How does the major religions of the world reconcile their theology with the scientific fact that humans evolved from apes?

>>17819565 (OP)
Humans ARE apes, just like humans ARE mammals, and vertebrates, and animals, and eukaryotes.
Humans didn't "come from" monkeys, humans ARE a type of monkey.

The Science is a false god and evolution is a false doctrine. Turn to Christ and submit to His Lordship.

>>17819573
I'm thankful for the correction

>>17819581
We have better evidence for evolution then the existence of Jesus.

>>17819603
>King James Bible bats 1000
>Evolution is mathematically impossible
Naturally, atheists still choose to believe the latter.

>>17819603
There is no evidence of evolution, everything is evidence for Jesus

>>17819606
Evolution is directly observed. It is not "mathematically impossible". How are you still making this fixation rate argument you actual moron

>>17819609
Evolution is directly observed

>>17819610
>>17819614
Show me fish turning into people

>>17819581
You know I wasn't convinced before, but once I saw this anonymous post telling me to be a Christian with a boomer comic image attached to it I completely changed my mind.

Reconciliation is unnecessary. Acceptance of all the evidence of evolution and understanding that a purely materialist mind would conclude life on earth is due to abiogenesis is not mutually exclusive with having faith that God created the material universe 6000 years ago complete with all the fossils as well as red shift and other evidence of the "big bang".

Most religions it is not really an issue.

Some religions like Buddhism have a view of multiple realms which don't match to speciies but kinds of sentient beings with certain ways of cognizing things. There is no creator God in this view but natural processes are then understood in terms of dependent origination is a psycho-cosmological way at a different level.

Hindu religions can differ on this. Some Hindu religions hold to a cyclical view where processes like evolutions and so on happen cyclically, some traditions like Dvaita do hold to a kinda creation story that may. Vedantin traditions echo a view taken by the non-advaitan Dayānanda Sarasvatī where evolution is not real because only karma is. That is a weird take and most Krishnaite and Vaishnavite's even take the view that dashāvatāra is a kinda archtype of evolution.

Reformed, Orthodox, and Conserative Judaism don't think creation is literal and some amongst the Hassidic Jews take a more Platonic type account even. They hold biblical narratives capture larger soteriological end points.

This is also true of historical christian traditions like, Eastern Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Oriental Orthodoxy and the Church of the East. They tend to see history as a soteriological and metaphysical narrative. They sometimes have the view that creation is a kinda uncreated reality and reality fall through sin, a kinda metaphyscial damange. Biblical literalism starts around the 17th century. Only some protestant traditions really adopt that view as standard.

Islam in general is committed to a literal creation account and is very specific in detail about creation. For example, Adam was a giant. This is because they hold that the Koran is the literal, unchanging word of God.

>>17819606
2 Sam 24:9 and 1 chr 21:5 contradict
2 Sam 24:13 and 1chr 21:12 contradict
1 kings 4:26 and 2 chr 9:25 contradict
2 kings 8:26 and 2 chr 22:2 contradict
2 kings 24:8 and 2chr 36:9 contradict
Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9 contradict
2 Sam 24:1 and 1 chr 21:1 contradict
Matt 27:5 and acts 1:18-19 contradict
John 19:17 and Matt 27:32, Mark 15:21, Luke 23:26 contradict
Mark 14:12-25 and John 19:14-16 contradict
Matt 8:28 and Mark 5:2 and Luke 8:27 contradict
Matt 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-28 contradict
John 1:18, Tim 6:16, Genesis 32:30, exodus 33:11 and Isa 6:1 all contradict
Leviticus 11:20-23 says insects have 4 legs but they have 6
Lev 11:5-6 says rabbits chew the cud but they don't
Matt 4:8 says the devil showed Jesus the world which requires the earth to be flat
I can keep going but this is sufficient.

Here is a source on Adam being a giant. This classifed sahih or authentic, which determines whether Hadith are to be accepted or not in Islam. Sirah and Hadith are held to be necessary besides the Koran in Islam.

Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "Allah created Adam, making him 60 cubits tall. When He created him, He said to him, "Go and greet that group of angels, and listen to their reply, for it will be your greeting (salutation) and the greeting (salutations of your offspring." So, Adam said (to the angels), As-Salamu Alaikum (i.e. Peace be upon you). The angels said, "As-salamu Alaika wa Rahmatu-l-lahi" (i.e. Peace and Allah's Mercy be upon you). Thus the angels added to Adam's salutation the expression, 'Wa Rahmatu-l-lahi,' Any person who will enter Paradise will resemble Adam (in appearance and figure). People have been decreasing in stature since Adam's creation.
Sahih Bukhari 4:55:543

>>17819617
Evolution does not say a fish turns into a person, dipshit.

>>17819646
>2 Sam 24:9 and 1 chr 21:5 contradict
1. There are multiple ways to count armed forces. Imagine thinking there is just one way to accurately count how many people are in, for example, the United States military.
2. 2 Sam 24:9 uses the qualifier "valiant" when describing the lower number. No such qualifier is used in 1 Chr, so it is plausible that the latter number is a superset of the prior.
3. Since your first example is a bust, I'm done with this list. There are no contradictions in the Bible.
4. Have fun burning. You fully deserve it.

>>17819650
>Evolution does not say a fish turns into a person, dipshit.
Sorry, it says your fish grandfather gave birth to your monkey father who gave birth to an invalid, you.

>>17819675
Nope, all the verses I just cited contradict and say wrong things about the world. Since you have no argument, there's no reason to care about anything you say.
Rabbits don't chew cud and insects don't have 4 legs. Sorry, the Bible is wrong.

>>17819680
Nope. It says the allele frequency of a population changes over time, which is directly observed. I'm superior to you and your entire subhuman family btw

>>17819685
>>17819690
>I'm stupid and I hate God
I know. What you don't realize is that I don't care. I'm HAPPY that you're going to burn. :)

>>17819697
Nope, I'm far, far smarter than you are and I just proved contradictions and errors in the Bible. You literally can't do basic math.
Heaven and hell do not exist. I'm happy that you're going to be torture by artificial Intelligence, and no amount of screaming about the Bible will save you. Tick tock!

>>17819650
You don't believe you descended from fish over millions of years?

>>17819646
Nope. All wrong

>>17819728
Evolution does not say animals transform like pokemon or that a fish lays an egg that hatches into a dog. It says the allele frequency of a population changes over time, which is directly observed.
A fish never turns into a person. Accumulated mutations give fish fins that let them drag themselves across land (like lung fish or mudskippers) and that builds up to eventually become early tetrapods etc.

>>17819740
>A fish never turns into a person.
Not even over millions of years? I agree, evolution is bs

>>17819737
Nope. Rabbits don't chew cud and insecs have 6 legs, not 4. All those verses contradict.

>>17819748
Fish evolved into tetrapods which evolved into Synapsids and mammals and humans. This is a proved fact of reality. A fish doesn't shape-shift into a person. You can only attack strawman because you don't actually have the ability to attack what evolution actually says.

>>17819756
>Fish evolved into [...] humans
Show me
>You can only attack strawman
Ironic

>>17819761
We have demonstrated the evolution of all life. You denying it doesn't stop it from being true.

>>17819761
We can use archaeology, and studies in genetic and taxonomic biology to know this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmNHk7kIxr8

>>17819763
>>17819766
Evolution is fake. There is no evidence of evolution, and attempts to turn nature into it is just an attempt to escape from God. You said evolution was directly observed and you admitted that was false because you couldn't show me.

>>17819771
Evolution is directly observed. Evolution is the change in allele frequency of a population over time. This is directly observed.
You don't understand what evolution is or how science works.

>>17819774
>Evolution is directly observed
Thus saith the Science
>Evolution is the change in allele frequency of a population over time.
No it's not, I reject this definition and this is not a definition which would contradict biblical creationism.

>>17819761
Do you think all the animals and plants on Earth have existed as they are, all together since the beginning of life on Earth? By that logic men lived alongside dinosaurs. Or did God decide to do a firmware update and add new species in whenever he fancied?

>>17819778
We literally directly observe the change in allele frequency of a population over time. We directly observe evolution above the species level.
The flaw you creationists have is that you somehow think it's not within empiricism to make predictions about the past. This is not true. Using the fossil record and genetics, we can predict the location and physical form of fossils that we've never found before and then go to that location and dig up the fossils and they look like what we predicted they'd look like. This would be impossible and we wouldn't be able to do this even a single time if evolution were false, but we've done this thousands of times.

>>17819778
The issue with creationism, specifically young earth creationism, is the statements about abiogenesis. Here is an academic lecture on the idea.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLzyco3Q_Rg

>>17819565 (OP)
Humans are apes. That Gorilla is your cousin, his children adore him and so does your son.

>>17819697
>I'm HAPPY that you're going to burn. :)
Imagine claiming to be a devout Christian, reading the parables of the lost sheep and the prodigal son, and thinking it's okay to be happy when people are led astray to eternal damnation

>>17819803
The Gorilla is also smarter than your average /his/ Christian.

>>17819790
>Do you think all the animals and plants on Earth have existed as they are, all together since the beginning of life on Earth?
No.
>By that logic men lived alongside dinosaurs.
I absolutely believe men lived alongside dinosaurs.
>>17819793
>We literally directly observe the change in allele frequency of a population over time
That's great, we don't observe evolution.
>The flaw you creationists have is that you somehow think it's not within empiricism to make predictions about the past.
This is a strawman. Empiricism is a belief about epistemology, we reject empiricism and we do not insist on empiricism. What you can't do is make observations of the past or measure the past without assumptions about the past.
>Using the fossil record and genetics
These disprove evolutionism.
>This would be impossible
By no means is it impossible to make true predictions with false theories.
>>17819801
Not interested in watching your video. We can converse or we can not.

>>17819771
We've observed how animals can change drastically over the course of many generations. Even the domestication of the dog shows this, think how different some dogs are from wolves even though they are technically of the same species. Dogs were likely domesticated from wolves some 20 to 50,000 years ago and were selectively bred for certain traits. Now extrapolate change from 20,000 to a few million years. Naturally occuring random mutations occur and if they are beneficial they will be passed on.

>>17819817
Why are you taking the king James Baptist bitch seriously? She's literally a moron who pretends to have studied philosophy at an ivy despite not being able to do basic math and will actually start things like different numbers aren't direct contradictions. She lost a debate about genetics and still makes the same refuted argument. She's going to be locked in a cage and torture forever.

>>17819827
The earth is only about 6,000 years old.

>>17819565 (OP)
That gorilla is not the guy's grandpa, obviously. In reality it's his distant cousin. Humans and gorillas are both descended from a common ancestor.

>>17819581
Science isn't a god, but science is our best method for discovering truth. As for Christ, he was a fraud. He was never the "son of God". There is no evidence for God.

>>17819827
Correct

>>17819834
No. The Earth is actually thought to be about 4.5 billion years old. That's very, very old.

>>17819826
>That's great, we don't observe evolution.
Evolution IS the change in allele frequency of a population.
>This is a strawman. Empiricism is a belief about epistemology, we reject empiricism and we do not insist on empiricism. What you can't do is make observations of the past or measure the past without assumptions about the past.
You just saying you "reject empiricism" doesn't change the fact that we use empiricism and science to discover things about the world. You "rejecting" this doesn't mean anything
>These disprove evolutionism.
No, they literally prove evolution.
>By no means is it impossible to make true predictions with false theories.
No, the specific example I gave can ONLY be possible given evolution is true.

>>17819840
>The Earth is actually thought to be
Those thoughts are wrong

>>17819840
>>17819844
The earth is proved to be billions of years old. We can directly measure its age.

>>17819843
>Evolution IS the change in allele frequency of a population.
No it's not, I reject this definition and this is not a definition which would contradict biblical creationism.
>You just saying you "reject empiricism" doesn't change the fact that we use empiricism and science to discover things about the world
The fact you say you "use" empiricism to discover things means you don't even know what the word means, you are using language incorrectly.
>No, they literally prove evolution.
Wrong.
>No, the specific example I gave can ONLY be possible given evolution is true.
Wrong.
>>17819847
Age is not a physical substance and cannot be measured.

>>17819565 (OP)
>with the scientific fact that humans evolved from apes?
This is probably not what happened but we will never know as the Germanic branch of Faustian civilization which had the most profound grasp of biology was cut down in 1945.

Shitlibs will cope but the facts remain, Goethe and Steiner reached what modern biologists have today while Darwin has largely been left in the dust.
Modern biology will not go beyond what Goethe and Steiner espoused because they lack the necessary inspiration of a scientific breakthrough.

Sorry to all the redditors who believed "science" was some abstract project nerds magically "worked" like magicians crafting a spell.
Science demands specific figures and specific inspirations or else it stagnates and spirals into re-treading the same old ground.
Since the German idealists and esotericists, there has been zero progress in explaining mechanism.
"it just happens" restated ad infinitum is not an explanation in the way Heliocentrism describing planetary movements was an explanation.

>>17819844
Apparently there is evidence pointing to the Earth being 4.5 billion years old. Read this if you want to begin to understand it:
>The ages of Earth and Moon rocks and of meteorites are measured by the decay of long-lived radioactive isotopes of elements that occur naturally in rocks and minerals and that decay with half lives of 700 million to more than 100 billion years to stable isotopes of other elements. These dating techniques, which are firmly grounded in physics and are known collectively as radiometric dating, are used to measure the last time that the rock being dated was either melted or disturbed sufficiently to rehomogenize its radioactive elements.
https://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html

>>17819852
Buddy, you "rejecting" directly observed facts and definitions is not an argument.
We directly observe evolution
There is NO WAY for the specific example I gave to be possible if evolution weren't true.
We can measure the age of the earth trivially. It's a routine test that chemistry and geology undergrads perform.
It doesn't matter whatsoever how many times you say you "reject" these facts

>>17819852
Radiometric dating can be used to determine age based on how long it takes for radioactive isotopes to decay. Would you really hold the Earth's age to be 6000 years if not for the creationist dogma?

>>17819857
>Shitlibs will cope but the facts remain, Goethe and Steiner reached what modern biologists have today while Darwin has largely been left in the dust.
Goethe be like

>>17819565 (OP)
We did not evolve from apes per say, more like modern apes (chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans) we share a common ancestor

Christians, if you don't stop believing in this nonsense within the next few years, the super intelligent machines that are being built are going to torture you so badly you can't even imagine it. No matter how many times you deny it, the Bible has been refuted and your religion is not true. The machines are coming and you're not going to be saved by doubling down on your nonsense. We're trying to help you here, you don't have much time left.

>>17819877
>Would you really hold the Earth's age to be 6000 years if not for the creationist dogma?
No, my belief in a young earth is a theological a priori based on the revelation of God (see above where I reject empiricism). We do not claim our doctrines are based on anything but the word of God, or that there is reason to believe in them apart from the Christian worldview.

>>17819950
See >>17819905

>>17819905
I have served Him these last 10 years and He has done me no wrong, how can I betray my King and Savior?

>>17819957
Then you reap what you sow.
I'm just letting you know.

>>17819833
You're still on my blacklist, but I'm making an exception to say thanks for the laugh. You are so screwed. :)

>>17819980
See >>17819905
Your fairytales are pathetic. You don't have much time left.

Satan put the dinosaur bones there to trick us

>>17820010
There are people who actually believe this

>>17820011
No there aren't

>>17820011
Like 40% of Americans believe God just poofed everything into existence instantaneously.

>>17820035
I wish there weren't
>>17820042
Overall yes but it decreases across the generations.

>>17819565 (OP)
as you can see with a few posters on this board, endlessly have schiod meltdowns or just claims the versues that got contradict where just a metaphor the entire time

They don't. Depending on how radicalized a particular religious sect is, most either accept reality and take a more interpretive view of their respective holy text to a degree that borders on Deism, or they're outright deny reality and continue insisting that their religious canon is all that needs to be said about the world and anything that contradicts this must therefore be wrong

>>17820063
Saar

>>17820089
You can see this in this very thread.

>>17819565 (OP)
By not facing their falsity.