Why do Christians have trouble with accepting Evolution?

[keltoi]

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.

No word games just plain simple conversational English in reply to your posts. I shouldn't have to explain the topic of your post to you so you know what "it" is. If you find things that difficult then I can't help you.

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

No word games just plain simple conversational English in reply to your posts. I shouldn't have to explain the topic of your post to you so you know what "it" is. If you find things that difficult then I can't help you.

What you shouldn't be is ignorant. The fact is the bible can't be saved and that's what your claim is.....nonsense. You are now on my ignore list

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

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.

Because sin has caused us to have a genetic mutation the same as a primate only proves we have the same genetic defect...

Paul, if we are created in the image of God, do you believe all the animals are?

 

[toLiJC]

I think i know some key ideas. Its because it undermines the creation story and that people will become irreligious?

Well wouldnt that be an issue about the idea of the earth is flat if the bible is literal on that part i mean?

What i mean is that science explains our physicial world. The main point i am making is that Creation Story had two interpretations in medieval ages. Allegory" basically a deeper meaning than it is. Or "Literally" like just like it is written.

So basically allegory seems to be the key point then. Since that can be used. Since God is outside our understanding. Science is a method just to understand the world we live in more or less.

So i dont see the problem with evolution, because it doesnt undermine the scripture in the sense of it not being true?

Although i do believe its a shame that more people who lack understanding go away because of ignorance and just dont bother trying to understand why Christianity is a religion to help your life.

But i am curious to what you think?

evolution is a strained/far-fetched concept, there are no more than 5-6 millennia for the sin to reign over the world reckoned from the day of the original sin(fall) on, so there is a (short) transition rather than an evolution

Revelation 17:10 "there are seven kings(i.e. seven times): five are fallen(i.e. it is expected that 5 millennia pass reckoned from the day of the original sin/fall on), and one is(i.e. and the end of the reign of the "darkness" is expected to be in the 6th millennium), and the other is not yet come(i.e. and the time for which the "darkness" will continue to reign (before the end) in the sixth millennium will come last); and when he cometh, he must continue a short space(i.e. but it will be (very) short)."

Blessings

 

[keltoi]

What you shouldn't be is ignorant. The fact is the bible can't be saved and that's what your claim is.....nonsense.

I'll post it again for you so you may understand simple conversational English.
You said

I agree you can't prove the bible to the unsaved that lack the Holy Spirit.

and in reply I said

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

Which directly translates to. Sometimes you can't even prove the Bible to the unsaved. What is so difficult in that for you to understand? Unlike you I'm not going to call you ignorant but I will call you up on twisting things so you can get a bite.

 

[Alithis]

Doesn't follow.

resurrection and the lie of evolution ..are totally incompatible .one is truth then other a lie .

science knows dead is dead .. no one evolves back to life
science is a carnal minded observation of the created world.
but god is not and never wil be governed by the creation he made . -he is God .

he to whom all things are possible and with whom nothing is impossible says he created it in 6 days .. it is " men" who say other wise .

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

resurrection and the lie of evolution ..are totally incompatible .one is truth then other a lie .

You just made that up, you have no logical reason for saying that.

science knows dead is dead .. no one evolves back to life

What evolves is the pattern for the following generations.

science is a carnal minded observation of the created world.

Developing vaccinations and cures for diseases doesn't strike me as particularly "carnal minded".

but god is not and never wil be governed by the creation he made . -he is God .

And you can't tell Him what He has to do to qualify as God.

he to whom all things are possible and with whom nothing is impossible says he created it in 6 days .. it is " men" who say other wise .

You should trust the direct word of God, written in the stars, the rocks, and the genomes.

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

You just made that up, you have no logical reason for saying that.



What evolves is the pattern for the following generations.



Developing vaccinations and cures for diseases doesn't strike me as particularly "carnal minded".



And you can't tell Him what He has to do to qualify as God.

You should trust the direct word of God, written in the stars, the rocks, and the genomes.

"Evolution" is a man created pagan religion based on pseudo science.

 

[GeorgiaGuyinAtlanta]

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.

This is the best argument you have against a flat Earth. There are hundreds of indications of a flat Earth, which refutes the idea of a ball.

If you believe in the Bible, which I believe you say that you do, then you'd support the flat Earth.

NASA is lies. It is filled with freemasons who are about nothing more than deception. Freemasonry is an arm of the illuminati, just as the Jesuits of the Roman Catholic church are too.

If the Earth is a sphere we'd have untold numbers of REAL photos of Earth, of which we do not. All we have is cgi or composites. Yet, we had Hubble out far enough to take a picture of the Earth. It is a fraud. I can't believe that you can't see it. Hubble in space doesn't exist. Every photo of Hubble is computer generated. It's not real.

The moon missions were complete fakes. There's plenty of evidence to indicate what a mockery and what deception that they partook in.

 

[KWCrazy]

Revelation 17:10 "there are seven kings(i.e. seven times): five are fallen(i.e. it is expected that 5 millennia pass reckoned from the day of the original sin/fall on), and one is(i.e. and the end of the reign of the "darkness" is expected to be in the 6th millennium), and the other is not yet come(i.e. and the time for which the "darkness" will continue to reign (before the end) in the sixth millennium will come last); and when he cometh, he must continue a short space(i.e. but it will be (very) short)."

Or,
There were 7 popes named Paul. Five were fallen. The six was. The seventh was John Paul, who died after 33 days. The next was John Paul II, under who's reign the sex abuse scandals rocked the church. Revelation is all metaphoric, but likely the Lord's return is imminent.

 

[Hoghead1]

I am still having trouble with your posts, KW. You say that you do not want to rely on human judgment. OK, fine. But that is all I find on your posts, human judgments. For one thing, you are presenting your own judgment, you own theory as to how God, Scripture, and science should be related. For another, you are reiterating the views of church fathers and the natural theology in vogue at the time of Darwin. So others do have to right to challenge and question what you say. When that happens, you should take it as constructive criticism telling you that you need to modify parts of your theory. Instead, however, you demonize your opponents. That's bad form in any theologcial discussion.

 

[Alithis]

You just made that up, you have no logical reason for saying that.



What evolves is the pattern for the following generations.



Developing vaccinations and cures for diseases doesn't strike me as particularly "carnal minded".



And you can't tell Him what He has to do to qualify as God.

You should trust the direct word of God, written in the stars, the rocks, and the genomes.

i do .. i also trust what he says .. for if i canot take God at his word .. then how do i know he has saved me ?
if he does not mean what he says then there is doubt and if there is doubt then there is not faith .
who told you God does not mean what he says ?
i know of one who once said " did god say ?
but he is a liar and the father of lies

 

[Hoghead1]

That isn't at all accurate, BornAgain. Evolution came from painstaking observations of nature. Alfred Russell Wallace, a colleague of Darwin, spent almost ten years living in jungles, painstakingly studying specimens. That shows a lot of courage and determination. Certainly far more spirit that we arm-chair naturalists have. So, yes, I am going to listen to Wallace, to the man who lived it first-hand.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

"Evolution" is a man created pagan religion based on pseudo science.

Please don't defame religion by using religion as a derogatory term. I am a religious man myself, a Christian, and I think that being religious is a good thing, not a bad thing.

People don't trust evolution for their salvation. They have, however, discovered that species did evolve to become what they are today. Its analogous to discovering that the gravity of the moon causes tides. Interesting, but not a religion.

The science behind evolution theory is quite sound. In fact, evolution is confirmed over and over again by new discoveries in the fossil record and in analysis of living forms. For example, your body contains vestigial ear wiggling muscles, a clear remnant from an ancestral species that could move its ears to good effect.

 

[Hoghead1]

That isn't at all accurate, Alithis. Science is not at all equipped to investigate what happens after death. Furthermore, you made some questionable claims about God. All things are possible with God? OK, does that mean God can do evil? If all things are possible, then it is possible God will do evil. Do you believe that? Does that mean God can create a stone so heavy that he can't lift it? Divine omnipotence I think is a major theological mistake. It denies human freedom and makes God the author of evil.

 

[Hoghead1]

What is your evidence for your claim, Patlee34? How come science doesn't agree. I mean, given a choice between you, a lay person, and a scientist, it's a no-brainer for me which I would believe.

 

[GeorgiaGuyinAtlanta]

Please don't defame religion by using religion as a derogatory term. I am a religious man myself, a Christian, and I think that being religious is a good thing, not a bad thing.

People don't trust evolution for their salvation. They have, however, discovered that species did evolve to become what they are today. Its analogous to discovering that the gravity of the moon causes tides. Interesting, but not a religion.

The science behind evolution theory is quite sound. In fact, evolution is confirmed over and over again by new discoveries in the fossil record and in analysis of living forms. For example, your body contains vestigial ear wiggling muscles, a clear remnant from an ancestral species that could move its ears to good effect.

Can you explain what you mean by "new discoveries in the fossil record"? Honestly, I don't see anything to support evolution.

Species did not evolve. If you believe that, then you're being deceived. There is no genetic, physical, or any type of evidence to support such a claim.

Gravity does not exist. It is nothing more than the density of an object being greater in comparison to its surrounding substance. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Armoured]

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"

It's not "proof", it's "evidence". It is possible, however unlikely, that next time you add heat to water it will freeze. That's how the whole "just a theory" thing works. Yes, evolution is "just a theory", the same way "adding heat to water boils it" is "just a theory".

 

[Hoghead1]

That simply doesn't work, EastCoast. The Bible says we are made out of dirt. Actually dirt is a far more humble beginning than coming from a common ancestor to ourselves and apes.

 

[Armoured]

Can you explain what you mean by "new discoveries in the fossil record"? Honestly, I don't see anything to support evolution.

Species did not evolve. If you believe that, then you're being deceived. There is no genetic, physical, or any type of evidence to support such a claim.

Gravity does not exist. It is nothing more than the density of an object being greater in comparison to its surrounding substance. Nothing more, nothing less.

If there's no such thing as gravity, how does a denser object know which way to fall?