That depends on Atheistic Evolution versus Theistic Evolution. If we're talking Atheistic, Then they are as follows: 1. How did the universe ultimately come to be? Without an ultimate creator, atheists are left with two, (possibly three, but we won't discuss infinite universes separately...) options. The first, and possibly most widely accepted, is the Big Bang. This theory suffers from multiple issues, ( some of which have already been discussed here... e.g. the light-time travel problem) but foremost involves tracing the ultimate source of the initial "speck" it had to start somewhere, or be created by something, unless it itself is eternal, a theory we will discuss in a moment. (Some may respond to this "Well, who made God!?" however, if there was someone who made God, we would worship that someone, however, God is eternal, and not created, that's why he's God... anyway, moving on....) The second option they have, is an eternal universe, which is, if possible, more wrought with issues than the Big Bang. All of the evidence we can turn up in the universe points to it's being finite, that is, NOT eternal. The earth's magnetic field points to an age of only around 6000 years, the sun's distance from the earth points to an age of only at most 20000. All of these are a far cry from 4.5 billion years, much less "infinite" length of time. The universe, as we know it from the evidence, simply could not last forever. 2. Second, I would ask: "how did life come to be?" once again, atheistic evolutionists are left with a single option, a theory which was disproved hundreds of years ago: "Spontaneous Generation" I won't go to deep in detail here, but you simply can't get life from non-life, which is absolutely required for evolution to work. A primordial soup coming out of a "Big Bang" simply could not contain, or create life. Nevertheless, atheistic evolutionists are forced to believe it could, because their religion, evolution, demands it. If THEISTIC evolution is the focus, then my favorite evidences vary in approach. Largely theological in nature. 1. Where, in scripture, do you find the time necessary for evolution to work. The Hebrew is very clear regarding the literal 24-hour days of creation, and leaves no massive gaps where millions of years could be fit in. The Hebrew is also very clear regarding the historical nature of the Genesis account. God created the world in six 24-hour days, using miraculous creative abilities only He possesses. People of Bible times were just as smart as we were, and if God had done it differently (I'm assuming here that we all believe God never lies) he surely wouldn't have been so misleading in his account of creation. Either God isn't all truthful, or maybe he did exactly what he said he did, created the world in six literal days in the relatively recent past, NOT using evolution. 2. What reason do you have to believe evolution, since we already have a historical record by the One Who created the world? Considering evolution needs God to work (as we discussed earlier) what reason does anyone have to believe in a theory that is continually defended for the very reason that scientists don't want to believe in God. ( Richard Dawkins pointed to evolution as allowing atheists to actually explain the origin of the world.) Evolutionary scientists continually interpret science and evidence through the lens of their atheistic world view, and since evolution is currently their best explanation, they are forced to find a way for the evidence to support it. The bottom line is, evolution is a religion, not science, since it cannot be observed or repeated. Likewise, Creation is a religion, since it cannot be observed or repeated either. I choose to believe creation, because the very One who created the world left us a written record of how he did it, a written record which is supported by the evidence we find in the world. Evolution has no such record, and instead relies on their interpretation of the evidence (a very flawed one, in my opinion, which I would be happy to discuss).

Both atheistic and Theistic evolution have their own set of problems. Atheistic evolution fails right from the get-go; at the ultimate origin of the universe. Theistic evolution, get's past the ultimate origin, but fails due to incompatibility with scripture, the very reason to accept the belief system in the first place. Evolution obviously does need God to work, so the only option available to Christians who wish to fit in with the mainstream scientific community is to accept Evolution while simultaneously attempting to accept scripture, a compromise which comes at great cost to the latter.

From what I have seen and heard in much of the modern evolutionist community, what is really just evidence (which in many cases, as J.E.S. stated lends itself well to other interpretations) is touted as 'proof" for evolution or an old earth. It also strikes me that other interpretations of the evidence that do not support the worldview of most evolutionists are suppressed, and those who hold those beliefs are often ridiculed by the scientific community. Since science seeks to gain knowledge, it would seem much more "scientific" to consider other beliefs, even if they disagree with what has become "accepted" by mainstream science, rather than hailing those beliefs as pseudoscience, when, in reality, there may be a good deal of very real science supporting them.

The article has a very interesting point. Since water takes the path of least resistance, logic follows that it would be impossible for the river to carve the gorge/pass. It is much more likely that a global flood created the gorge, ready to receive a river once the water receded.

I believe that Theistic evolution is indeed a round about path towards the same end. Evolution and scripture simply don't fit together, and while on the surface, theistic evolution may appear to work, digging deep only results in more questions and contradictions. Eventually a choice will have to be made, and that choice, I believe, will overwhelmingly favor "mainstream science"

I find it interesting that the article says: "We seek truth, ever learning as we study the natural world and the Bible" The Bible is mentioned second, as if it is of secondary importance in the quest for truth. However, the Bible is the ultimate source of truth. The order in which this sentence places these two authorities seems to reflect what I consider to be the root of BioLogos. The organization chooses to accept the inconclusive evidence for evolution, and then seeks to make that belief fit into the Biblical creation account. In this way, they place "science" or rather and unproven hypothesis above the Bible. Evolution simply does not fit into the Biblical creation account, but when evolutionary "science" is accepted as infallibly true, it's adherents have no choice but to squeeze it into the Bible, resulting in an in my opinion ridiculous "interpretation" of scripture. It seems much more theologically (and scientifically) sound to accept the Biblical account as the literal and truly infallible word of God.

Welcome to the Forum!! It's good to have you. I agree about the evidence discussion belongs on the other forum, however, regarding the points you made. Do you think that the sight of an animal bleeding, dying and being eaten by another would have seemed "very good" to a pre-fall Adam and Eve? Furthermore, very good, when spoken by God means "perfect." if you begin to separate the two phrases, you run into many more problems than that. Jesus says "“Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone." if we separate "good" from "perfect" I think we can agree that some people are "good." Obviously,to God, there is no distinction, "good" is "perfect.". Therefore, "very good" would have described a perfect creation free from sin. That would include animals tainted by sin i.e. predators.

Science is based on observable facts, and repeatable experiments. Since we cannot observe or repeat a physical resurrection from death, it is, from a purely scientific standpoint, impossible. By the same argument, evolution, since it is neither observable or repeatable, must be taken on just as much faith as the resurrection. So, while creationists put their faith in a God who rose from the dead and gave his infallible word to prove it, evolutionists place their faith in what "experts" claim is evidence for evolution. I'll take door number one thank you...

If Noah and his family and all the animals could afford to spend 200 years building the ark, couldn't they just as well have moved? Further more, the Bible says ALL flesh was destroyed, which would not have been true of those outside the flood plane otherwise!

The flood continued forty days on the earth. The waters increased and bore up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. The waters prevailed and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the face of the waters. And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep. And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, livestock, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all mankind. Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those who were with him in the ark. And the waters prevailed on the earth 150 days. I don't see any way that can be a local flood. If so, than why didn't God just have the animals and Noah move? If this passage is literal enough to refer to a local flood, then there is no way it isn't a worldwide flood. Why would God ever inspire a writer to write an account like this if it was so far from the truth. That seems like a pretty deceiving God!

You mentioned the number of scientists who are religious, and I have two things about that. 1st, there is a huge difference from merely being "religious" and actually having a God who claims to have created the world. 2nd, many of them probably don't let their faith influence there science much. Then again, I can't look into people's hearts, but that is still how it seems to me. Also, the militant atheists are probably the ones who yell the loudest, so that could easily warp one's perception. Regarding Genesis, I sincerely believe that if a Hebrew scholar went at the text with a completely open mind, they would be certain that it was written as a historical narrative. However, if you have already decided what you want the facts to say before you look at them, it is easy to make them support your view. I'm assuming most of the scholars you mentioned are theistic evolutionists, do you know if any of them read the Hebrew before becoming of that viewpoint?

Nice to have you back! you give this forum life, and while we disagree on many important points, It is a pleasure to have you here. You are courteous, which is very refreshing in today's culture. Thank you for always commenting.

If proven true, I believe evolution would be a huge threat to Christianity. However, it has not been proven true, and the evidence in support of it is not near conclusive enough to warrant it being proclaimed as fact, which it is. Just because the majority of scientists believe it doesn't make it true, and in this instance, among other things, I think that is due to the fact that the majority of scientists don't want to believe in a God. As S.M.S said, and I agree though, Evolution and Christianity cannot coexist. If one is true, the other is false, to me, that is clear.