Why do Christians hate the theory of evolution?

[nt11]

I ask this as a former Catholic of 16 years, subsequent atheist for 8, and current non-denominational Christian for 4 years. After I left the Catholic church, I examined all the reasons in my mind I thought that Christianity was wrong, until I had a spiritual experience that led me back to God and made me forget all my doubts.

I ask the question in the title not as a doubter of the faith, but as a question that is not clearly explained in the Bible. For example, if you read the literal translation of ancient Hebrew text, it says God created light, the earth, the heavens, the seas, grass, sea life, and animals, then man. Isn't this the actual progression of evolution anyway?

I know in current versions, the Bible says He took dirt from the earth and molded man, but according to the literal hebrew translation, he simply "fattened" man, which I see as some sort of "process." In my opinion, the Bible actually supports a God-driven evolution more than it does creationism. After all, why couldn't God have evolved man himself? If He created evolution, who are we to deny it? Here is the literal translation of the Hebrew text so you can read that God "fattened" mankind, and did not make him from clay (on page 21):

Well, never mind, I only have 34 posts so I am not allowed to post URLs, but if you search "mechanical translation of Genesis" you will find an e-book at ancient-hebrew.org with the original Hebrew and the literal English right next to it.

I challenge anyone to tell me with Biblical references why evolution is wrong, simply because in my effort to justify that belief, I actually cannot find anything in the Bible that says it is wrong. Until then, I will consider evolution to be a viable process driven by the Lord. Thank you.

 

[nt11]

Lots of views, no replies ...I heard something about the Bible saying the Earth has been around for 6,000 years...is that an actual Biblical reference? What book?

 

[random person]

Lots of views, no replies ...I heard something about the Bible saying the Earth has been around for 6,000 years...is that an actual Biblical reference? What book?

I believe it is proposed that the geneologies from Adam to Jesus is 4,000 years then tack on additional years. I am a ID proponent.

 

[1watchman]

God created man from the dust of the ground as He said, and made Him in the "image of God", etc. All references in the Bible make it clear we did not come from fish or monkeys, etc. The Bible must be our only authority for life, or we are left to our own imaginations. Evolution is just the rebellion story of men who hate to bow to the Creator-God. Such ones will never see Heaven, so don't go down that road friend.

 

[Bluelion]

God created man from the dust of the ground as He said, and made Him in the "image of God", etc. All references in the Bible make it clear we did not come from fish or monkeys, etc. The Bible must be our only authority for life, or we are left to our own imaginations. Evolution is just the rebellion story of men who hate to bow to the Creator-God. Such ones will never see Heaven, so don't go down that road friend.

That pretty much answers it, and the topic goes against the baptist forum. Might be better suited for the atheist forum.

Not only are you speaking against the word of God with this, but you are blaspheming God by saying the image of God is a chimp. That is some kind of evil right there.

 

[Bella Vita]

Because as Christians we believe in the Genesis account of creation. Evolution is a theory that takes God as the author of creation out of the equation. I personally do not see why science and Christianity need to fight. In my opinion God is the creator of science therefore science and Christianity can work together. You don't have to pick one or the other you can have both.

 

[nt11]

Watcher man, please read my original post, and the link I mention, and see page 21 of the literal translation of the Hebrew text, which does not mention dust at all.

I take exception to that comment, Blue Lion. If you read my earlier post about the LITERAL translation of the Hebrew text, the Bible does not mention "dust," it simply states that God "fattened" man into being, which I think indicates some sort of process. The dust part was poetic license on the part of modern translators. I challenge anyone to read the link I provided at the top and refute it with a Biblical quote.

Blue Lion, I don't really care what it "sounds" like, I'm talking about the literal translation of the Bible as it was written in Jesus' language. I can't find a single passage in it that refutes evolution. Please enlighten me.

 

[nt11]

Bella Vita, well-put. Thank you for your service by the way, I am in the Army myself.

 

[nt11]

And Blue Lion, I'm going to say another thing. That kind of attitude is exactly why the numbers of Baptists in the world are shrinking. Saying that a simple question about scriptural accuracy "goes against" the Baptist forum is the same close-minded attitude that turns young people away. I mean, I would respect your answer if you simply answered the question with your opinion and a passage that proves your point. But saying, "I don't know, never really thought about it before, you sound like an atheist, and you shouldn't post that question round hea," just turns people away who are curious about the Baptist faith. At least give me a passage, I mean come on.

 

[nt11]

And this is coming from a convicted Christian.

 

[Bluelion]

And Blue Lion, I'm going to say another thing. That kind of attitude is exactly why the numbers of Baptists in the world are shrinking. Saying that a simple question about scriptural accuracy "goes against" the Baptist forum is the same close-minded attitude that turns young people away. I mean, I would respect your answer if you simply answered the question with your opinion and a passage that proves your point. But saying, "I don't know, never really thought about it before, you sound like an atheist, and you shouldn't post that question round hea," just turns people away who are curious about the Baptist faith. At least give me a passage, I mean come on.

see maybe that is the problem you do not care what it sounds like.

You are wrong the Hebrew word for dust is aphar, meaning dust clay. well here it is.

Strong's Concordance
aphar: dry earth, dust
Original Word: עָפָר
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: aphar
Phonetic Spelling: (aw-fawr')
Short Definition: dust
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
from an unused word
Definition
dry earth, dust
NASB Translation
ashes (2), debris (2), dirt (1), dry soil (1), dust (91), dusty (1), earth (5), ground (1), heap (2), loose earth (1), plaster (3), rubbish (1), rubble (1).



maybe you were unaware it said this, but you are mistaken either way.

 

[Alithis]

since you have seen fit to post the same topic twice

i will give the same reply twice.

(we)are upset by the dishonesty .it claims by its promoters to be fact when it is merely another belief .
a belief in ,no hope, no reason and no accountability beyond present law .. thus , change the law, you remove the wrong .(they wish)

ie homosexual atheists say " its not wrong because the "law" says its not wrong ...Now ask them the difference between a homosexual act on a 17 yr old vs one on a 15 year old ..they wil say the 15 yr old is pedophilia .. because that's WHAT THE LAW SAYS .. yet the largest most vocal group advocating the lowering of the age of consent is the gay community ..WHY? because if you change the law you remove the wrong(they wish) and then pedophilia on a 15 yr old becomes a homosexual act (if they can lower the age of consent )and no longer illegal .

in order to base their deviated moral code solely upon carnal law they must declare there is No GOD ..thus they must PUSH the lie of evolution and falsely present it as fact -when it IS NOT.
It is no accident that it has come about .. sinful nature desires to alleviate itself of the burden of guilt .so it lies to itself then tries to impose that LIE upon all others and is absolute in its hatred of ANY ONE who exposes that LIE .beginning with the LORD JESUS and then with any one who follows the LORD JESUS .. soon they will manipulate into place a law that manifests that hatred and allows them to kill any one who speaks against their carnal reasoning ..
JESUS SAID IT SHALL BE SO .. and that's an irony that in their drive to silence knowledge of GOD they prove HIM TRUE.

like David said .. they lay a snare and fall into it themselves

 

[Bluelion]

I notice he has not commented sense i refuted his Hebrew claim.

 

[Hammster]

I ask this as a former Catholic of 16 years, subsequent atheist for 8, and current non-denominational Christian for 4 years. After I left the Catholic church, I examined all the reasons in my mind I thought that Christianity was wrong, until I had a spiritual experience that led me back to God and made me forget all my doubts.

I ask the question in the title not as a doubter of the faith, but as a question that is not clearly explained in the Bible. For example, if you read the literal translation of ancient Hebrew text, it says God created light, the earth, the heavens, the seas, grass, sea life, and animals, then man. Isn't this the actual progression of evolution anyway?

I know in current versions, the Bible says He took dirt from the earth and molded man, but according to the literal hebrew translation, he simply "fattened" man, which I see as some sort of "process." In my opinion, the Bible actually supports a God-driven evolution more than it does creationism. After all, why couldn't God have evolved man himself? If He created evolution, who are we to deny it? Here is the literal translation of the Hebrew text so you can read that God "fattened" mankind, and did not make him from clay (on page 21):

Well, never mind, I only have 34 posts so I am not allowed to post URLs, but if you search "mechanical translation of Genesis" you will find an e-book at ancient-hebrew.org with the original Hebrew and the literal English right next to it.

I challenge anyone to tell me with Biblical references why evolution is wrong, simply because in my effort to justify that belief, I actually cannot find anything in the Bible that says it is wrong. Until then, I will consider evolution to be a viable process driven by the Lord. Thank you.

For the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and everything in them in six days; then He rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and declared it holy. (Exodus 20:11 HCSB)

Oh, and to say that Gen 1 follows the progression of evolution is incorrect. Light was created on day one. The Sun came a few days later.

 

[Bluelion]

For the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and everything in them in six days; then He rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and declared it holy. (Exodus 20:11 HCSB)

Oh, and to say that Gen 1 follows the progression of evolution is incorrect. Light was created on day one. The Sun came a few days later.

I would like to also point out the earth is older than the sun, not the sun older than the earth as science suggest.

 

[random person]

As one passage stated on our eternal God, 1,000 years are one day, in essence evolution states God waited for over 47,000 years (literal 47,000,000 million human years) to become a man since man evolved from a common ancestor.

Chimpanzees possess very human traits, in that they are capable of very cruel and calculating acts of violence. Including pack hunting and cannibalism. They are actually one of my least favorite beasts in the whole animal kingdom. I think people are nuts to keep one as a pet.

But what does that say for sin? Or Adam and Eve? Seeing that according to evolution, chimps are our nearest living relative. Sin would have existed for throughout the millions of years of human evolution.

The Genesis account is foundational to whole the church.

Some say there was catastrophic events Jeremiah 23:23-25. Verse 25, states there was no man and all the birds of heaven fled. This in no way supports evolution either.

 

[Sayre]

Evolution is a fact of the matter and evolutionary theory describes that fact. There is nothing in the bible contradicting evolution, nor is there anything teaching evolution. The bible doesn't teach science, it teaches theology.

 

[Godrealms]

I can't post the link, since I don't have enough posts.

Is Evolution an Observable Fact?

by Nathaniel T. Jeanson, Ph.D. *

“Evolution is fact!” is one of the most popular evolutionary assertions made by evolutionists, ranging from those at the National Center for Science Education to those working for PBS.1, 2 Proponents of Charles Darwin want you to believe that his hypothesis is being confirmed right before our eyes.

Darwin’s ideas directly contradict the scriptural teaching on the origin of species. He proposed that all species derive from one or a few species (universal common ancestry). This concept contradicts Genesis 1, which teaches that God created different creatures “after their kind.” Darwin also claimed that each species’ original ancestors arose by natural selection, not by a direct act of God. Finally, Darwin’s timescale for the origin of species—millions of years—is irreconcilable with the time of creation, which occurred about 6,000 years ago.

So how do evolutionists get away with making this claim? By assuming that all change is evolutionary change. Why is this assumption wrong? Because the Bible permits biological change to a certain degree and, therefore, not all change is evolutionary change.

Specifically, the Flood account of Genesis 6-8 demonstrates that limited biological change can occur and has already occurred. When God commanded Noah to bring the land-dwelling, air-breathing “kinds” on board the Ark, He required that “male and female” of each kind be taken. This implies that reproductive compatibility identifies membership within a kind. Breeding experiments identify the classification rank of family (kingdom-phylum-class-order-family-genus-species) as roughly defining the boundaries of each kind.3

Since Noah brought only two of each kind instead of two of each species, we know that many new species have arisen since the Flood. For example, Noah likely had two members of the family Equidae, and from this pair we have the species (horses, donkeys, zebras) and breeds (pony to Clydesdale) of equids observed today. Big biological changes within created kinds are perfectly compatible with Scripture.

Conversely, the Flood account makes it clear that changes from one kind into another are naturally impossible. Again, God commanded Noah to bring two of every land-dwelling, air-breathing kind to preserve the offspring of each kind. If organisms in one kind could be changed into another kind, this command would be superfluous. Hence, biological change on the scale that Darwin proposed is biblically unimaginable.

We can now revisit the evolutionary claim with which we began this article and evaluate it without making the erroneous evolutionary assumption that all change is evolutionary change. Using biblically appropriate language, we can interrogate the claim that evolution is fact with two questions. Do we observe change within a kind? Yes. Breeding experiments are the premier example of this. Do we ever observe one kind (i.e., one family) of species change into another kind (or family)? No. Every example of biological change that has ever been observed in real time has been change within a kind.

Even the classic textbook examples of evolution—changes in the size and shape of the beaks of Darwin’s finches, E. coli developing resistance to antibiotics, and HIV developing resistance to the immune system—all demonstrate change within a kind and never change from one kind into another. Evolution, as Darwin conceived it, has never been observed.

The evidence for the biblical model is so strong that even the world’s most famous living evolutionist, Richard Dawkins, must concede this point. “We can’t see evolution happening because we don’t live long enough,” he said in a 2009 interview.4 In other words, evolution is unobservable.

Wow. Not only is the “Evolution is fact!” claim false, but the complete opposite is true. Furthermore, since evolution is not observable, evolution isn’t even science! Yet, somehow in spite of this, Dawkins still concludes, “Evolution is a fact.”4 In light of what we’ve just discussed and what he himself admitted, we know he reached his conclusion in spite of the evidence—not because of it.

 

[Hammster]

Evolution is a fact of the matter and evolutionary theory describes that fact. There is nothing in the bible contradicting evolution, nor is there anything teaching evolution. The bible doesn't teach science, it teaches theology.

Actually, it doesn't teach theology. It's God communicating with man. And He says six days. I'm going with God on this one.

 

[Bluelion]

As one passage stated on our eternal God, 1,000 years are one day, in essence evolution states God waited for over 47,000 years (literal 47,000,000 million human years) to become a man since man evolved from a common ancestor.

Chimpanzees possess very human traits, in that they are capable of very cruel and calculating acts of violence. Including pack hunting and cannibalism. They are actually one of my least favorite beasts in the whole animal kingdom. I think people are nuts to keep one as a pet.

But what does that say for sin? Or Adam and Eve? Seeing that according to evolution, chimps are our nearest living relative. Sin would have existed for throughout the millions of years of human evolution.

The Genesis account is foundational to whole the church.

Some say there was catastrophic events Jeremiah 23:23-25. Verse 25, states there was no man and all the birds of heaven fled. This in no way supports evolution either.

actually what it says is a day with the lord is like a 1,000 years on earth, meaning for us it is like a thousands years, time has no meaning to God, but we know it was actual days because on the first day he created light, then on night and day was the second day and so on. God clearly says it was days, not years.