Could this technically be considered nsfw if those were woman pepperonis?

If you crack a textbook you'll also see how there is never a mention of God or intelligent design.

thank you! i go to a christian university and every professor on campus is required to testify to their faith. and every single science prof in the department teach and believe evolution. i too believe it. it doesn't contradict the bible in any way

Maybe it doesn't, but the bible contradicts both science and history in many ways.

Well, the Bible says that all humans came from Adam and Eve but evolution has shown us that there never was a first man and woman. We've evolved gradually from other primates in Africa into our current species in Africa some 200,000 years ago.

i shouldn't have blanketed my belief like that. idk what my profs believe but i'll tell you what i believe. i totally agree with evolution with the exception of humans. i believe humans have been created separately from all other animals, as in, adam and eve.

Wrong vid, whoops.

The evidence for evolution comes not just from plants and animals but humans too. As you learn more about evolution you'll see that there is an enormous amount of evidence showing the transition from earlier primates all the way through to us. Science is not about 'beliefs' but about evidence.

i'm not sure what you believe but i wanna stop any possible arguments right now because, 1. it's 3am and i'm going to bed. 2. i've already learned that arguing on the internet inevitably leaves both parties upset and will never ever have a convincing effect. and 3. i've looked at your other comments and that richard dawkins video does not pertain at all to what you said.

and now as i type this i read your reply. i'll leave you with a bit of wisdom. the underlying difference between you and me is that i have faith to believe that which can't be observed or experimented on, and you do not. and like i said, i'm willing to bet neither of us will change in that.

as for a peer reviewed article, why? am i trying to gain the affirmation of the scientific community? or anyones affirmation for that matter? no, i'm telling you what i believe based on the evidence given. yet you come here and ask me to provide proof of my understanding of the world while you sit smugly behind a few discovery channel youtube videos and some wikipedia links then have the audacity to say that i'm straight up wrong.... yes, when it comes to certain aspects of the bible, there is no evidence at all to prove that's what happened even though there's historical, astronomical, and geological proof of most of it . that would also explain why there's no teaching of the bible in the physical sciences, because faith based matters can't be studied scientifically.

here's some advice, instead of believing things the way they're presented to you, take a deeper look at them. open your mind to more than simply googling to affirm your views. look at all the other views, contemplate them, try to understand other lines of reasoning and logic. then even if you still disagree you'll understand where they come from and instead of arguing with strangers on the internet you'll be able to simply understand them and move on.

i know how evolution works, i'm studying to be a biologist. i also know it's not about 'beliefs' that's just the best way i could find to phrase it. i also see the not so enormous evidence, and i find it lacking. and every time i've studied it i find the fossil record lacking evidence to show that homo neanderthal and homo sapien shared a common ancestor and other transitional links . and from a christian perspective, that points me to believe adam and eve, homo sapiens, were created separately "on the seventh day". if i were not a christian i would most certainly fill the gap as they did because that is the most feasible explanation, it makes sense. but not enough for me.

If you're studying evolution then the science is quite clear: Human's have evolved from earlier primates. It's simply a fact.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils

You may find the evidence "lacking" yet until you're able to write a peer reviewed paper proving your assertion, you remain wrong.

As for Adam and Eve- there is simply no evidence that they existed at all. Genetics, archaeology and geology show that we have come from Africa and not the Middle East. In fact, there is no evidence for the existence of God, Noah or Moses at all.

It's not surprising then that there is never any mention of the Bible in the physical sciences.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible

Doesn't a belief in God mean a belief that all humans came from Adam and Eve, though?

Even if you subscribe to evolution, there still must have been a very first male and female homo sapiens. To a Christian who believes in evolution, those firsts would be Adam and Eve. Another school of thought is that Adam and Eve are not the first two people that God created, but instead the first two to bring sin into the world. This is backed up by the fact that when Cane (Adam and Eve's son) is exiled into the world, he is worried that someone else may try to kill him. If there were no one else in the world, but Adam and Eve, then Cane would have no such worry. Yet another school of thought is that Adam and Eve weren't two individual people, but instead supposed to be symbolic of the folleys of the collective human race. I don't really like that last idea, because the Bible takes time to list all the descendants of Adam and Eve, which would not be possible unless they were two individual people

Actually, evolution has shown that there never was a first man and woman. Every animal born is the same species as it's parents and so what happens is a gradual change over long periods of time.

For example, if we went back in time 50,000 years we can mate with the humans roaming the Earth then, but if we went back 1 million years we could not mate with our ancestors from that time period.

Richard Dawkins explains this well in the video.

I understand that evolution is a gradual change, but there still has to be one point in time where one generation is homo sapiens, while the previous generation is not.

I know it seems that way but remember that organisms, for instance animals, develop in groups or communities and not in isolation. There may be 1000s of breeding pairs in a population and each of these pairs is producing offspring that are only slightly different from themselves. When these offspring mature they in turn will mate with another animal, again producing slightly different offspring.

Genes are mixed in big communities with no one animal being born in isolation; a new species. If that happened, there would be no other animals for it to mate with to 'start off' the new species.

Lions and tigers can mate to produce living children. These children are however unable to have children of their own. So we can see that these species are very closely related but have just gone past the point where their children can have children of their own.

As I said originally, if we go back in time, we can mate with people from 200,000 years ago and have fertile offspring, but if we go back maybe 300,000 years, we might be able to have children but they would be sterile.

I think some Christians interpret the bible in a nonliteral sense.

Could it mean that the "design" of humans came from Adam and Eve?

Probably, or maybe it was like a simple story to tell people and it taught not to trust "snakes" and stuff, metaphorically.

- the christmas cup has never had "merry christmas" written on it
- plenty of christmas themed products with the word "merry christmas" in big print are available at starbucks

it's just all lies, the guy is trying to get popular off bullshit

plus the original idea of usa was a melting pot where migrants blend in and adapt to AMERICAN culture

usa needs to do like russia and tell people "you wanna be here you act like we do, you wanna be foreign go be foreign somewhere else"