Why do Christians have trouble with accepting Evolution?

[EastCoastRemnant]

Oh, what the hey, here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#proof Prove me wrong.

ok, let's begin....

The link you provided cited a paper for evidence of speciation. I clicked on the link and this is what I got.... in the plant world, scientists have observed that crossing or comparing different sub species of a fern, for example, could produce the same species of fern but with mutations or variation to the original parent stock.... but it was still a fern. So much for evidence in the plant world.

Then, in response to the animal world this is what they cited...
"Speciation through hybridization and/or polyploidy has long been considered much less important in animals than in plants"..."Bullini and Nasceti (1990) review chromosomal and genetic evidence that suggest that speciation through hybridization may occur in a number of insect species,"

Ahhh, the favorite words of the evolutionists.... 'suggest' and 'may'. And then they end this very short paragraph (most of which is quotes above) with... "I will tackle this topic in greater depth in the next version of this document."... the old "I'm just giving you a taste of my brilliance through suggestion but I'll give you some kind of evidence at a later time" schtick.

So basically the report shows that the scientists observed mutations that caused a chromosomal change with incidence of infertility... that then justifies a species name change in their minds. If that is true, then people with Down's syndrome should be considered a different species using the flawed logic presented in this piece. There chromosones are mutated and they exibit frequent infertility.

What else you got Armoured?

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

Sometimes you can't even prove it to the saved.

You post still makes no sense. How do you think a bible can be saved?

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

I'm sorry if it contradicts what you think you know about science, but science doesn't prove anything. Including chemistry.

Please enlighten us mere plebs as to what the "real" understanding of proof is. In my inferior mind, I can prove that adding heat to water, transforms the liquid state into a gaseous state and conversely, removing heat transforms it to a solid. Please refute this "proof"

 

[KWCrazy]

Folks, you either believe the Scriptures or you don't; it's that simple. Anyone who tells you this is allegory is just giving an excuse to not believe it. You either believe in millions of years of death and mutation or you believe what Genesis 1 teaches. As someone who was saved reading God's Word, I'll take Genesis 1 over secular theories any day.

That is exactly correct. How many have we seen come here pretending to be Christians and espousing the false teaching of evolution only to later change their status to "atheist" and say it was the YEC's that drove them to reject God altogether? Likely most of them were the same few, using different accounts. When you ask them to justify evolution using the Scriptures they can't even come close. What better admission is there that the Scriptures absolutely refute evolution?

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Would you prefer if we had evolved from giraffes?

As a Christian you should be claiming that we are made in God's image not the image of a lower beast.

How derogatory towards God these statements are by his professed followers... if people knew God's Character, they would be ashamed.

 

[keltoi]

You post still makes no sense. How do you think a bible can be saved?

Simple English yet so many English speakers don't have a clue. Swap "it" for "the Bible".

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

If only we could see the beauty of Heavens glory, we not care about evolution anymore. . . .

But we would care about the truth. And it so happens to be true that evolution happened, all life has common descent.

 

[pat34lee]

Please read my entire post. I clearly said "That record is now much more complete than it was in Darwin's time and, as he predicted, scientists now possess 'many of the intermediate links between their past or parent and present states.'"

Darwain was researching and writing over 150 years ago. Much has been found since. We have that evidence as he predicted we would.

We see a lot of dead animals is all. What does that prove?
Only that they lived and died. Not that they procreated
and not that any are related. When you can prove which
share familial DNA, that would be evidence. Right now,
fossils mean pretty much nothing.

 

[KWCrazy]

So you believe that bats are birds?

As I recall, bats fly. Biologists may not consider them birds because they are mammals, but who says God uses the same classification system?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

As a Christian you should be claiming that we are made in God's image not the image of a lower beast.

How derogatory towards God these statements are by his professed followers... if people knew God's Character, they would be ashamed.

We are also claiming we are in God's image and not the image of dirt. So that argument doesn't really work.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

We see a lot of dead animals is all. What does that prove?
Only that they lived and died. Not that they procreated
and not that any are related. When you can prove which
share familial DNA, that would be evidence. Right now,
fossils mean pretty much nothing.

We have proof of familial DNA in the form of shared defects in genes (such as broken vitamin c gene in primates) and shared retroviral inserts. http://www.evolutionarymodel.com/ervs.htm

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

As I recall, bats fly. Biologists may not consider them birds because they are mammals, but who says God uses the same classification system?

This is true. The argument that the Bible is wrong to call bats "birds" is dependent on a classification scheme that didn't exist when the Bible was written; it is not a fair argument.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

if that were so then resurrection is fake

Doesn't follow.

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

Simple English yet so many English speakers don't have a clue. Swap "it" for "the Bible".

I'm done playng games with you. What you perceive as simple English is gibberish that makes no sense. A simple explanation would have sufficed but instead you want to play word games.

 

[pat34lee]

But we would care about the truth. And it so happens to be true that evolution happened, all life has common descent.

Wrong. All life has a common creator. One infinitely
more creative than you give him credit for.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Why do I have a hard time accepting the idea of evolution? Because, there isn't sufficient enough proof in modern science for evolution to exist.
. . . . .

You wrote that in a body with a broken vitamin c gene, that gene shared with other primates; since breaks in genes are random, and you share the same break with other primates, it is evidence of your common descent for yourself with all those other primates.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Wrong. All life has a common creator. One infinitely
more creative than you give him credit for.

You think arranging life to breed and evolve on its own is less creative? I think it is a more creative way of doing things. And besides, we all know there is life in other places, and that leaves room for an infinite variety of life forms.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Not so.

Gravity is a proven fact.

Not according to Armoured... no matter how many times gravity proves itself when he falls on his face, it still doesn't prove science.... right Armoured?

 

[Jadis40]

Research it. Evolution has zero scientific backing. I don't have the time or energy to do the research for you.

I will say, however, that evolution conflicts with the Bible and there is no way to get around it.

By the way, the Earth IS flat, as indicated in the Bible, and as noted by high altitude balloons, measurement, trigonometry, etc.

The earth is NOT flat.

A flat earth cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, explain the fact that there is a set of northern circumpolar constellations - draco, ursa major, ursa minor, cassiopeia, and cephus which never set in the northern hemisphere. None of these constellations is visible at any time of the year from Australia or any points in the southern hemisphere. The reverse of that is there is a set of southern circumpolar constellations visible from Australia and other southern hemisphere countries - the southern cross, carina, and centaurus which are not visible at any time of year from the northern hemisphere, unless you drop below the 30th degree of latitude.

A flat earth cannot explain polaris being the pole star in the northern hemisphere but not the southern hemisphere. Right now, there isn't a relatively bright star like polaris in the southern sky, unless you're talking about Sigma Octantis.

 

[pat34lee]

We have proof of familial DNA in the form of shared defects in genes (such as broken vitamin c gene in primates) and shared retroviral inserts. http://www.evolutionarymodel.com/ervs.htm

Except you have a different number of genes, and
different types of sex chromosomes. They are totally
incompatible, regardless how close scientists say they
are.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/full/nature08700.html

Evolution cannot happen. A billion years would not be
enough for one animal to become another kind.