Old post- etc etc etc etc

No longer relevant. I don’t think they still think this way.

1 Like

Has Baptist Press always cited Answers in Genesis as an authority on evolution?

1 Like

Tbh I don’t know this story showed up on my google news feed for whatever reason.

The tooth, discovered in the Baishiya Karst Cave in Xiahe, China, nearly 40 years ago, is a three-rooted, lower second molar that evolutionary scientists say dates to 160,000 years ago, much older than the researchers expected.

Older than they expected? I thought evolutionists just projected their own biases onto evidence and made it say exactly what they wanted to. :stuck_out_tongue:


In all seriousness, why is evolution so bad? I’ve engaged so many people who devote their energies to fight against it (while remaining in ignorance about it). I can’t even see how it’s a threat to either:

  • YEC who believe in hyper evolution
  • OEC who are concordists (Elohim calls the earth to bring forth species and humans are made in the same way and of the same stuff as the other animals- yashtar and from the ‘earth’)

Yeah but that’s microevolution, not “molecules to man,” (is probably what the response would be).

Well we are made of molecules after all. It is offensive to think about chemistry though.


I think the problem is evolution makes humans just another animal. We would no longer be the special creation of God.

Why not? Why is God able to impart that special calling only if we are literally made of dust and rib and not if we are made of DNA related to other species? The reason Christians believe humans are created in the image of God is because the Bible says so, not because creation science says so, or because evolution is false. God can create however he wants, and can choose to name special whomever he wants. To say that evolution somehow limits God’s election power is to limit God.


How could a descendant of monkeys possibly be created in the image of God? Or at least that is what they are thinking.

1 Like

Could be. I think that is most easily addressed by theology then. I think it’s bad theology to make the image of God our physical or mental characteristics.


The problem has always been theology but the YEC folks think they have that down pat. They attack evolution to avoid having to think about changing their theology.

1 Like

Yeah true. What if YEC generally approach theology like they approach science?

I do remember a student being very concerned that the textbook, Scientific Theories Of Origins in Christian Perspective, suggested that applying consistent hermeneutical principles could be without conflict with the theory of evolution.

Response to such: “By that logic, then, how can anything made of mud be created in the image of God? You’ve got us coming straight from dirt! - the same stuff as slugs and worms!”


If God is the Creator and it’s all God’s story, he can choose whatever or whomever he wants. This is a motif throughout Scripture. A donkey talks when the prophet won’t listen. The greatest missionary of all time is a converted murderer. The royal line genealogy of Christ, God incarnate, prominently features a Gentile prostitute and a child of incest, (Perez’s mother Tamar posed as a prostitute and got pregnant by her father). And God had his chosen one born to poor rural folks. How can anything good come out of Nazareth, people asked.


The Hebrew word ‘tselem’ does literally mean resemblance. I tend to believe humans do resemble God in some way, not in terms of physical or mental characteristics, but in terms of dignity

1 Like

I would think God would only need to have provided that which makes us most distinctly human. No need to have started with dust when so many mammalian strains already constituted a perfectly good base model. The genius move was to have set evolution up early on.


I believe that because people have been repeatedly told that evolution is the atheistic antidote to the existence of God, many fear that they must defend against it. All that matters is that it is wrong because their faith is right. No need, or even desire, to understand. And that it is complex and mostly inaccessible to the layperson only adds to the desire to quash that which is not understood.

When we believe that we literally possess the Truth, it never occurs to us that our theology even needs to be evaluated. It is funny how we start with Jesus is the Way, Truth, and Life and finish with our opinions being the Truth, instead. I guess that’s why God has so much to say about pride.


Could it be we’re either selling monkeys short or (surprise, surprise) over rating ourselves?

Jesus is the Truth when it comes to our redemption. That is the purpose of the Bible, redemption history. If you want to expand “the Truth” to include natural history that is where you get into conflicts with the Truth contained in God’s creation. And the truth in God’s creation is only “opinion” if you don’t agree with what God’s creation is saying.

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.