Why do Christians hate the theory of evolution?

[Bluelion]

Are you implying that these people you speak of are "of another faith" i.e not Christian?

Even if you mean they are not baptist Christian, they are still "of the same faith". In any case, I am a Baptist, and because of that...

...I am offended.

Every other user here is trying to have a reasonable discussion on the topic. If this thread is causing you anger, please do not post in it.

well that makes two of us.



How have I offended you?


I too would like to have a reasonable conversation, but its a little hard when my questions are not answers part of my post are quoted and then attack. I have ask real question Honest question and all I got was a tip toe around them and then attack.

But first lets address the offense.

 

[Metal Minister]

I watched one of the videos. A man named Jay Seegert was trying to point out flaws in evolution through grammar analogies. Very poorly, I may add.

I looked him up: he has degrees in Physics and Engineering Technology (Univ. of Wisconsin-Whitewater & John Brown University, respectively). He is not a biologist, and not even a scientist. His credibility in evolutionary biology is very slim, and his knowledge of it shows.

I havent seen your other posts (this thread is a jungle now, sorry!) but on DNA...its indisputable that our DNA is >90% the same as chimpanzees.

Which means little, outside of assuming common ancestry. We also share 50% with kangaroos. As I've heard stated before, a software designer doesn't reinvent every part of a code every time he creates a new program. He reuses that which works. Also, your points about Jay Seegert are what's known as a "genetic fallacy". A logical fallacy that claims that because of the person's background, their arguments are invalid. I myself have no formal education in these matters, yet I understand them quite well. He was pointing out the incredible complexity of dna and how random mutations cannot produce new information, and that the changes needed to produce humans and chimps from from a common ancestor aren't possible. It's a primer to dna really.

 

[C-Man]

I simply couldn't read through 30-odd pages, so this may have been said.

1) The Bible doesn't say how long it was between the times of Adam and Noah. Could've been 1,000 years or 100,000 years. As we well know, it explains everything in part. This of course doesn't necessarily support evolution. It is, however, more than long enough for lots of interesting fossils to pile up. Carbon dating is demonstrably flawed. How do they decide "Well, this is 100 million years old."? A hundred years ago, they thought the earth was 100 million years old. Science changes constantly. It's a good idea to take such long-reaching theories with a huge grain of salt, for that reason.

2) If we evolved from monkeys and apes, and the same monkeys and apes are still around, then intermediate humans should still be around. i.e. Homo Erectus, Homo Ergaster, Homo Habilis, and the like. The odds of a mass extinction event that would kill only that select group but leave modern humans or apes largely untouched are astronomical.

 

[stan1953]

I haven't seen your other posts (this thread is a jungle now, sorry!) but on DNA...its indisputable that our DNA is >90% the same as chimpanzees.

It is the same as with Bonobos, but they are closer to us in their social activities. Regardless, it would not be strange for the creator of ALL life to use some of the same processes for creating animals and humans.

 

[stan1953]

I simply couldn't read through 30-odd pages, so this may have been said.
1) The Bible doesn't say how long it was between the times of Adam and Noah. Could've been 1,000 years or 100,000 years. As we well know, it explains everything in part. This of course doesn't necessarily support evolution. It is, however, more than long enough for lots of interesting fossils to pile up. Carbon dating is by no means perfect. How do they decide "Well, this is 100 million years old."? A hundred years ago, they thought the earth was 100 million years old. Science changes constantly. It's a good idea to take such long-reaching theories with a huge grain of salt, for that reason.

Not correct...see the following:
The Genealogy from Adam to Jesus Christ

It is of course a constant game of catch up for science. Bible believing Christians are already there.

2) If we evolved from monkeys and apes, and the same monkeys and apes are still around, then intermediate humans should still be around. i.e. Homo Erectus, Homo Ergaster, Homo Habilis, and the like.

That is one argument against evolution if 3 or four groups still exist from an original ancestor, but evolutionists have all kinds of gymnastic they use to try and explain this.

 

[Alithis]

Not correct...see the following:
The Genealogy from Adam to Jesus Christ

It is of course a constant game of catch up for science. Bible believing Christians are already there.



That is one argument against evolution if 3 or four groups still exist from an original ancestor, but evolutionists have all kinds of gymnastic they use to try and explain this.

albeit none of it very honest ie that much of what they base their theory upon is in-itself nothing more then a chosen belief system different to ours,

 

[C-Man]

That is one argument against evolution if 3 or four groups still exist from an original ancestor, but evolutionists have all kinds of gymnastic they use to try and explain this.

Which is a nice way of saying they pulled it from a certain orifice.....:3

 

[stan1953]

albeit none of it very honest ie that much of what they base their theory upon is in-itself nothing more then a chosen belief system different to ours,

and sadly they have been duped or conned into believing science makes all of this theory a fact.

 

[Alithis]

Which is a nice way of saying they pulled it from a certain orifice.....:3

ease up on the insinuating terminology .. a little leven .... etc

 

[chiwawa]

Which means little, outside of assuming common ancestry. We also share 50% with kangaroos. As I've heard stated before, a software designer doesn't reinvent every part of a code every time he creates a new program. He reuses that which works.

We share 50% with kangaroos because we have a common ancestor with them as well. Evolution also does not reinvent its "code". The code is modified over time, not thrown away and redone. We agree.

Also, your points about Jay Seegert are what's known as a "genetic fallacy". A logical fallacy that claims that because of the person's background, their arguments are invalid. I myself have no formal education in these matters, yet I understand them quite well. He was pointing out the incredible complexity of dna and how random mutations cannot produce new information, and that the changes needed to produce humans and chimps from from a common ancestor aren't possible. It's a primer to dna really.

I didn't say his arguments are invalid. But I would rather trust a biologist to teach me about biology, than a physics major. Wouldnt you?

 

[chiwawa]

[...] every one who has jumped on me is from another faith.

Here.

 

[Metal Minister]

We share 50% with kangaroos because we have a common ancestor with them as well. Evolution also does not reinvent its "code". The code is modified over time, not thrown away and redone.

Again, this assumed but has no evidence, aside from assuming evolution and common ancestry.

I didn't say his arguments are invalid. But I would rather trust a biologist to teach me about biology, than a physics major. Wouldnt you?

Again, one does not need a degree to understand a subject. As I've pointed out, outside of the assumption of common ancestry, there is no evidence. Try this, look at commonalities in dna but do not use common ancestry as your starting point.

 

[chiwawa]

Again, this assumed but has no evidence, aside from assuming evolution and common ancestry.


Again, one does not need a degree to understand a subject. As I've pointed out, outside of the assumption of common ancestry, there is no evidence. Try this, look at commonalities in dna but do not use common ancestry as your starting point.

Please see my earlier posts for evidence.

Again, I would rather trust an expert in a subject, than an amateur. Wouldnt you?

 

[random person]

I stand on Adam and Eve because monkeys, chimps, and bonobos are not in the image of God.

They will never know God and they will never have a relationship with God. They will never be conscious of a creator nor seek God.

Yet the Bible states we were created in the image of God.

 

[Bluelion]

Here.

Yeah i meant other denomination. I was referring to there icon next to there name none of which say Baptist yet now many claim to be that I have said something. I wonder why they did not first select that? I take it you thought I meant something else?

So i take it I was misunderstood and it was all a misunderstanding. If this is cleared up can I ask you some questions on your views?

 

[Sayre]

I stand on Adam and Eve because monkeys, chimps, and bonobos are not in the image of God.

They will never know God and they will never have a relationship with God. They will never be conscious of a creator nor seek God.

Yet the Bible states we were created in the image of God.

Under theistic evolution, man is made in the image of God, and animals are not.

So I'm not sure where your contention comes from. Perhaps a misunderstanding of what TE's believe?

 

[Sayre]

Yeah i meant other denomination. I was referring to there icon next to there name none of which say Baptist yet now many claim to be that I have said something. I wonder why they did not first select that? I take it you thought I meant something else?

If you mean my, why don't you just say so? You have questioned my faith - please don't now play the victim.

 

[Bluelion]

Under theistic evolution, man is made in the image of God, and animals are not.

So I'm not sure where your contention comes from. Perhaps a misunderstanding of what TE's believe?

How is man made in the image of God and animals are not if man came from animals and before man was, the missing link. Was the so called missing link the image of God to, did he go to heaven was he a son of God too?

 

[Bluelion]

If you mean my, why don't you just say so? You have questioned my faith - please don't now play the victim.

and you falsely accuse me I told you what I meant by faith. Growing up in the 80's in the church it was common to referred to other denominations as other faiths or to ask them "what faith are you".

Maybe you don't understand this being from another country and maybe many don't that were not born before the 80's.

faith noun \ˈfāth\
: strong belief or trust in someone or something

: belief in the existence of God : strong religious feelings or beliefs

: a system of religious beliefs
plural faiths

Full Definition of FAITH

1
a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2
a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3
: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>


I don't think i misused the word.

and i was not aware i was playing the victim I was explaining what I meant. sense only I can say what i meant by my words. I think you want to make something out of something that was almost resolved.

and people wonder why I am angry in this thread. Every time I try to reconcile the others join in and accuse me of saying something I did not say, and tell me what I meant by what I said. There is a rule in psychology You can not tell a person what they think or feel, why because you are not them. You can't read their mind or feelings.

 

[Alithis]

is not theistic evolution based more on a doubt then a belief ?