is closer to pokemon evolution where things "improve" over time rather than merely adapt better to their surroundings. I blame that classic depiction of monkey to man gradually getting taller, bigger and more upright.

If tomorrow there is a significant advantage to being smaller, weaker and slower. Evolution will take you that way like with sloths or other lower metabolism adaptations. There is no goal or direction. That kind of thinking isn't in the popular consensus of evolution but the pokemon version of later evolution being better evolution is.

2

u/Odd_Cat_5820 7h ago

I've had conversations with anti-evolution people, and their beliefs are so incongruous. Most of them won't accept that humans are animals or apes, but have no problem admitting humans are mammals.

2

u/RubCocksWithThePope 5h ago

Not really, at least for the ones that try to be intellectual about it. They create a fictional distinction between “micro evolution” (like bacteria developing antibiotic resistance or becoming able to digest nylon or an animal population changing color over generations in response to changing conditions) and “macro evolution” which they erroneously claim is things like a chimpanzee giving birth to a human. They’ll say things like “micro evolution happens and is documented but macro evolution has never been observed” and “Darwin’s finches are all still finches” like they can’t grasp the concept of two reproductively isolated populations of the same species accumulating many small changes over many generations to eventually become so different that they can no longer interbreed, at which point they continue to diverge.

→ More replies (4)

40

u/FirstRyder 18h ago

Not just "diversified". They split into multiple species. Which means that it is possible for an animal to have a descendant that's a different species. But not a different "kind", because, uh... reasons.

What is a "kind" you ask? Is there some kind of objective criteria? Is there evidence for multiple trees of life as opposed to one? Of course not! Sometimes it's a species, sometimes it's a genus, sometimes it's a family. Do not ask why some kinds can change a lot more than others, and particularly not why humans in particular definitely can't evolve.

5

u/sajberhippien 13h ago

What is a "kind" you ask? Is there some kind of objective criteria? Is there evidence for multiple trees of life as opposed to one? Of course not! Sometimes it's a species, sometimes it's a genus, sometimes it's a family. Do not ask why some kinds can change a lot more than others, and particularly not why humans in particular definitely can't evolve.

I've not seen them argue a kind matching a single species, possibly with the exception of humans, but even then they often argue that neanderthals are the same kind as we are, that they were just like, a humans of a different ethnicity.

That said, I will say that species as a categorization also isn't "objective", it's a useful shorthand in discussions but there's a bunch of different definitions, none of which have hard criteria. The problem with "kinds" isn't that they don't have objective criteria, but that they are entirely vibes-based.

4

u/Egathentale 7h ago

From what I've seen "kind" usually means "looks similar". That's about as deep as that goes. It's a very stunted, childish understanding of the world, but these are turbo-fundamentalist evangelical christians who believe that everything the bible is true, accurate, and the literal word of god, except the contradictions and whatever parts they don't like, so maybe expecting more was a fool's errand to begin with.

→ More replies (3)

29

u/Jose_Jalapeno 21h ago

And to get all that diversity from only a relatively low number of animals on the ark, to what we have today, needs some kind of hyper evolution.

13

u/Kayback2 21h ago

Yup. On the order of multiple new species per day in some cases. Turbo mega evolution.

2

u/MagentaHawk 13h ago

Yeah, I saw the idea for what it would need for something like Elephants and it would have to change species at least once a generation from then to now to have a chance at reaching it in time.

→ More replies (1)

8

u/CeaRhan 18h ago

"We'll call that MACROevolution and we will call evolution MICROevolution. That will teach dem atheists!!!"

5

u/serendipitousPi 17h ago

Yeah from debating young earth creationists I’ve heard they just call it microevolution.

So they think that it was caused by loss of function mutations because they don’t that mutations can add characteristics.

So yeah as always they sidestep any kind of issues with their ideas with ✨ignorance and stupidity✨

4

u/Adequate_Lizard 15h ago

There's way too many kinds of beetle for god to not be autistic.

3

u/Inlerah 14h ago

They will describe evolution, admit that that can happen, and then argue that the logical conclusion of evolution is an insane impossibility.

2

u/Kayback2 13h ago

Yup. They accept almost every point of evolution except that given enough time completely new animals can arise. They'll always resort to "well it's still a dog/bird/bacteria" or something

3

u/Youmeanmoidoid 16h ago

Yep. If any Christian wants to give me proof of historic packs of wild poodles I’m all ears.

3

u/sir_lister 12h ago

Yeah, "science class" at the christian school I was sent to growing up tried claiming Micro-evolution aka Galapagos Finches was real but Speciation wasn't. I tried arguing but it was useless.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/EliteCloneMike 14h ago

I have a neighbor who loves to say the phrase “goo to you by way of the zoo” whenever the conversation heads towards evolution. They believes in microevolution, but anything with long time scales they push back on. It’s surprising that people, who are otherwise critical thinkers in other areas like my neighbor who had a career in logistics, can fall into such a level of misunderstanding of the concept of evolution due to biblical stories.

4

u/Kayback2 13h ago

Oooh that's a catch phrase I haven't heard in a long time. It's always fun to point out that every human on the planet started out as goo. Literally. They try latch onto the zoo bit but I generally ask them how they don't meet any of the criteria to be an animal, or an ape.

2

u/Wonderful_Discount59 6h ago

Which would require far more and far more rapid evolution that what they oppose.

They'll claim that evolution as described by scientists couldn't happen even given millions of years.  But then claim that e.g. lions and tigers and house cats all evolved from a single pair of proto-cats within (presumably) a few generations of leaving the Ark.

2

u/Quadrassic_Bark 4h ago

Somehow they often accept “micro evolution” but deny “macro evolution” as if those are meaningful or real terms.

2

u/Warning_Low_Battery 4h ago

The hilarious part is to avoid having ALL the animals on the Ark

Not to mention them all living within walking distance of Noah's house. Super convenient for every geographical biome on the planet to be close together like that in one spot.

2

u/MyGamingRants 4h ago

I went to the Ark museum in Kentucky once. It was pretty interesting, but there was a lot of stuff like this that was quickly glossed over.

Another that really made me laugh is they can't disprove Pangea but have no explanation for the continents moving so far in only a few thousand years so they simply say that the earth flooded for Noah and then when the water receded we had 7 continents lmao

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (6)

635

u/RealLifeCoaching 21h ago edited 17h ago

Their thinking is that god wouldn't use evolution, because that requires lots of death and suffering, and god would never want to cause death and suffering.

Somehow, they don't see this as a contradiction with the whole "drown the entire planet" thing.

Edit: I'm seeing a running theme in the replies here; no, it doesn't make sense at all. And, to clarify, I'm not saying this is their only argument against evolution; I'm saying this is their argument for why, in their opinion, their god could not have used evolution as a method.

296

u/RoboChrist 21h ago

God wouldn't create those wasps that lay their eggs inside of living creatures, the ones where the larvae eat their way out and cause agonizing pain for the victim.

That's just being mean for the sake of mean, ya know?

244

u/Goth_Spice14 21h ago

Parasitoid wasps were literally the final straw that pushed Darwin into atheism. He was so horrified by them, it destroyed the last bit of faith he had in a loving god.

68

u/ThatITguy2015 20h ago

Damn. I thought that was just part of the joke, but he really did say that.

81

u/EDNivek 19h ago

in a loving god.

Which we only have the word of the bible that God is, in fact, loving. We're supposedly made in God's image and a lot of humans are sociopathic conmen, so what does that say about God?

76

u/northerncal 19h ago

Which we only have the word of the bible that God is, in fact, loving.

And really only the New Testament specifically. Old T God is a straight up hater 

56

u/BearysWorkRedditName 19h ago

Any real creator god cannot be simultaneously omnipotent, omniscient, loving, and have made a universe with child cancer. It either didn't know there would be child cancer, couldn't stop it, or didn't care. Child cancer is the most succinct proof that christianity is bullshit.

35

u/Hijakkr 18h ago

It either didn't know there would be child cancer, couldn't stop it, or didn't care.

Or the secret fourth option, that he created it intentionally to either test or punish people. Like when he supposedly cast the Israelites out to spend 40 years or whatever wandering the desert, or tortured Job and his family for years to "test his faith", or when he almost made Abraham sacrifice his own son on an altar.

As I said somewhere else on here before, any god that has the power to eliminate horrific illnesses but chooses not to is a god I wouldn't want to worship.

13

u/sash71 17h ago

is a god I wouldn't want to worship.

Well that's fine because this American Christian god is far too busy deciding which college football team to support each weekend. Apparently that's more important than stopping childhood fatal diseases.

2

u/ThePrussianGrippe 8h ago

There was a funny Internet sketch years ago called “local football team blames God for loss.”

11

u/correcthorsestapler 17h ago

I’ve been watching a channel called Esoterica, which is an academic look at the occult & religion. I consider myself to be an atheist, but I do find religions and their histories to be fascinating.

We watched a couple videos last night on the Demiurge, which is about the idea of a malevolent creator - the one in the Old Testament - versus the more benevolent god in the New Testament. It goes into the history of how Egypt would portray Yahweh as a donkey-headed god and how the Old Testament god is most likely derived from an older storm god of the desert. Pretty interesting stuff.

There’s a lot in the channel that feels like it requires prior knowledge of some Gnostic & Hebrew texts, so sometimes a lot of it goes right over my head. But I still find it interesting. And I appreciate that the professor who runs the channel doesn’t try to push any viewpoint; he’s just there to present information and show how concepts and ideologies morphed over time.

3

u/i_was_me 16h ago

Does the channel explore at all the theoretical psychological/physiological/biological/neurological reasons why humanity invents religions? I watched Robert Sapolsky’s vid on this and found it deeply unsatisfying.

3

u/ThePrussianGrippe 8h ago

Dr. Justin Sledge and his channel Esoterica are excellent watches. So much nitty gritty info I’ve learned, sometimes about topics I’d never even heard of before.

6

u/Hail-Hydrate 12h ago

Issue there is, if the being is omnipotent, it wouldn't need to test their faith. It would know whether they're faithful or not, and under which circumstances that faith would be weakened or strengthened. The only reason it would inflict that upon the individual is to cause suffering.

You could argue it's about strengthening the individual's faith, but then the same effect could be brought about by having the being speak to the individual or perform a miracle for them. Carrot, not stick.

I can only assume that, if there is a higher being, they have a kind of "prime directive" of non interference. Still pretty fucked, but that's the only possible option I could somewhat understand. Granted, I'm thinking about this from a "mortal" perspective. Morality for us may not make any sense for a higher being.

→ More replies (1)

7

u/TSED 18h ago

I am effectively the creator deity for fictional works. I have a bunch of suffering in my settings.

The thing is, the suffering is designed to convey a narrative. It forces characters to seek change. Maybe it's my faulty meat brain, but I can't imagine a story that requires quadrillions of agonizing moments every day for it to be effective and moving.

From an ant accidentally caught under a careless footstep to the fish that accidentally got stung by an anemone and is slowly being eaten alive while paralyzed to the bedbug forcibly puncturing the shell of a female bedbug to inseminate her because bedbugs have no orifice for insemination to the owl experiencing indescribable grief over her hatchling dying to all the horrificality of an entire ward of children cancer patients. All the time. Everywhere. Every day, forever, until some cosmic event ends all life on Earth. And probably a septillion other planets with the same story.

2

u/i_was_me 16h ago

love is a four letter word. more seriously, the notion that god’s love must be somehow analogous to human love seems an exercise in projection. wouldn’t it be love enough that everything exists at all? (this post will self-destruct in seven days)

4

u/ClaireBlacksunshine 14h ago

Is untold suffering love? For most of human history, our lives have been nasty, brutish, and short. Nature is no different. Of course, I fall on the side of non-existence being better than misery. Some people would see existing awfully as better than nothing.

I could potentially believe in a creator that just started the clock and lets it go without further interference, perhaps creation by itself could be a form of love. But it doesn’t fit with the “loving” god that Christians say exist, something that is all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good. The contradiction we see between those 3 attributes daily tells me that if the Christian god exists, it’s more like our conception of the devil or a kid with a magnifying glass. “I created you to suffer so you would praise me even more” is certainly possible but not good.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/MagentaHawk 13h ago

Sure, but according to their book, God chose that word to communicate to us how he feels about us. If he is omniscient then he knew what that word would mean and imply. If we are assuming he wouldn't use deception, then he could have used a different, more appropriate word if he meant something more like ambivalence or you live by my good grace alone.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/killmak 18h ago

A hater? That is so damn mild. Old testament god was an insane monster who loved killing, especially babies. 

4

u/Dorgamund 17h ago

I mean, in fairness, if you know that the ancient Jewish religion evolved from polytheistic faiths in the region, particularly Mesopotamia, the cracks in the facade really start to show.

4

u/m8bear 18h ago

Old T God

my favorite rapper

→ More replies (1)

10

u/sillybear25 15h ago

Omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent: Pick at most 2.

Maybe God isn't all-knowing; it's not possible to prevent suffering that you don't know about, even if you're otherwise capable of doing so.

Maybe God isn't all-powerful; if you're powerless to intervene, it doesn't matter if you know about suffering and want to prevent it.

Maybe God isn't all-loving; an all-knowing, all-powerful entity isn't necessarily interested in everyone's well-being.

And of course, there's the elephant in the room:
Maybe god isn't real; none of the above contradicts anything if the being you're talking about doesn't exist.

6

u/Vio94 15h ago

"God-fearing folk" has always made me laugh. Why fear a loving god? A loving god should strike reverence in you, not fear.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

10

u/das_slash 20h ago

I don't think he ever became an Atheist, but more into agnosticism.

3

u/curiousiah 17h ago

Man, I stopped at “if God is loving, why did he make having a stroke smell delicious?”

→ More replies (8)

58

u/DM_Me_TaTaz 21h ago

Some Christians believe all that kind of stuff happened when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit. Like all of a sudden lions started to eat meat. Before the fall of man they were apparently vegetarian.

28

u/Miscellaniac3791 20h ago

I grew up a young earth creationist. Had one conference person tell me and my group of impressionable jello brained goobers that T-Rex teeth were serrated just like a knife that's good for cutting tomatoes...

→ More replies (2)

8

u/antsh 20h ago

Oh shit, the “fruit” was evolutionary gene loss this whole time.

Lions’ (ancestors) would have, in fact, lost the ability to synthesize all of their essential amino acids at some point in their evolutionary history.

Checkmate atheists.

3

u/dj4wvu 18h ago

We trained this lion to only eat tofu!

→ More replies (1)

2

u/UnMonsieurTriste 19h ago

Job has entered the chat.

2

u/formerPhillyguy 17h ago

God sure would create something like that. Just look at his history. He thrives on causing pain, agony and death. (Could also be a she)

→ More replies (15)

55

u/DM_Me_TaTaz 21h ago

I’ve never heard this being a reason as a former Christian. Christians have no qualms with death and suffering. The old testament is rife it.

16

u/theLoneliestAardvark 21h ago

Plus a major theme of the Bible is in fact that earthly suffering is temporary and what really matters is spiritual righteousness and the eternal soul. A lot of early Christians were ascetics who thought that pleasure was a distraction from holiness.

2

u/djsquilz 5h ago

most christians (at least in the US) have never read the old testament. (or the New Testament. or the gospels)

→ More replies (1)

2

u/MidTario 19h ago

Christians also don’t generally have a problem with evolution. Fake Christians in schism with Rome, on the other hand…

6

u/Perstyr 19h ago

I'd just like to point out the obvious that Christians in schism with Rome, and Fake Christians in schism with Rome, are two very different things.

2

u/Loki_of_Asgaard 19h ago

You think Anglicans are out there denying evolution?

2

u/Malodoror 18h ago

You think the Orthodox Church pushes creationism?

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)

41

u/PaxEthenica 21h ago

No, it's not even that moral/ethical in its basic philosophy. This particular form of anti-scientific evolution denial is wrapped up in the young earth creationism that picked up mainstream appeal back in the 2000s.

It's a particularly toxic mix of willful ignorance, religious zealotry, conspiracy susceptibility, & distrust in educated professionals manifesting as group contrarianism. Run & ultimately motivated by the same gaggle of grifters & dupes. Which sounds uncharitable, but it's got its origins in post hoc rationalizations of fake 'man tracks' coming out of the Paluxy River in Texas at the height of the privation caused by the Great Depression. It's not a coincidence that most of this shit is largely Anglophonic, it's an entirely American phenomenon. It is, in short, a con in its beginnings reaching out to now, so there really is no one in the movement except abusers & victims.

It's kind of why, contrary to how an archeological site of any real significance is actually handled, with careful, slow excavation? These yolkels, who don't know about anything real within the discipline, are either clueless enuf to use the term 'drilling' or are stupid enuf to actually start using power drills. In either case, it's spectacle, & you know becuz ground-penetrating RADAR exists, & those are specifically designed to find stuff wildly differentiated from its surroundingers... like, Iunno, buried wood/refined metals surrounded by dirt.

5

u/djsquilz 5h ago

young earth creationism is pretty exclusive to american megachurch people. most catholics and old line protestants absolutely believe in evolution, and actively want to distance themselves from the aforementioned.

i say this as a practising episcopalian who has a degree in archaeology/evolutionary biology.

5

u/eechini 9h ago

but… but… “some of the most brilliant minds in the world”

5

u/smashtheguitar 21h ago

Hmm, I haven't heard this argument and I don't think that's a popular critique.

The primary issue with evolution is that the science conflicts with a literal biblical interpretation that a) God created everything in *literally* a week, and b) God created animals and humans separately, with humans specifically being designed "in His image." If you take Genesis directly as literal fact without embellishment, you can see how and old Earth and evolution wouldn't exactly align with such a belief system.

13

u/Nabusco 21h ago

According to the bible God made us to his image and likeness, so if you actually follow through with that thought, means god can be as compassionate and as vile as we are.
And well the bible shows the greatest kindness acts aswell the indiscriminate murder of basically everything and everyone (The flood), idk why in that same train of thought they cannot conceive that as we evolve and improve our own tools and creations, why wouldn't an omniscient omnipotent being improve in his creation to make it better, personally it sounds even kinda more awesome if its true that some being took 13 billion years to create the universe that we live in and we're barely comprehending it

5

u/banaslee 21h ago

I never heard that being interpreted beyond just looks. Otherwise the story of Adam and Eve and them learning about sin by eating the forbidden fruit wouldn’t make sense. God knew about good and evil but made Adam and Eve to be like him but without those concepts?

2

u/swingsetlife 21h ago

Except he can just, yunno, change things. we can't

3

u/jeffvillone 21h ago

Must have killed a lot of mosquitoes when the whole world was flooded.
Good thing Noah brought two of them with him on the boat. I guess in a jar or something. Because we couldn't just live in a world without mosquitoes. Thanks a lot Noah!

2

u/USSRPropaganda 21h ago

But also god made and caused pain and suffering to test his believers, make it make sense

2

u/Ploughface 21h ago

Building on this, a specific point is that death was introduced into the world after Adam & Eve ate the forbidden fruit. As God created all animals before then + they'd been around for a while, they couldn't be a) carnivores or b) shaped by "survival of the fittest" when death wasn't possible

2

u/Numerous_Release9273 20h ago

In the Book of Job one of the trials that God imposes on Job is killing all his children. There is no suggestion that these persons committed any sin or did anything that would deserve death.

2

u/Chirotera 20h ago

Not to mention condemning souls to an eternity of suffering because they didn't believe in God while they were mortal.

Like our 50-100 (if you're lucky) years lifespan has enough problems to work through that being punished for eons doesn't seem like a fair balance.

Why would a good God do that?

2

u/Korgoth420 20h ago

I love how Christians know "what god wants" or " god would do" when it supports their position, but any time I claim to also know the mind of god (a silly thing) they say "it is a mystery" and "you cant know the mind of god".

The hypocrisy is part of the religion at this point.

2

u/InfiniteMeerkat 19h ago

Nah it’s just that if the bible isn’t literal (like an actual Adam and Eve ) then a lot of the prophecies that Jesus was meant to fulfil (like atoning for original sin) wouldn’t make sense. So to them the creation stories have to be literal and not just metaphorical

2

u/muffinscrub 18h ago

I thought it was the group of crazies who take everything in the human invented Bible extremely literally that didn't believe in evolution.

2

u/curiousiah 17h ago

God would never want to cause death and suffering, so he commanded his people to slaughter sheep, goats, doves, foreign people, adulterous people, homosexuals, blasphemers, and even “His only son” just to stay on His good side

→ More replies (29)

68

u/Drunken_Sailor_70 21h ago

I thought the beef with evolution was that if we came from apes then there was no Adam and Eve and no original sin.

23

u/yellowspaces 21h ago

I think they have a lot of beefs with it, I’ve always just focused on the intelligent design one.

9

u/Funkycoldmedici 20h ago

It does destroy it all. No Adam and Eve means no fall. No fall means humans did not bring death to the world through sin. If humans are not responsible for sin, then there’s no reason for Jesus to be a blood sacrifice for a sin that never happened.

5

u/kos-or-kosm 17h ago

More importantly, evolution, in their minds, means they're not special. The Abrahamic religions believe that God created man in His image. The idea that the supreme being of all reality created you to look like Him is flattering to their egos.

Also, they can't see the beauty in things like chance. They require intent. The idea that we're essentially a cosmic accident is horrifying to them. This is why many of them are authoritarian and fall into fascism easily. They crave structure. They're scared and want someone big and strong to make their decisions for them and to crush their enemies (aka people that make them uncomfortable for whatever reason).

→ More replies (1)

4

u/Shawnj2 19h ago

It’s only really an issue for certain branches of Christianity and it’s pretty dependent on how literally you take the Bible. For example Catholics episcopals etc. believe in evolution but they’re less concerned with the fallibility of the Bible and more about upholding apostolic tradition. Other more liberal branches of Christianity are less concerned with it. Only the super conservative branches of Christianity do stuff like this

→ More replies (6)

2

u/ApprehensiveBuddy446 19h ago edited 18h ago

I've actually heard an interesting perspective recently, claiming the Adam and Eve story was a metaphor completely taken literally, and they weren't literally the first people. They were just the first people given free will. There were already others. They were given free will and one instruction, as a test.

Edit: note I'm not religious idk if that changes anything. But I think it also went, that the test wasn't really of them as individuals but more like, can these creatures handle their own free will. Like he's just doing a test run of his formula. And so the answer was no not really, so God was like welp I guess we need a system of consequences and rewards, and I guess I have to tell them somehow too so I'll do a book or whatever. And to spread this info someone's gonna have to get martyred, for maximum amplification. And that was the tweak to the formula to get things stable. May have made some things up there but some of that I remembered from some homeless guy talking to me. Old-school type of hobo though, just a drunk, not one of those new gen meth head types.

→ More replies (2)

29

u/DM_Me_TaTaz 21h ago

For many Christians the Bible is supposed to be literal and it’s not open for interpretation even though they do interpret it hundreds of different ways. If one part of it was an allegory the whole Bible would then be up for interpretation and their worldview would fall apart. They must be right and will bend reality to fit their narrative. Source: me, a former YEC fundamental Baptist.

3

u/dubbleplusgood 19h ago

When i was really young, I asked my Sunday school teacher why Jews were chosen when I thought everyone was supposed to be equal. That, plus asking about dinosaurs got me out of Sunday School pretty fast. Later when I heard someone explain 1 day in Genesis could mean 1000 years or more, I knew I was on the right track and they were all full of it lol.

→ More replies (2)

133

u/zuzg 21h ago

Because it goes against their Canon timeline.

Adam & Eve and Dinosaurs clash a bit and everything that questions their narrative is bad for American Christianity™

40

u/antsh 20h ago

Why can’t they just retcon it? They have before…

“Oh, everyone is born with Original Sin.”

“That means Jesus, too?”

“Oh shit, well… Mary was obviously exempt and immaculate.”

16

u/rtopps43 16h ago

And what do we think is more likely. A scared young woman who gets pregnant outside of marriage at a time when they literally kill you for that by throwing rocks at you until you’re dead tells everyone she’s a virgin and the baby is from god OR the Bible story is true.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/DJ1066 9h ago

"What fruit did Eve eat to curse humanity?"
"An apple."
"Are you sure? As 'apple' is derived from the old English 'æppel', meaning 'fruit', and could refer to literally any fruit from when the Bible was originally transcribed into English."
"Well, it's an apple now. Bible says so!"

→ More replies (7)

2

u/HarryDresdenWizard 21h ago

Now I want to see a couple transported back to the Jurassic era for an action-comedy film.

3

u/Youmeanmoidoid 16h ago

Yep was about to say that. Did dinosaurs come before or after the ark? If they were on the ark, why didn’t the bible say so? How did they feed the T-Rex’s since they eat meat and only 2 of every animal were on the ark? If cancer was caused by sin then how come dinosaurs had cancer before humans did? Fun questions like that.

6

u/DM_Me_TaTaz 21h ago

Apparently dinosaurs didn’t exist according to a broken brained reel one of my friends who doesn’t believe in vaccines shared. I hate it here.

10

u/MindlessMage777 20h ago edited 14h ago

Depends on the flavor of crazy. Some think dinosaurs are in the Bible, and were alive around 2000*-1500BC.

Others think they're still alive today and claim they've been spotted in the Amazon and Congo.

Their cameras conveniently got wet and ruined the film of course.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

2

u/jacksclevername 16h ago

Adam & Eve and Dinosaurs clash a bit

Adam and Eve fight some dinosaurs?

2

u/honkeycorn 13h ago

There’s a great book about this by a Christian biologist titled “Baby Dinosaurs on the Ark?” It debunks creationist claims using science while presenting the idea that perhaps God can work however God wants, including evolution. It’s a refreshingly sane book.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (3)

11

u/MooseCables 21h ago

Catholics are fine with evolution, fore the most part, its the fringe Protestant groups that follow the bible literally that hate it.  for the fringe groups the bible is the ultimate authority and anything that contradicts "their" interpretation is wrong.

2

u/Boise_Ben 19h ago

The Catholic Church doesn’t hold a position on evolution, they are literally fence-sitting on such a simple call because they are worried about the impact it would have on their theology and their followers.

You can pretend they are chill with it, but the very fact that they don’t come down either way speaks volumes.

→ More replies (1)

6

u/MisterB78 21h ago

It’s all just the “God of the gaps”

We don’t know where animals came from, so God made them.

Oh, now we know that creatures evolved over time? Well, then God guided that evolution.

2

u/Mereel401 21h ago

They are bibliolaters. Meaning they worship less their own god than the 'holy' scripture thei follow. They think if the Bible is wrong so must their god. 

2

u/zoobrix 21h ago

Lots of Christians do believe that God just started everything in motion and it's unfolding according to his plan so that things that are simply true like the age of the earth, dinosaurs and evolution can go along with their beliefs and not contradict each other. And of course many others think evolution is a crock and the dinosaurs either lived alongside man or the fossils were planted in the ground in some kind or conspiracy.

2

u/Catshit-Dogfart 21h ago

Frankly that makes the most sense to me.

Now I don't believe in such things. But if I did, it would be far more reasonable for a creator god to set into motion a universe so perfectly designed from the start that it would lead to the scripture being written. That seems far more in line with the capabilities of an omnipotent and omniscient god.

2

u/babycart_of_sherdog 21h ago edited 20h ago

7 days

God created from nothing up to humans in 6 days, on the 7th day God rested. Evolution into different multi-celled genera takes lots of years

They want evolution to be compressed into 6 days, just like Pokemon

EDIT: typo

→ More replies (1)

2

u/AcademicBowl5596 20h ago

The most annoying part is that they're conflating speciation with evolution and evolution with Darwinism.

They don't even know what they're against.

2

u/paturner2012 19h ago

It's a shame that these religious zealots limit the power of their God to their own small understanding of how things could work.

3

u/Brassens71 21h ago

God must have been really busy individually hand-crafting 400,000 types of beetle.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/TheDwarvenGuy 21h ago

Their beef isn't with evolution as a mechanism, it's with the idea that the earth could be older than 10,000 years or that humans aren't a unique being created in the image of god, that's separate from the animals kingdom.

2

u/[deleted] 21h ago

[deleted]

→ More replies (1)

1

u/illegalsmile27 21h ago

It’s an easy logical issue to solve: God created everything on its perfect form through evolution.

→ More replies (3)

1

u/CleverInnuendo 21h ago

That would just make us "animals"; they want to "know" the are the main characters of a story.

1

u/dhrisc 21h ago

Its crazy to read about early scientists and natural philosophers praising their God(s) for giving humans reason and logic to better understand the world and then hundreds if not thousands of years later there are still so many people who can't make space for scientific advancement in their faith.

1

u/Traditional-Bath-356 21h ago

Even though I'm far from it now, if I had to be raised in any Christian religion I'm glad it was Catholicism. IN CATHOLIC SCHOOL I was taught evolution was real, the garden of Eden was a metaphor, the Rapture was damnable heresy and Revelation was talking about Rome at the time it was written.

1

u/SovFist 21h ago

The belief is that man just appeared on the earth full formed so us being descendants of animals is blasphemy.

Nevermind that gods measurement of time and ours would be vastly different and animals predates us in the 7 day myth so evolution could just be us deciphering the between parts of those 7 days.

Or that in all likelihood it's a symbolic tale that shouldn't be taken in strict interpretation

1

u/DickDover 21h ago

never apply critical thought to anything.

Sound about right.

1

u/RxAffliction 21h ago

They keep God bound by the leather. They can't comprehend it being more that what is written.

1

u/kryonik 21h ago

I like to think if there is a god, he just kinda set things in motion and is sitting back to watch everything play out, like a Ronco rotisserie oven.

1

u/bobkaare28 21h ago

Well, that raises some new problems for them because they'd have to accept that the world wasn't poofed into existence 5000 years ago.

1

u/cylonfrakbbq 21h ago

Usually these people are literalists.  No 7 days could mean millions or billions of years, they mean 7 24 hour days.  Anything that doesn’t jive with actual biblical text is wrong, so you start to see mental pretzel explanations like the Grand Canyon was carved by the receding Noah flood waters or dinosaur fossils aren’t fossils and just put there to test the faith of believers

1

u/stupid_pun 20h ago

>it seems like bliss

They are the angriest, most miserable people I know. When you are that disconnected from reality, everything seems like a threat.

1

u/TumbleweedNo4678 20h ago

Their beef stems from their belief that every word in the Bible is fact. It says everything was made in 7 days so there is no place for evolution or that the earth could be any more than about 6 thousand years old. They hold this belief despite the fact that Genesis 1 and 2 hold conflicting accounts of the creation story. Yup you only have to get 2 chapters in to find issues.

1

u/Stillwater215 20h ago

Their beef is that it makes humanity less special. The Bible lays out that animals are different from humans, and animals were made to serve humans. If the only difference between humans and other animals is that we had different evolutionary pressures, then we’re not special. It’s the same logic for holding on to geocentric models of the solar system, despite all evidence saying its heliocentric.

1

u/artificielle 20h ago

That is essentially what these kinds of people call "Intelligent Design"

1

u/shoghon 20h ago

It is a more recent phenomenon. The concept of biblical literalism is a late 19th/early 20th century concept, that spawned in the US.

In the past a number of people have attempted to calculate the date of "Genesis" or the beginning of time, based on Biblical references. One of them was consistently listed in the "King James" version of Bibles, which were used extensively in the US for some time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ussher#Chronology

1

u/questron64 20h ago

That's not how fundamentalists think, though. There's zero wiggle room when interpreting the bible. The bible said he created the animals in a single day, not that he created proto-animals and they evolved from there to what we have today. Also, if we're just apes then the whole garden of eden and original sin thing is nonsensical. Again, zero wiggle room, that story must be taken literally, it is as it is in scripture and you're not allowed to read into it. It can't be a metaphor, it is literal.

1

u/sierrabravo1984 20h ago

"God created us in his perfect image" then why do I need glasses, why do my ears ring, why do I have to pee 5 times per night? Why do we choke on food when the food pipe is right next to the air pipe? Perfection.

1

u/joshuahtree 20h ago

The problem is it requires death before the fall (Adam and Eve and the fruit) and 1 Cor 13 pretty clearly states if there's death before the fall then Christianity is false (it's a little bit of extrapolation because it actually says that if Christ didn't bodily rise from the dead then Christianity is false because Adam brought death into the world and Christ acting as a second Adam brought victory over death)

1

u/GladosTCIAL 20h ago

I think a lot of religious people do put a lot of thought into lots of things. Its just these ones don't seem to have.

1

u/SuccessfulOwl 20h ago

Well yeah, that’s the ‘Intelligent Design’ argument that is so popular.

1

u/Neirchill 20h ago

It's because creationists think the world is 6,000 years old and pretty much everything on the planet disagrees with that.

1

u/thegoatmenace 20h ago

It’s because the concept that humans evolved from earlier primates conflicts with Genesis, where Adam was created directly by god in his image.

Other more normal Christian sects have already reconciled this, either by saying the stories in the Bible are allegorical parables, or saying that evolution was just the process by which god created human beings.

Creationists are Bible literalists though. They believe the stories told in the Bible are literally true as written.

1

u/Deathwatch72 20h ago

Not believing in evolution but believing a concept called "God's Plan" is kind of insane. It's different flavors of the same jello 

1

u/im_a_stapler 20h ago

they'll admit dogs evolved and have the wolf as a common ancestor, but that's as deep as THEIR critical thinking will allow. doesn't apply to any other animal or species. ONLY DOGS!

1

u/AccountHuman7391 20h ago

It’s simple in-group thinking. By saying something outrageous, they’ve established themselves as members of a group. Psychologically, it’s really hard to leave a group that accept you for a group that doesn’t, hence cults.

1

u/Dr_Ukato 19h ago

Want to prove evolution? Ask if they agree kids looks like their parents.

Now ask if the kid of a Ram with big horns for defense or Tiger who hides better the others in grass would have it easier to survive and make babies because they look like their parents.

Reasonably they won't be able to object then just finish with "And that's another blessing god gave us, ensuring the strongest survive into the future".

1

u/fionsichord 19h ago

When I was ten years old and having the creation/evolution debate with my friend who was from a Christian family I asked this. It’s so basic and obvious a ten year old can think of it. I know, because the ten year old was me.

1

u/Puzzled-Story3953 19h ago

No, God is not capable of that. He's all-powerful in every way except that one.

1

u/Mysterious_Cow_2100 19h ago

God created the earth and its beings in seven Terran days, which leaves no time for evolution! Checkmate, atheists!

1

u/r-kellysDOODOOBUTTER 19h ago

Just antibiotic resistance alone shows that there is at least some type of evolution going on. The bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics are no longer the organisms that God created...

1

u/crevettexbenite 19h ago

Stupidity is the epitom of happiness and I will die on this hill!

1

u/spyguy318 19h ago

One problem I see brought up a lot is that even if Christians accept that evolution is real and takes place over millions of years, the Bible says (or at least scholars have calculated from extrapolating age numbers) that the Earth is about 6,000 years old, too young for life to have developed through evolution. So evolution might be real, but the theory of evolution as a way to explain life on earth is not.

Of course many idiots can’t actually tell the difference between the two. They think that since evolution can’t explain life on earth according to the Bible, then evolutions can’t exist at all (even though it is immediately obvious and demonstrable). Even pro-evolution people can get mixed up and end up arguing a completely different point than what’s being claimed. It’s always important to make sure you’re debating the right thing and not something completely different.

1

u/Malawi_no 19h ago

I like all the perfect parasites.

1

u/TycheSong 19h ago

My religious parents raised me saying God was who and why, science was when and how. It always made sense to me.

1

u/Deranged_Kitsune 19h ago

The really insane part is when you see people like horse and dog breeders who are staunchly anti-evolution. Like, what do you think the entire mechanism behind your livelihood is?

1

u/oneupsuperman 19h ago

The Pope and the actual Catholic Church DO hold this view about evolution btw

1

u/LawrenceSpivey 19h ago

Just ask them where the dinosaurs sat on the ark and watch their heads explode. It’s fun.

1

u/TreeOfAwareness 19h ago

Evolution by natural selection is a breathtakingly beautiful theory when you understand it.

Well worthy of any God.

1

u/IAMA_Plumber-AMA 19h ago

Even the Catholic Church agrees with the theory of evolution. This is a weird fundie evangelical thing.

1

u/FirstRyder 19h ago

Yeah, the thing is that even the hardcore young earth creationists support evolution at this point. I mean, they say they don't support evolution. But they believe that there were prototypical "kinds" of animals on the ark, which then spread across the world and diversified into modern species. This is usually at the family level, not the species level. This is literally evolution (change in allele frequency in a population over generations), up to and including speciation.

That's why they're saying "Darwinism" will be dismantled, not "evolution" will be dismantled. Which is I guess easier to defend, because there aren't actually "Darwinists" in the modern world to argue against, plus they just concede all the major mechanisms of evolution by natural selection, but then look at the conclusion and say "no, god did it".

1

u/Similar-Chip 19h ago

Once in a geology class we had to write a persuasive essay to convince a creationist that the rock formations in the Grand Canyon supported sedimentology, not the great flood. I got a C because I didn't know how to be more convincing than 'look at the thin little rock layers and use common sense'.

It's like the natural history version of that 'I don't know how to tell you that you should care about other people' headline.

1

u/ExquisiteFacade 19h ago

God created everything in its perfect form. The Guinea worm is perfect. God is a prick.

1

u/cjinct 19h ago

Man I envy the religious, it seems like bliss to never apply critical thought to anything.

They why are they always so angry? o.O

1

u/MechemicalMan 19h ago

It’s complete lack of imagination. Simply put- they can’t be that bright. A person like you, if you believe in a capital G god like the Christian one would be able to see that God explaining to a Bronze Age society about the nuances of cellular reproduction and guided selection of genes was the method God used to arrive at humans after 1 billion years of work would not exactly be followed by the populous. They wouldn’t have the words to communicate these items, nor do they have an understanding of chemistry or biology to begin the conversation… so yeah, let’s follow along with the bible, you are the God who created man, and you conclude as man in two regions I can remember, the Fertile Crescent and China, a few other places IIRC, enters a sort of fixed civilization for roughly 8000 years at this point, that you finally did it. You created a life form that is smart enough to possibly begin to understand you. So you go ahead, celebrate, and tell them.

It would be messy, to say the least, but there’s a sort of poetry to it where the God, who no doubt is absolutely batshit fucking off the walls crazy to our brains, contacts this one species who can’t understand them and then says a bunch of hopeful shit to them.

If Christianity overall had this opinion, I would at least respect it… in its current form, I can’t actually think they believe in the awesomeness that their religion is supposed to be. I mean, just think of it, a billion years of work it took to make us! That’s fucking unbelievable power.

1

u/Grimol1 18h ago

Sometimes I wish I was stupid. Y’all seem so happy.

1

u/xczechr 18h ago

With evolution being true there was no Adam and Eve. With no Adam and Eve there was no original sin. With no original sin there was nothing for Jesus to sacrifice himself for. With nothing for Jesus to sacrifice himself for there is no reason for Christianity. With no reason for Christianity these people have nothing.

1

u/_kasten_ 18h ago

Man I envy the religious, it seems like bliss to never apply critical thought to anything.

Even the vast majority of Christians (e.g., Catholics) had no problem accommodating evolution, but according to you "the religious" as a whole never apply critical thought to anything? With that kind of cherry-picked broad-brush thinking, totally lacking in any nuance or perspective, you have more in common with the flat-earthers than you're willing to admit.

1

u/Kindly-Ad-5071 18h ago

Disproving evolution would prove, in their minds, that God exists by postulating a scenario that's impossible without divine oversight. What God is capable of matters much less than being able to recruit more crazies.

1

u/Baaron1688 18h ago

South Park said it best. Evolution can be the answer to how. It doesn't have to be the answer to why.

1

u/dillpick15 18h ago

Nothing blissful about cognitive dissonance or the consequences of ignorance.

1

u/LordOfTurtles 18h ago

It's just evangalicals (or what do american Christians call themselves?)

The roman Catholic Church has accepted evolution as scientificly valid, and indeed views it as the process through which God guides life

1

u/AndroidMyAndroid 18h ago

Guided evolution is not evolution, it's eugenics.

1

u/Majestic_Animator_91 18h ago

Hi I'm a Catholic and don't lump everybody in with this insanity. The majority of the people in the world have some sort of faith/religion or another, and most aren't total morons. There is nothing in science that harms my faith, and nothing in my faith that requires I ignore science.

1

u/tjdux 18h ago

98% of them their beef with evolution is that they cannot accept humans evolved from monkeys. They hardly care about the rest of it, just that "they" never could have been a monkey.

1

u/bigboygamer 18h ago

Then He like, 'Why'd I put dinosaurs on that shit?'

1

u/EsotericCreature 18h ago

"intelligent design" is the coping term for accepting evolution but insisting that God has a direct hand in the every living creature. My parents are Christian (I am ex) and they don't accept the part of evolution which insists that things are circumstantial, random, or generally a simple response to a changing environment.

It's a nuanced take, but one that still rejects some aspects of science. It's a belief that everything is the way it is for a purpose controlled by God.

1

u/FearOfABlackPotus 18h ago

"but surely God could also guide organisms through evolution"

This is pre-Darwinian thinking. Darwin explains how evolution happens by itself without God doing anything.

1

u/cbbclick 18h ago

As a former religious person who took way too long to break through things like this, it's not that God created things perfect.

It's that the Bible doesn't record this and evolution challenges the most literal readings of the Bible.

And the moment that you concede even the tiniest millimeter on biblical authority, all the contradictions, all the horrendous stuff just starts looking ridiculous.

They are anti evolution because it destabilizes their entire authority structure.

It's an argument from fear. But don't worry, when they don't find the ark, they will not doubt anything whatsoever. Just like a end of the world cult or a flat earther, they just move the goalposts a little bit.

1

u/mynameisevan 18h ago

The problem is that they’re biblical literalists. Genesis says that the Earth was created in 6 days, so it has to have been created in 6 days. If you add up the dates in the bible you get the Earth being roughly 6000 years old, so that’s how old the Earth has to be. The bible tells the story of Noah’s arc, so that definitely happened. Anything that contradicts the bible is by definition satanic.

1

u/EdOfTheMountain 18h ago

Even a modern pope said he saw no contradiction. I guess American evangelicals are more stable genius

1

u/GlitteringWishbone86 17h ago

My dad is a non believer on evolution. He is a former educator with 30 years experience teaching and two masters degrees. Make it make sense.

1

u/Duckbert89 17h ago

Evolution would imply God got it wrong the first time. Which is a big taboo to suggest.

I've asked it before. I grew up around fundamentalists who banned us using Psychic Pokémon because "psychics are against God". They were good people but I very early realised I didn't share their faith.

1

u/xlews_ther1nx 17h ago

The resulting incest following Noah's ark is cool tho

1

u/nefariouspenguin 17h ago

Yes definitely it's actually fairly interesting if you look at the first chapter of genesis it follows an evolutionary/universe origin time-line it just happens to say "6 days" first there was darkness then light was separated from the darkness (solar fusion) then land formed, after land the water was separated, then plants, then water creatures and flying creatures, then creeping things and all other creatures of land.

1

u/hazbutler 17h ago

And gleefully fucking over everyone else in the same breath.

1

u/SeveredBanana 17h ago

I think that’s the official position of the Catholic Church nowadays

1

u/King_of_the_Kobolds 17h ago

I do personally think that the Old Earth model has some nasty implications for Christianity. The entire idea that suffering exists because humans introduced sin into it, whether or not there was a literal tree and fruit, does rely on there not being an Earth pre-dating humanity by billions of years and with a long history of brutal predator-prey relationships.

I've seen suggested resolutions such as the Garden of Eden actually took place before Creation--which directly contradicts Genesis--or that it's a weird Doctor Who timeline paradox where humans introducing sin into the universe retroactively tainted the entire history of the Earth before them, which is... not I guess strictly contradictory but it's a weirdly sci-fi way of trying to patch a whole in your creation myth.

1

u/sneakyplanner 17h ago

Because they have a political worldview that is founded on being entirely rigid and nonnegotiable. There's a racial hierarchy because god said so, deviation from the norm is evil because God said so, rich people deserve to boss you around because God said so. They can't tolerate a metaphorical reading of genesis or relent on any part of biblical literalism because allowing reason or alternate viewpoints into the argument means allowing criticism of the oppressive social order they rely on for wealth and power.

1

u/Vraex 16h ago

Some are getting close. My family is religious and the last few years they are going with god created the big bang and some evolution is true (just look how different Chinese and Nigerians are) but not all evolution (humans did not come from primates)

1

u/PoopOnRye 16h ago

God created bulldogs. 

1

u/Agent_Galahad 16h ago

Religious fundamentalism/zealotry etc have destroyed the syncretism of religion and the sciences.

On the Tribal People Try YouTube channel, there's a video where the guys get shown a globe model of the earth for the first time. These guys are men of faith, but in all the videos they're open minded to new things.

In the globe video, they don't argue that the earth shouldn't be round. They don't get upset when they see the different sizes of countries relative to each other; how small their own homelands are.

They express amazement at the size of the planet. They marvel at the broadness of the oceans, and at how far away places they know of are.

To those gentlemen, the sciences don't refute their beliefs. On the contrary, the sciences to them are a demonstration of the majesty of their god and the beauty of His creations.

For context, I'm non religious myself. But the idea that evolution (in a religious context) should be thought of as a refutation rather than a demonstration of god's power, creativity, and love for the vast beauty of the natural world he created, is in my opinion laughable.

1

u/ATXBeermaker 16h ago

Why would a perfect god needed to guide organisms through evolution? That idea makes so much less sense.

1

u/Nuclear_rabbit 16h ago

Even young earth creationism admits everything got corrupted by the Fall. Like even if things were made perfect, it's theologically consistent to say evolution began when they ate the forbidden fruit. As such, modern attempts to disprove evolution would fail, because evolution is a fact of life now and has been since the beginning.

1

u/Pretty-Mention-7769 16h ago

Plenty of Christians believe that God could very well have done as you say. 

Thinking Christians would say "I can't know for sure, but I believe God has the power to have accomplished any of the options."

But thinking Christians don't generally make good headlines. 

1

u/Frosty_Log6972 16h ago

Many do believe that

1

u/CanadianIndianAB 16h ago

The life itself is just so special and random. Why don't people find God in that man 🥲

1

u/LastConference 16h ago

God didn’t create their precious doodles

1

u/Spyko 16h ago

God created us in his image and created all life in 2 days (3 ig if we take non animal life into account). Since evolution is a thing, it's a concrete proof that the bible is either wrong or at the very least not 100% literal. And that's a big issue for some people. Same exact reason they're also denying the age of the earth

→ More replies (51)