Why do Christians have trouble with accepting Evolution?

[Hoghead1]

Can you offer a solid rebuttal to any of his points, even one, BiblicalAstronom?

 

[Berean777]

A few things... Evolution is not a religion. It is not a belief. It is a scientific theory. That is not a guess. It is hypothesis supported by the data. And the data is massive. From all different areas of science. We know far more about evolution than we do about gravity. Evolution is a fact. That isn't taken on faith, it's not a belief. Life on earth evolved and it has been observed. Why don't Christians accept this? Many... most of them do. Only those that do not understand evolution deny it. But, then again, only those that do not understand science deny it. It comes down to wanting the Bible to be an infallible resource on the answers of the world. There's no evidence to suggest that it is.

If Evolution is not a cult like religion, but is a theory as you and others say, then where are the linear repeatable mathematical equations, that model an observable real world phenomina. Even though not much is know about gravity or the nature of light, but these are both modelled by linear equations, that hold true within the repeatable bondaries of observable experimentation.

The evolution theory is an adhoc theory, without mathematical modelling and is based on selective data gathering, that is interpreted out of context, in the same way certain people take out of context versus out of scripture. Not all biologists agree on the interpretation of certain biologists, who interpret after the fact data, the reason for the selective observable data. In the same way a person can select versus out of scripture randomly in order to support their agenda.

Evolution theory is therefore not science at all, as per the definition of science, rather it is a belief system that relies heavily in interpreting non repeatable selective data, after the fact in order to support the agenda, therefore it is a cult like new age religion of the 21st century.

When biologists who support this theory are confronted with pressing questions, they use a common reply, I don't know. Well I see a red flag right there. If I asked a science teacher, how long it will take a ball to drop from a certain height under the influence of gravity, the teacher will ask what is the ball made from, the environmenal condition that affect the ball's trajectory, like turbulence and that repeated obversable experiments are required to establish the proper modelled mathematical linear equations for the experimented scenario. The word is repeated. But within another scenario, similar equations are used, with additional bits that account for turbulence and trajectory. Evolution theory sights one vague presumed scenario and cannot show another, which falls under a different condition, so no common linear equations are used to link scenariois together as proof of a modelled scientifically based theory, rather evolution as I stated before is purely adhoc and is supported subjectively by a growing list of religous cult like following.

Christians don't like to be in a cult like following, even if it calls itself evolution, christian science, scientology or any other jibber that tickles the fancy.

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

Well, if the creation record is taken to be the Bible, there are many many more holes in the bible considered as a record of creation. For example, the bible says NOTHING about ice ages, NOTHING about dinosaurs, NOTHING about the rings of Saturn, NOTHING about radioactive decay, NOTHING about the orbit of the earth around the sun, NOTHING about the tilt of the earth's axis, . . . . you know this list could go on and on.

So that statement is inaccurate.



Well, we can't have every creature that ever lived as a fossil. There, the gaps are accounted for. So THAT statement is inaccurate.



The Bible says, for example, that the circular sea of bronze was 10 cubits wide and a cord of 30 cubits would encompass it. But it would actually require 31.414 cubits of a cord to encompass such a circular bath, so that's less accurate than modern science. Moreover, science is NOT a religion, no matter how many times you try to insult it by claiming it is . . . . you are not really in charge of defining what is a religion. So there is another inaccurate statement.


Most interpreters of Isaiah understood the "stretching out of the heavens" to be at the time of creation, not an ongoing process. There's another inaccurate statement.



You are confusing the age of the book with the age the story talks about. Clearly the book of Job was written among the later books of the old testament, because it talks about Satan and that is a later development in the Hebrew literature. It's subject, Job, is of course of a far earlier age. But the earth was always suspended in the creation narrative, in . . . . the waters above the earth and the waters below the earth . . . in nothing that is SOLID.

So there's another inaccurate statement.



Nothing wrong with this last bit except you should better have phrased "anthropic constants" as "anthropic principle interpretations". May God bless you as well.

So you as a Christian defend the religion of "evolution" rather than what God hath said. To be bluntly honest you sound more like an atheist than a Christian.

 

[Hoghead1]

You are reading way too much into the Bible, BiblicalAstronom. It was not intended to be an accurate geophysical witness, and trying to bludgeon it to make it one simply takes Scripture out of its proper context and abuses it.

 

[Hoghead1]

Berrean777, labeling something a "cult" simply because it does not square with your limited understanding of matters is totally inappropriate in a serious theological discussion. If you cannot be respectful with your opponents, then I am going to simply ignore your posts.

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

A few things... Evolution is not a religion. It is not a belief. It is a scientific theory. That is not a guess. It is hypothesis supported by the data. And the data is massive. From all different areas of science. We know far more about evolution than we do about gravity. Evolution is a fact. That isn't taken on faith, it's not a belief. Life on earth evolved and it has been observed. Why don't Christians accept this? Many... most of them do. Only those that do not understand evolution deny it. But, then again, only those that do not understand science deny it. It comes down to wanting the Bible to be an infallible resource on the answers of the world. There's no evidence to suggest that it is.

In order for life to have commenced without any supernatural element involved then abiogenesis must have occurred, without abiogenesis there is no evidence to disprove life having been created, and so the natural law of bio genesis must be disproved. The natural law of bio genesis states that living things come only from other living things, by reproduction.That is, life does not arise from non-living material. In order for the Big bang to have been the origin of matter, then it must be shown that matter (energy) can appear from when and where it did not exist, this means the first natural law of thermodynamics must be disproved, as well as the natural law of causality (cause and effect). The first law of thermodynamics states energy can neither be created nor destroyed, can only transition from one phase into another. The natural law of causality states every material effect must have an adequate antecedent or simultaneous cause, This is also a law of science that must be disproved in order for stars and planets to have formed on their own, as well as the second natural law of thermodynamics in regards to entropy. The Second Law of thermodynamics builds on the first, stating that though there is a constant amount of energy in a given closed system that is merely transforming into different states, that energy is becoming less usable, and so the formation of stars would counter this natural law because it would mean energy went from a less useful state to a more useful one. The universe as a whole is a closed system, every star in the universe is running out of energy to burn, guess what is replenishing that energy being spent, absolutely nothing at all, what then gave all the stars the energy they had to begin with? So evolutionists have zero evidence to explain origin, reason being everything about origin is supernatural, completely unexplained by science. Their attempts to explain origin without God has proved impossible for them to do, yet they would have Christians forsake their beliefs and take their word for it, that God does not exist, when they cannot even begin to explain any aspect of origin whatsoever, forget it. Their intentions are simply to reject God no matter what, which is their choice to make, the wrong choice to make, and so I will stick with what is written in the Bible, it is the truth, we were created.

 

[Hoghead1]

BornAgain, I still say you are being most disrespectful with your "opponents." The fact that a fellow Christian may not share your particular views does not mean they are an atheist. You should at least have the courtesy to ask a person what they believe, before you attack them.

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

Actually, it's been observed repeatedly.

Name one time a species "evolved" into an unknown or another species? Or are you in fact talking about a retro-virus that adapted to a environment that it was forced to adapt to? The fact is it was still a retro-virus when the experiment was completed.

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

BornAgain, I still say you are being most disrespectful with your "opponents." The fact that a fellow Christian may not share your particular views does not mean they are an atheist. You should at least have the courtesy to ask a person what they believe, before you attack them.

Again if biblical truth offends you maybe you shouldn't be here?

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

BornAgain, I still say you are being most disrespectful with your "opponents." The fact that a fellow Christian may not share your particular views does not mean they are an atheist. You should at least have the courtesy to ask a person what they believe, before you attack them.

I have a question for you do you go by the name of moontan on the Christian Post?

 

[Hoghead1]

It has been observed several times with bacteria in lab experiments. Read the literature. Also, many of your comments reflect an outmoded metaphysic where the universe consists largely of passive, inert, dead matter, BornAgain. There are other options. A better solution is to view mind and matter as one. Even atoms have tiny minds. Everythign is alive. They used to say that a human was alive, but not a virus. Now it is recognized that a virus is alive. In fact, there is no hard-and-fist dividing line between the living and the nonliving.

 

[Berean777]

So you as a Christian defend the religion of "evolution" rather than what God hath said. To be bluntly honest you sound more like an atheist than a Christian.

It actually suns up the two sides. Jesus would say....

"No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and mone (Matthew 6:24)

Without going into details like I have in my previous posts, the decision of supporting the creation account or the evolution theory, is along the lines of whether people choose to believe God, that he is the author of creation and had a direct hand in it, or that he is not the author of creation at all, or that he didn't have a direct hand in it, whereby like all created things he took a back seat and watched an uncontrolled big bang run its course.

There are Christians who believe that God rolled the dice and then took a back seat, as the dice kept on rolling on its own through trillions upon trillions of repeated uncontrolled scenarios that eventually found a spec of life from an infinite galaxy. This means that God didn't intentionally create us where we are and the way we look, rather the random throw of the dice was responsible for who we are today. It seems this notion denigrates God to an adolescent who was playing with matches and burnt the house down, not knowing the consequences of his inadvertent actions.

Are some professing Christians wanting to go that route?

It would be disheartening to the loving God who said that he did it, when he did it and had his personal image as his signature to doing it intenionally, according to the Genesis. I know many will look at bits of the Genesis account and scrutinise it to find holes in it, but the facts remain that Adam is portrayed as a created being who was made deliberately by God's hands and the action of breathing into his nostrils so that he could become a living person, highlights a personal and close relation between the creator and the creature. Again those who advocate that God did not do this on a personal level, have unwittingly denied the testimony of scripture of a personal God that who is knowable and have otherwise marred the name of God who is love (definite article). A God who is impersonal and has no direct influence on his creation is the Gnostic god of the Gnostics, an adolescent at best, where Sophia his mother nature chastises him for his childish actions, like playing with matches that started the big band.

Come on people don't you see the cult like religion of evolution.

9The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie,10and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness. (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12)

 

[Hoghead1]

Where on earth did that question come from? Also, are you paying attention to what I am saying about the need to be respectful here?

 

[Hoghead1]

Biblical truth isn't the issue here, BornAgain. Your interpretation of the Bible, God, science is. I have pointed that out a number of times to you. You have simply stated your own, homespun belief system about what Scripture is, etc. OK, fine. But that is, in the end, just your opinion, nothing more. Maybe it is true, maybe not. There is no reason to suppose you have any more knowledge than anyone else here. Others here have reason to question your opinions. You should respect that. That's what a discussion group is about. Instead, you try and cast as much dispersion as you can on the character and Christianity of your "opponents." That is a major no-no in serious theological discussion.

 

[Hoghead1]

Berean 777, I have the same problem with your posts as I have with some others here. What you are essentially doing is stating your own opinion of what the Bible is, how God works, etc. OK, fine. But see, that is just your opinion. Everyone has an opinion. Question is, Is your opinion correct? Do you really have a solid understanding of how God relates to Scripture? Other here have good reason to question you here. You should respect their opinions and respond in a respectful manner, not condemn them. There may be many holes in your interpretation that you need to be aware of. I find that many Christians who have trouble with evolution do not understand science, misunderstand evolution, and have little education in serious biblical studies.

 

[Berean777]

It has been observed several times with bacteria in lab experiments. Read the literature. Also, many of your comments reflect an outmoded metaphysic where the universe consists largely of passive, inert, dead matter, BornAgain. There are other options. A better solution is to view mind and matter as one. Even atoms have tiny minds. Everythign is alive. They used to say that a human was alive, but not a virus. Now it is recognized that a virus is alive. In fact, there is no hard-and-fist dividing line between the living and the nonliving.

In Evolution theory a common mathematical linear equation from one experimented scenario cannot be corroborated with another, that uses a variation of the same linear equations. These experiments are adhoc and invalid to make an evidentiary claim of evolution. The formulae for gravity needs to us the same modelled linear equations, for different scenarios across several experiments accounting for several conditions that corroborate with one another and use the basis of the linear modelled mathematical equations, with additional supporting and repeatable linear equations on top of the basis linear equation to account for the external environmental conditions as inputs acting on the closed loop system.

All in all evolution selectively out of context chooses unlinked scenarios by interpreting them how they want to interpret them. Evolution has no basic linear equations, no knowledge of repeatable scenarios owing to different inputs or environmental conditions. Basically they play with bacteria haphazardly until they observe what thet want to see. This is not science! Therefore evolution theory cannot be proved to be a closed loop system dependent n mathematical modelling and therefore is open loop and open loop is chaos theory that is fudged to get what you want. You can go about mixing colours billions of times in an experiment to proov that billions of times are required to achieve the desired colour, however the fact remains that the desired colour can be obtained in mixing the correct mathematic quanity of orimary colours to obtain the desired colour. How many times does the trial and error of getting the right color paint? Well it is determined by how many times you mix to aerive at it, it is therefore open loop.

 

[BiblicalAstronomy]

So you as a Christian defend the religion of "evolution" rather than what God hath said. To be bluntly honest you sound more like an atheist than a Christian.

So you as a Christian defend the religion of "evolution" rather than what God hath said. To be bluntly honest you sound more like an atheist than a Christian.

Actually the Bible does mention "Dinosaurs" just not by that name, [Job 41] refers to Leviathan and describes it with traits matching certain dinos... but because it does not refer to the "Rings of Saturn" in Scientific terms it evidently means nothing to you...

You said: "Well, we can't have every creature that ever lived as a fossil. There, the gaps are accounted for. So THAT statement is inaccurate."

How about accounting for the creatures evolutionary theory refers to in their specious evidence... they are full of holes in their fossil records. Your "rebuttal" means nothing...

In answer to you reference to Pi check out my blog post [blog.try-god.com] on Pi Day March 14th of 2015, for a greater in-depth view of the subject.

It matters not what "most interpreters" of Isaiah say, it matters what the Word says about itself! As 2 Pet. 1:20-21 teaches;

20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Also check the Hebrew grammar before you make those comments on the stretching of the heavens...besides the Creator started the current process which is still expanding, He was the impetus of the action that we still find taking place today. Thus these verses support even what Big Bang Science tells us-the initial explosion is still expanding-Your rebuttal means nothing!

The point on Job 26 was that it is an early Book in Bible Canon making reference to scientific truth long before Science thought anything about the concept of "gravity." Isaac Newton finally got to a Scientific understanding of this, verifying the Biblical truth stated thousands of years previous. The misunderstanding is again on your part.

God Bless

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

Where on earth did that question come from? Also, are you paying attention to what I am saying about the need to be respectful here?

Practice what you preach and stop pretending the pagan religion of "evolution" has anything to do with God or His word.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Not wasting my time with you Junior...

We tellers of truth are used to rejection. But we do our duty.

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

Biblical truth isn't the issue here, BornAgain. Your interpretation of the Bible, God, science is. I have pointed that out a number of times to you. You have simply stated your own, homespun belief system about what Scripture is, etc. OK, fine. But that is, in the end, just your opinion, nothing more. Maybe it is true, maybe not. There is no reason to suppose you have any more knowledge than anyone else here. Others here have reason to question your opinions. You should respect that. That's what a discussion group is about. Instead, you try and cast as much dispersion as you can on the character and Christianity of your "opponents." That is a major no-no in serious theological discussion.

I reject your opinion in whole and again please stop insisting the cult of "evolution" believers are any way related to God or His word. I find it extremely offensive and disrespectful to the Christian faith.