Listen I dont have some sort of agenda here. Im trying to really understand this question.
How many more ways do you need it expalined?
Im not saying to accept Evolution means you have to become an atheist. Im saying if you do accept Macro Evolution you need to change your concept of God. You will have to be some sort of deist.
Yes, you are saying that evolution= atheism and, no, you do not need to change your concept of God to accept evolution. You can accept that evolution is part of how God works and that he is behind all of the factors and choices that lead to selection.
Here’s My Main Points if we believe in Evolution. 1.Christian Morality Can’t be expected to be upheld when are very evolutionary design which was bred into us over a course of millions and millions of years totally contradicts it. You can say it has nothing to do with morality but how can you seperate how man became from what man ought to be? Its like your saying God , messed up in his own design.
Do you all understand when im saying your not being Congruent. What I mean is to me you can’t say Yes man was a single cell organism , transformed in 40,000 other species until he became human through the process of natural selection, survival of the fitess and then just competly ignore evolutionary morality for one that totally contradicts it like christian morality.
The greatest gift that God ever gave man was the ability to rise above himself, to be more than just a complex structure of water and carbon. To not use that ability would be a failing of man, not of God. Yes, it is harder this way, but with things this important, you can’t always take the easy way out.
To me the question about how man became , is tied into what man is , what man should be and do… Do you understand my reasoning here?
He should be a creature in God’s image.
If our ancestors are Monkeys then we shouldnt have something like marriage. It takes a village…etc
Let me go back to my previous example of the woman with five children by five different fathers. Let’s say that they’re all neoliths from a time before marriage. Now, this woman will have to feed, protect and teach skills to her five children. Will any of the men show up and help? Likely not. They wouldn’t want to devote their time and energy helping children that aren’t theirs (as four of the children are to each man), so the woman is left to look after them on their own. The children will have less food, be more likely to be eaten by a tiger and will not receive as much attention.
Let’s say that in this same neolithic area, there is a monogamous pair. They don’t spend their time being promiscuous, so they only have two or three children. Still, because there are now two parents invested in the children, it is now easier to get food, protect the family and give each child attention to help them grow up.
Who’s children are more fit. The first woman my have more children, but the second woman’s children have a better chance at survival. That’s what evolution is about; who survives and who doesn’t.
I’d also like to point out that you are assuming that no other species mates for life and it is therefore unnatural. Penguins, for example, mate for life and so do swans.
Just rackin 'em up aint (s)he?