I've taught at 3 Christian universities. They teach actual fact and science, not creationism. Not all Christians believe in creationism either. I can't speak for Christian elementary and high schools. However, Christian educational systems don't always teach evangelical, conservative beliefs. I'm a moderate to liberal Christian and have never believed in creationism.

Actually, there’s a ton of evidence. Evidence can be used for more than one theory, some factoid that supports evolution could also support creation. The main problem is that one is being taught as absolute fact and the other completely banned. They’re both theories with equal value, neither one has been proven or disproven.

No ... just no. Please please read Richard Dawkins The God Delusion. The fact that creation can't be disproved means that it isn't a valid theory or even scientific. You are believing the oral traditions of a book written in the Bronze Age with all the mythical elements of so many other creation stories... why? just why? Because you were raised in this religion? (I was.) Really research the other side...

Why do you care what someone else believes?

Please read A Matter of Days by Hugh Ross, it really explains the scientific proof for Christianity very well. It’s written for Christians, but uses actual scientific proofs to counter almost all arguments against Christianity on the basis of science. The main premise is proving that Christianity is entirely compatible with science if the days of creation were longer than 24 hours, which is completely possible within the text.

If the days were longer than a literal day, then death was already in the world for millions of years before humans (ie. death seen in fossil records). Why then was a punishment for sin actually death if it already existed? Romans 5:12- 19and I Corithians 15:21 both say this - there was no death before sin. This was the argument for literal days. I'm game, I 'll read his book - Amazon to kindle 9.99. Done. Plesae try something by Richard Dawkins - Outgrowing God (2019)

There’s a difference between physical death and spiritual death. Humans were created last, so they very well could have only started dying after sinning, but there have to have been some animals and plants that died first. Think about it, bugs don’t live long. And how are you going to feed the larger animals in the garden without at least plants dying? The punishment for sin was human death and hell, that doesn’t mean that no death of any sort can have existed beforehand.

I’ll see if I can find one of Dawkins’ books after I finish a couple I’m in the middle of by J Warner Wallace, which is a subtle segue to the fact that his books are also excellent if you want forensic proof for the existence of Jesus.

Not Darwin - its hard reading something that "old" - really try Dawkins. I am almost through Ross's book (insomnia last night). Seems like a nice guy - but wow -Young Earthers are against him; he's against the Young Earthers and most of this book is combating the earth is young. Interesting creative ideas, but I feel like he's doing crazy mental gymnastics to make earth's observations fit to the Genesis account. Still, an interesting read that evolutionists shred if you search the counter-criticism of his views.

Basically what he’s doing is showing young earth creationists that it makes much more sense scientifically for an old earth, which has the side effect of showing evolutionists that it makes more sense scientifically if you admit an old earth.

Nope. If that book proved Christianity or proved God in any substantial, logically-sound way it would have won the novel, the pulitzer and sold a billion copies. Scientific proofs you say? Really. Peer reviewed by who? Probably promoted by Asnwers in Genesis or some bogus Christian university and so proves nothing.

No. It doesn't. It's garbage.

Not at all. We have over a century or 2 of demonstrable evidence proving evolution, adaptation by natural selection, chromosomal allele frequency changes over time...just tons of evidence. Evolution is a theory. A theory is not a guess. A theory is basically a fact. Creationists have not had one argument even in 150 years that ever passed muster. They have all been debunked soundly. That hang onto threads of the God in the gaps or try to say something like well, radiometric dating isn't perfect. Science revises itself. It changes dates. True. It does. That's what good science is supposed to do. Religion is dogma and rarely changes. Creationists are as bad as flat earthers. They have no leg to stand on.

This comment has been deleted.

And? Everyone is entitled to their opinion (but I do find his comment rather patronizing and abrasive)

No, why is an opinion/personal belief to be treated as a fact? Belief makes something real? It' doesn't. And religion is damaging to science, culture, human rights...

I will level with you that he’s ignorant, but freedom of religion is a thing for a good reason, so no one can be arrested or otherwise deprived of their rights based on their faith (or lack of)

You need to do some research. Wars have been started over religion. Jus t a tiny reminder, the Holocaust. Unless you don't believe it happened.

(fyi the holocaust was against Jews because of racism, not religion. Judaism is a bit confusing because culturally Jewish people aren’t necessarily religious Jews. Otherwise I agree with you.)

Martin Luther even promoted the oppression of the Jews. The religious made it a racial issue.

Why is a scientific theory that not only is unproved but actually has some major holes (admitted by the inventor) being taught as absolute fact? There’s not much difference between believing that some other being made the universe and believing that the universe somehow made itself. Neither one is provable, so neither one should be taught as fact in schools.

What holes? Care to provide some citations? Nobody ever said that evolution is 'absolute' fact, it just cannot as yet be falsified, even after 150 years of trying. Evolution happens to be the most robust scientific theories in existence. If evolution is so obviously incorrect to you and you can clearly see the flaws, the falsify it! Write a paper and have it peer reviewed. Who cares what Darwin said, he had no concept of genetics in the 1800s, bet you didnt know that factoid. By the way, evolution has zero to do with the origin of the universe, only the diversity of life. It's the Christians that believe in creation ex nihilo, not any other scientific discipline. The mechanism of evolution by natural selection is indeed a fact. You really need to become educated on what you are trying, and failing to refute to prevent yourself looking more stupid than you already do. Prove it wrong or go away with your religious drivel.

Thank you for taking the time to think and write this. I just don't have the energy...

I may have been conflating the Bog Bang theory with the theory of evolution, which makes sense as they’re often believed by the same people. The holes in the Big Bang idea are pretty obvious, something had to trigger it. Also, entropy exists. There might be something that makes the Big Bang make sense, but either we haven’t found it yet or it’s been kept as a big secret (which seems unlikely).

Without meaning to sound rude, If you are getting the Big Bang mixed up with evolution, I am questioning your knowledge on the "holes"

There is something called "Omniscience" - if God could see what would happen with our "free will," why create something capable of inflicting so much suffering AND destined for eternal torment.? For his enjoyment? Sounds selfishly cruel. This has a way of messing up your logic.

God is omniscient. He would have known what we would do with our "free will" so why create? For fun? Would a loving father give a child a flamethrower to play with and then say, sorry - the results were due to your own actions/free will? A father wouldn't say hey... that a bit too much and I can already see what will happen...?

Just because a person WANTS meaning doesn't make there be any evidence for that meaning. It is a delusion. Faith is belief without evidence.

I agree. That is the *definition* of faith, is it literally in the Bible. What is delusional is this Christian fundamentalist idea of refusing science because "the Bible doesn say." Planes are not in the Bible and I don't see these people praying to God to fly them to Hawaii...

There’s no evidence for macroevolution

https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/transitional-fossils/those-fossils-are-a-problem/ I know you’re probably going to say that this article is completely false and does not in any way disprove transitional fossils, but at least try poking around a bit at the other side. There do exist respected scientists, even non-Christian ones, who refute transitional fossils for scientific reasons. Evolution isn’t the only view that has the support of science.

Not false for the time perhaps - but outdated and incomplete. 1992 article recapping a 1978 interview, 1988 reference. Those scientists are not mainstream science; evolution is not in debate in science. I say this as a former Creationist who has done much reading for both sides.Have YOU researched the other side?

Okay, that article wasn’t a good example. I knew it wasn’t a good example, just put it there to show that other scientists do exist. And if evolution is not in debate in science, why not? It’s still a theory, and there is substantial evidence against it. Just the same as any other theory.

II have a Masters in Biology; I have NEVER encountered any substancial evidence against evolution - unknowns, yes... not sure how this works, yes... evolution isn't valid- no. Also a theory is not a guess (hypothesis) it is a well-accepted explaination with variuos supporting observations, testings, and evidence.

Have you encountered any serious evidence against the text of the creation account? I’m not saying that evolution is impossible and creation is the only idea, I’m just saying that creation shouldn’t be treated as a complete lie just because a bunch of famous scientists prefer evolution because they don’t want to believe in God. They’re both theories, why make one illegal to teach?

What - like snakes don't talk? Or light is created before the sun... or the "They/Then" is a throwback to polytheism... or it is incredibly myth - like and simplistic?

The snake talking thing is because that snake wasn’t actually a snake, but a demon. Besides, that’s not part of the creation account. You can interpret “let there be light” as “let there be energy”, which would have to be the first step in any creation, supernatural or otherwise. What do you mean about “they/then” is a throwback to polytheism?

No, there is nothing in the Bible saying there was demon. Rev 12;9 20:2 refers to Satan as a serpent in retrospect, but there was no mention of Satan in the OT until the time of the Macabees when he was then added. Polytheism: Gen. 1:26; 3:22

You’re right that at least the first few chapters of Genesis use “serpent” instead of “Satan”, but that doesn’t mean that it was an actual snake of the same animal, non-sentient type as current snakes. Meaning that yes it was a snake, but it was Satan taking the form of a snake. It’s widely recognized that the prophesy of “you shall strike his foot, but he will crush your head” is referring to the serpent as Satan, especially since we have no record of Jesus ever physically stepping on a snake’s head, and if it were that important, it would probably be in there somewhere. For the polytheism thing, what you’re mentioning is places where God talked about Himself in the plural, which is different from talking to other gods. It’s sort of like Gollum in LOTR, where he talks about himself in the plural because he has two different people, of a sort, inside him. That’s not a very theologically accurate description, but it’s an easy analogy and I really don’t feel like getting into the whole

See this is the mental gymnastics that I am talking about. Now do this with every part of the Bible that doesn't agree with reality or with common sense or another part of the Bible and just start throwing stuff to see what will stick and be "widely recognized" The Genesis "prophecy" makes no sense as do ALL the prophecies that were "fulfilled." The Bible is full of statements of the form “X did Y to fulfill the prophesy in very convenient retrospect. Really read them - they are taken so out of context with errors it is incredible. Early Church father decided the Genesis verse should be emphasized as proto-evangelistic verse in about 160AD and said to be fulfilled in Romans 16:20. Thus, it became one that "stuck." Also; https://www.jstor.org/stable/43713761

The serpent is recognized as being Satan because a lot of the Bible is symbolic, including much of Revelation and all of the parables. There’s no real reason why there couldn’t have been a demon described as a snake, either that was the physical form he took or it was just a metaphor. For the fulfilled prophesies, I’m really not the best person to ask but I’m pretty sure J Warner Wallace wrote on that topic I’m at least one of his books, problem is I don’t remember which. There’s only three of them though, so that should help.

The whole Trinity debate, especially since even different Christian thinkers can’t agree on just how best to explain the Trinity or even whether to try to explain it with reason. That’s way too long of a conversation for the comments section of a Bored Panda post.

1 John 5:7 And Matthew 28:19 were added later to the Bible as fake "Trinity" verses. The concepts of the Trinity wasn't even introduced until 200 AD. Bizarre mental gymnastics to explain how God could sacrifice himself as Jesus.

How do you know those verses were added after?