Why do Christians have trouble with accepting Evolution?

[BobRyan]

I think you are confusing the mere recognition of reality with praise of that reality. However, it is good to give God honor for what He actually did, which was to use evolution to create the various species including ourselves.

Here again you 'quote you' not the Bible to offer up a story about what you imagine that God "actually did". You have free will. If your choice is to "make stuff up" while avoiding the details in the actual text - you are free to do so.

But why present that sort of "solution" as if the rest of us do not notice the paucity in logic that would be required for a Christian to go down such a path?

I suggest we stop driving away the Dawkins' the Provines, the P.Z. Meyers

Is it your claim that Darwin was "driven away" by mean ol -- "christians"???
even he knew that it is illogical to cling to the mythology of evolutionism AND continue to believe in Christianity.

 

[ScottA]

How can you be sure, ScottA, that you are seeing the light and therefore have the right to condemn fellow Christians who don't agree with your belief system?

If I only "believed", I could not be sure. But I "know", therefore, I am sure. I "know" because I do not speak for myself, but speak only that which has been made "known" to me by God.

 

[BobRyan]

As we saw on this same thread --
Tuesday at 10:58 PM #439

There are poor T.E. souls pleading for help --

here is the cry for help --

===========================

Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT... were the OT writers simply writing what they "thought" and the way they "felt" about God, and not in an actual words God actually said..

Well, my problem is I believe the scientific evidence which casts doubt on some of the Bible writers, BUT, I have too much personal experiencial evidence of a God and other spirits existing on another side beside this one...

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...periencing-part-of-a-pm-conversation.7843548/

My personal experiencial evidence stands on it's very own as enough proof for me, but have I encountered the same God (YHWH) spoke about in the OT, some OT acts and verses by God cast a shadow of a doubt on him being a or the God of Love...

Anyone help?

God Bless!
===================================================

And of course that thread started by our pleading T.E. friend - is ultimately swamped by atheist and agnostic posts of the form "all-praise-evolution".

But what is more surprising is that some of the same T.E. posters here also contribute to that thread once the atheists take over - and they too merely have the same "all-praise-evolution" focus.

Darwin, Dawkins, Provine, P.Z. Meyers et al. -- freely confess that they too were driven from Christianity by their belief in evolutionism.

Is this something to be "swept under a rug"? Of no consequence ? Let the cries for help fall on more deaf T.E. ears?

I think you are confusing the mere recognition of reality with praise of that reality.

Since you are one of the T.E.s on this thread that pretty much abandoned your fellow T.E. who was pleading for "help" on that other thread as you simply posted "more praise for evolutionism" once the atheist posts began to fill up the board - I am wondering how you feel about the whole thing? Remorse?

However, it is good to give God honor for what He actually did

True - that is why I prefer to praise Him for what He says He did - rather than cling to an atheist doctrine on origins "instead".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Hoghead1]

I'm sorry, ScottA, but that does not cut it with me. You are laity, and laity generally have no solid exegetical method, no solid system of safeguards to prevent you from projecting your own unchecked prejudices back into Scripture and then blissfully that Scripture is on your side, when precisely the opposite may be the case. Every kook, fanatic, and terrorist in the book claims that he knows the mind of Christ and has Scripture behind him. Every Hun who carried a baby impaled on his bayonet claimed that God was on his side, and wore a belt buckle saying "Gott Mit Uns." Hitler said time and again, "I am only doing the Lord's work." So, why should we automatically suppose it is any different with you? Why should we suppose you are anything but another false prophet?

 

[BobRyan]

I'm sorry, ScottA, but that does not cut it with me. You are laity, and laity generally have no solid exegetical method, ?

This from the guy that claims he rejects not only the creation account found in the Bible - but also the virgin birth. Caveat Emptor my friends.

So, why should we automatically suppose it is any different with you? Why should we suppose you are anything but another false prophet?

You have apparently exposed the problem in your own eisgesis.

 

[Hieronymus]

Speciation involves crossing of the species barrier. It has been observed in both the laboratory and the field. You should do some research.

No, you should acknowledge the ToE is supposed to explain how organisms evolved into different kinds of animals, and how the DNA went about (re)assembling itself by far reaching random mutation up on far reaching random mutation upon... etc..., that had to survive and thrive, and thus creating high tech parts and / or radical changes, resulting in the best possible design and efficiency. Even pure beauty.
You only have examples of changes within the kind of organism, which is a well established phenomenon in biology.
In other words, there is no evidence for Darwin's idea.

Now when are you guys gonna ask yourselves why this hopelessly outdated idea is let loose upon the Christian nations?
Because that's where atheism is popular.
And they have us believe that's because we're so rational, sensible, reasonable, educated and interested in the sciences, and investigating everything, and learn to understand reality.
Well, at least, scientists would do that...
But they share their knowledge with us, right?

Well, in the end it's about money and exposure.
And now that it has been a part of our culture for so long, the naturalist preachers and teachers depend on it, live off it.
It has become an established institute.
Exposure costs money also, obviously..
And funding too, for the 'scientific exploration'...

 

[ScottA]

I'm sorry, ScottA, but that does not cut it with me. You are laity, and laity generally have no solid exegetical method, no solid system of safeguards to prevent you from projecting your own unchecked prejudices back into Scripture and then blissfully that Scripture is on your side, when precisely the opposite may be the case. Every kook, fanatic, and terrorist in the book claims that he knows the mind of Christ and has Scripture behind him. Every Hun who carried a baby impaled on his bayonet claimed that God was on his side, and wore a belt buckle saying "Gott Mit Uns." Hitler said time and again, "I am only doing the Lord's work." So, why should we automatically suppose it is any different with you? Why should we suppose you are anything but another false prophet?

You don't have a say in what "cuts" it.

Suppose what you will.

 

[Hieronymus]

Look, God is not scientifically approachable, you see.
You can not measure or detect God, there is no God-constant to do the math with.
But his work is what we can see, it is what we are: Gods handiwork.
A fine tunes universe, and the most complex phenomenon of all: living nature.
That's what we have here.
There is no chance, really, it's in the regions of 1 divided by 10 to the power of 10000000000000000............0000000000000.......000000
A couple of pages full of zeros, if you want to bother showing it in numbers..

All this from the Singularity...
A pointless point in the middle of nothing, with all the right characteristics to explode into existence with no reason, resulting in us here debating about it while we're not even on the same continent.

 

[Hoghead1]

Oh, yes, ScottA, I most certainly do have a say in what cuts it, in what I am going to buy. That's why I'm not about to accept anything you have to say.

 

[SteveB28]

Are you familiar with the concept of homologous chromosomes???

Indeed I am.

 

[ScottA]

Oh, yes, ScottA, I most certainly do have a say in what cuts it, in what I am going to buy. That's why I'm not about to accept anything you have to say.

Finally...the crux of the problem!

 

[Hoghead1]

Yes, that is the crux of the problem, ScottA. As yet you have presented no evidence that your ideology or belief system has any sort of solid biblical backing to it. You are simply presenting you opinions as laity on these matters. Fine. But everyone has an opinion and everyone thinks their is right. So the question is, Why should I or anyone else here believe anything you have to say about God, the Bible, Christ, science?

 

[Awakened Sin]

I think there are a lot of Christians who believe in Evolution. And I think they are true Christians. But think about this. What effect will this have on the next generation? What affect will it have on kids growing up in the Church?

Statistics show that as belief in evolution increases, belief in essential doctrines, like he resurrection, decrease. This was found in a couple of Harris polls done over 10 years. They're noting that the youth are turning away from the Church in huge numbers, and I believe it's because their parents are compromising on the Bible. The parents are telling there kids they don't believe most of the Bible, and then are wondering why their kids don't believe any of it.

So yes, you might be a Christian, but what message are you sending to others when you tell them you don't believe your Bible?

That's why I'm quiet about it!

You're entitled to believe what you want, but why do you believe evolution?

There's too much evidence to disprove it. Basically, I think which this my opinion. Cookie Monster says he's recovering from the cookies and he's said that he hasn't had cookies in a long time, but we see cookie crumbs on his lap. We can't ignore the evidence because it's there! Simple analogy.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Something a great deal more than "a bacteria and a self-replicating prion" - as it turns out.

So then - fully formed human - upright, intelligent humans on day 6 - along with all the other "kinds" - but humans being an example of "one". Two humans to be precise - having the full capability of language, abstract thought, able to live independently from day-1 of life.

So then - far more than a prion, a bacteria, a zygote, an infant, or even a low-brow grunting cave dwelling hominid.

you know... the stuff that an atheist would not go along with - but it is key to the Gospel.

in Christ,

Bob

I merely asked you to define your word "kind" you used. You have not defined the word. This is no surprise . . . creationists consistently fail to define the word "kind" with any kind of precision. Its a basic problem for creationists . . they know some species actually do have common descent and so they want to make them the same "kind" to explain that . . . . but if they make it too loose, it blends into normal evolution theory. Additionally, they should be able to show a "kind" barrier, which doesn't exist, so they have that little problem with the idea as well.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

oops double post

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
Something a great deal more than "a bacteria and a self-replicating prion" - as it turns out.

So then - fully formed human - upright, intelligent humans on day 6 - along with all the other "kinds" - but humans being an example of "one". Two humans to be precise - having the full capability of language, abstract thought, able to live independently from day-1 of life.

So then - far more than a prion, a bacteria, a zygote, an infant, or even a low-brow grunting cave dwelling hominid.

you know... the stuff that an atheist would not go along with - but it is key to the Gospel.

I merely asked you to define your word "kind" you used.

1. The Bible uses the term. I did not write the Bible - nor did I translate it.
2. I merely gave you a prime example of a kind - the 2 humans God made on the 6th real day of real creation week.
(Not low-brow grunting hominids - but rather the most perfect example of all humans - Adam and Eve)

I have given you a perfect example of one -

. . . creationists consistently fail to define the word "kind" with any kind of precision.

For those who don't know what humans are - this would be a huge problem -- claiming that Adam and Eve are perfect examples of what a "kind" would be -- as stated in the Bible.

As it turns out -- "details matter".

Oh no wait! you wanted to discuss homologous chromosomes!

Its a basic problem for evolutionists. . they know humans are a perfect example of a "kind" and they know about homologous chromosomes -- but they NEED a "self-replicating prion" in Genesis 1 so that they can start telling evolutionism stories.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
Darwin did not say "some of my beliefs are challenged" -- he said that after working on the problem - he found no way that Christianity could be true given his belief in the doctrines of origins much-imagined in evolutionism.

He said no such thing. It behooves you to report honestly if you want to be taken seriously.

You seem to be "wishing" to accuse me of something - the ad hominem solution of many evolutionists is not convincing. At some point you need actual fact. Are you asking for a quote - or are you claiming you read something from Darwin and are ready to,.. almost ready to ... quote it?

Details matter.

 

[BobRyan]

Speciation involves crossing of the species barrier. It has been observed in both the laboratory and the field. You should do some research.

1. Are you familiar with the concept of homologous chromosomes???

Indeed I am.

Then you already know that amoeba==> rabbit stores are utter foolishness -- no matter "how long the sufficiently long period of time filled with just-so stories".

2. Are you inclined to argue that your belief in evolutionism is rightly stated as "FOR in SIX days the LORD created the heavens and the earth the seas and all that is in them ... and rested the 7th day" Ex 20:11 ???

Some here are arguing that such a statement is the very opposite of evolutionism's claim and is never the way that evolution is described.

3. Are you familiar with the "pile of dirt will sure enough turn into a horse over time - given a sufficiently large pile of dirt and a sufficiently long period of time filled with just-so stories" form of evolution? Or do you insist that God came here and scattered amoebas around to get things started?

4. Would you agree that atheist evolutionism is the worst of all options because it has the worst hole-in-ground "upside" and it has the worst Revelation 20 "downside"?

 

[Extraneous]

.

 

[BobRyan]

deleted post -----