What should the Christian’s refute/answer to evolution be? What are the dumbest ones you have heard?

What should the Christian’s refute/answer to evolution be? What are the dumbest ones you have heard?

>pic unrelated

Attached: AB700E98-A68A-4619-8677-1BE5866C9837.jpg (462x480, 27K)

Evolution is a test of faith. To stare into the face of reason and still love God against all doubt is to be a true Christian.

There isn't one.

Evolution is simply the word we use to describe how we think God's creation works. We're only studying the mechanics. The mechanic himself is your field.

Amen.

Why couldn’t God have created evolution as a mechanism to keep his creation sustained? Environments change bc time therefore the creation must change.
It was either that or create life w no evolution which in all instances would die. Or create no time or energy/movement with life in a perpetual standstill which I’m not sure is even possible to have something alive with 0 movement even down past the atomic level...

Attached: 838CAB8A-5F5F-4DCF-9653-478FB50993B3.jpg (1200x1115, 338K)

This is what every christian who isn't a deep south fundie believes.

>god of the gaps
what will you guys do when we have a better understanding of the way abiogenesis works?

I agree with you. My only point of issue is the presumption that Earth is hundreds of millions of years old and not thousands. Yet I guess at that point you could say God is capable of making Earth look to be that old, yet that opens even more questions.

That we live in a universe where that happens because God willed it to be so.

Darwin, Charles. Dislike him. A cheap evolutionists, clumsy and profane. A monkey, a claptrap scientist and a slapdash scientist. Some of his theories are extraordinarily amusing. Nobody takes his irreducible complexity seriously.
On the Origin of Species. His best work, though an obvious and shameless imitation of Augustine's "Interpretation of Genesis"
The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. Dislike it intensely.
The Voyage of the Beagle. Dislike it intensely. Ghastly barnacles.

I know nothing about the time perspective except for how God created the Earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th.
But to God a day could be a billion years or an indeterminable amount of time. Who knows?

The Catholic popes were never really against evolution, besides some niche topics like evolution creating the soul. They have officially said evolution was fine for the most part. I mean, Catholics helped lay the foundation of evolution with the Big Bang (cosmological evolution), Mendel's genetics, etc.

>What are the dumbest ones you have heard?
Everyone's a blank slate, there's no such thing as human nature, they'll behave the way I want if they're educated.

I mean they just try to map it on with their already cucked doctrines, claim “evolution confirms the Bible” in a self-assured celebratory manner (lmao if you’ve ever actually read Darwin, Wallace, or any of the preceding theories), and lowkey deny the Old Testament. Then if you really press them for standards of interpration/literalness/etc. they rattle off shit about JC and metaphors and it gets kind of embarassing from there. Honestly, I’ve been more covinced by batshit cosmological arguments than I have any Christain argument purporting to explain away Darwinism. But then you have based schizo boys like who make Kierkegaard seem kind of right.

Isn't it kind of weird to think God caused evolution though? Like he could have just made people out of thin air in an instant, but instead he created the conditions for humans to come into existence naturally through billions of years of animals living and dying and reproducing. At the very least, it seems to suggest a non-interventionist deist God over one who does miracles.

By not believing stupid things like literalism or Sola Scriptura

Attached: 1551640636189.jpg (1784x1024, 517K)

What do you mean? If man creates the conditions for abiogenesis to happen how is that natural?

The problem with that image is that I would definitely think Genesis was intended to be literal and only became accepted figuratively later on.

Disingenuous meme. Origen, who is probably the most unorthodox of the church fathers, is absolutely in the minority here and even he took everything after the Garden of Eden literally, e.g. he defended the historicity of Noah's ark against pagans. "Literalism" was just the default interpretation of Genesis before modern science.

Scientific method has not shown nor been linked to any type of change of kind. Adaptive evolution can be observed, the former can’t. If i were actually into science i’d be skeptical of evolution

>Literalism" was just the default interpretation of Genesis before modern science.
No it wasn't. Read Augustine