Why do Christians have trouble with accepting Evolution?

[Extraneous]

And yet, neither you nor anyone else in 150 years, can find one missing piece from that puzzle.

Not one.

I understand your motivation. You feel it an affront to your belief structure, that is quite obvious. But affrontery is not enough to overturn a scientific theory.

You need evidence.

And the theory of evolution is very generous. It lays itself open in such a way that just ONE piece of conflicting evidence will send it on its way.

Just one. So let's have it please.

You are deluding yourself Steve. they have found many pieces of that puzzle missing, but haven't found those pieces yet. Its just a theory Steve, and it has flaws. There is no way i will follow a flawed scientific theory of such enormous proportions. The bigger it is, the more flawed it will be, especially when flaws are already clearly present. Its a religion more than a pure unpolluted science. Like Fox Mulder in the X files, they want to believe. I want to believe in Christ. He makes me happy, and gives me strength and purpose. He gives meaning to life and he does talk to me through His spirit in my heart. He delights me. ToE however is not the kind of faith that delights me.

 

[SteveB28]

You are deluding yourself Steve. they have found many pieces of that puzzle missing, but haven't found those pieces yet.

Yet you can't name one.

Its just a theory Steve, and it has flaws.

Oh my. The well-worn "it's just a theory"! I didn't think anyone was still using that tired old ploy.

You do realise that there is a world of difference between the common use of "theory" and that described by a SCIENTIFIC THEORY, do you not?

There is no way i will follow a flawed scientific theory of such enormous proportions. The bigger it is, the more flawed it will be, especially when flaws are already clearly present. Its a religion more than a pure unpolluted science. Like Fox Mulder in the X files, they want to believe. I want to believe in Christ. He makes me happy, and gives me strength and purpose. He gives meaning to life and he does talk to me through His spirit in my heart. He delights me. ToE however is not the kind of faith that delights me.

You should understand that the vast majority of people who accept the theory of evolution are your fellow Christians. Were you aware?

 

[Armoured]

Yet you can't name one.

They never can. Yet they always seem to make claims about "science having proved evolution false". I'd like to be a fly-on-the-wall to some of the prior spoon feeding that's gone on with these people to make them so sure of themselves before stepping in to a forum full of scientifically literate people.

 

[Extraneous]

Yet you can't name one.



Oh my. The well-worn "it's just a theory"! I didn't think anyone was still using that tired old ploy.

You do realise that there is a world of difference between the common use of "theory" and that described by a SCIENTIFIC THEORY, do you not?



You should understand that the vast majority of people who accept the theory of evolution are your fellow Christians. Were you aware?

A theory is a theory in any sense of the word. It takes a couple facts and then bases theory on it. IN science however, after the theory is conceived, they attempt to test it via scientific analysis, in order to prove its worth. ToE is using flawed data. YOu want me to go down the rabbit trail of debate with you, so you can make a fleshy show of ToE's scientific vocabulary and its notions masquerading as observations. Thats what makes you alive i guess. However, it wont comfort you when you meet your end Steve. You could seek God in spiritual matters and find something better.

 

[Extraneous]

They never can. Yet they always seem to make claims about "science having proved evolution false". I'd like to be a fly-on-the-wall to some of the prior spoon feeding that's gone on with these people to make them so sure of themselves before stepping in to a forum full of scientifically literate people.

We know how it ends. Only a fool would argue to no end.

 

[Extraneous]

I better depart before i say more. Maybe others will debate with you Steve, im sure they are far more qualified anyway. Peace.

 

[Armoured]

ToE is using flawed data.

Cite a single instance of flawed data that is integral to the modern theory of evolution?

 

[Extraneous]

Cite a single instance of flawed data that is integral to the modern theory of evolution?

I already did. If i get specific then i will have allowed you to draw me into an endless debate, a fools end. I'll just save you trouble and say i am a fool right now. You win.

 

[SteveB28]

A theory is a theory in any sense of the word.

Quite incorrect. In the field of science, 'theory' is the most highly regarded form of the explanation of phenomena. It is a designation that is not earned lightly and all future evidence must comport with the theory, else the theory will be rejected. The history of science is replete with examples of theories that have been rejected, or modified wholesalely, as a result of evidence which has conflicted.

The theory of evolution by natural selection has stood for 150 years. In that time, warehouses full of new evidence have been brought forward and tested against the theory, across a broad variety of disciplines, mentioned earlier.

Not one single skerrick of evidence has been found which conflicts with the theory!

This is particularly impressive, given that there have been hordes of naysayers such as yourself who have feverishly attempted to destroy the theory, virtually since it was published.

Nothing.

There is no other modern theory in science that enjoys the same level of confidence. Science never claims that a theory has been conclusively proven, but this one comes the closest. You would actually have a better chance of falsifying the theory of gravity!

It takes a couple facts and then bases theory on it.

Wrong. You are loosely describing a tentative hypothesis, not a scientific theory.

IN science however, after the theory is conceived, they attempt to test it via scientific analysis, in order to prove its worth.

Wrong. It is essentially the opposite. The process is one of attempting to DISPROVE the hypothesis. You could not have mischaracterised the scientific process more demonstrably.

ToE is using flawed data.

Yet you cannot identify even one flaw. But don't feel alone - neither has anyone else in 150 years!

YOu want me to go down the rabbit trail of debate with you, so you can make a fleshy show of ToE's scientific vocabulary and its notions masquerading as observations. Thats what makes you alive i guess. However, it wont comfort you when you meet your end Steve. You could seek God in spiritual matters and find something better.

I see. Confronted with the inability to present evidence, you resort to imagined threats.

 

[BobRyan]

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

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".

I "know" no such thing.

That's pretty sad.

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 ???

No.

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. -- so then you agree that the Bible does not proclaim evolutionism?

Agreed!

We find agreement on that one point.



=================================
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?


No answer?? Is this the part where you tell us that the there was something way more than 'matter' -- than a "pile of dirt" as the starting point??? this should be good.

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

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"?

No.

On the contrary - I just proved that it is the worst option.[/quote]

 

[KWCrazy]

150 years. Not one flaw.

The invention of new parts or systems by mutation has never been witnessed, nor has it been accomplished in a biochemistry laboratory. As Franklin Harold, retired professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at Colorado State University, wrote in his 2001 book "The Way of the Cell" published by Oxford University Press, "There are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biological or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations." source The fact is nothing has ever evolved into anything. Fruit flies remain fruit flies; bacteria remain bacteria. The mechanism for increasing complexity; which must be universally present throughout the animal kingdom; simply does not exist.

The foundation of evolution theory, gradual modification over time, slowly transforming genes that already exist, suddenly ran up against orphan genes, genes without parents in every taxonomic group studied so far. Looking at it objectively, the theory of evolution has been falsified. After careful study, evolutionists made a bold choice: They cut the theory's last connection to reality, declaring that the impossible is normal: of course genes are produced de novo! The new foundation of evolution theory is Poof - there it is (which sounds like the foundation of creation by Intelligent Design - de novo). source

 

[Julie.S]

Do you believe the miracle accounts in Torah?

I don't see how I can safely answer that question at the moment sorry.

 

[Armoured]

The invention of new parts or systems by mutation has never been witnessed, nor has it been accomplished in a biochemistry laboratory.

It absolutely has been witnessed, and I'm pretty sure examples have been pointed out to you before. You don't just get to ignore inconvenient facts.

 

[Lords Man]

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?

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?

Why do Christians have trouble with accepting Evolution? Maybe it's because evolution is a lie designed to deny God!! Darwin said “I had gradually come by this time, [i.e. 1836 to 1839] to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos or the beliefs of any barbarian.”

 

[Extraneous]

Why do Christians have trouble with accepting Evolution? Maybe it's because evolution is a lie designed to deny God!! Darwin said “I had gradually come by this time, [i.e. 1836 to 1839] to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos or the beliefs of any barbarian.”

Gods wisdom is to give Him glory, to humble ourselves, be separate from the world, and to put on the mind of Christ. ToE is nothing more than mans foolishness and glorying in the flesh. Its a shame those who call themselves spiritual have no understanding of these things.

 

[Lords Man]

Gods wisdom is give Him glory, to humble ourselves, be separate from the world, and to put on the mind of Christ. ToE is nothing more than mans foolishness and glorying in the flesh. Its a shame those who call themselves spiritual have no understanding of these things.

What is it you are trying to say?

 

[Armoured]

@EastCoastRemnant

(45) Scientific proof. The concepts of “proof” and “confirmation” are incompatible with science, which by its very nature is provisional and self-correcting (McComas, 1996). Hence, it is understandable why Popper (1959) preferred the term “corroboration” to “confirmation,” as all theories can in principle be overturned by new evidence. Nor is the evidence for scientific theories dichotomous; theories virtually always vary in their degree of corroboration. As a consequence, no theory in science, including psychological science, should be regarded as strictly proven. Proofs should be confined to the pages of mathematics textbooks and journals (Kanazawa, 2008).

http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01100/full

 

[Extraneous]

What is it you are trying to say?

ToE means 'theory of evolution'. The rest of my words speak for themselves.

 

[redleghunter]

Does it matter if it didn't happen?

Should our faith all fall apart and we cease to be Christians if it turns out historical accuracy was not the main intention of the exodus story?

Frankly it does matter. Where do you draw the line of where the Holy Scriptures are reliable on miracle accounts? What of the NT?

 

[redleghunter]

I think it is important to note that "image of God" does not reference our actual physical body. If that is the case then God's image is that of a Man. There are other interpretations of what "image" means. I would say the image of God refers to us having a soul and having a relationship with him.

So evolution being true would only describe how our physical bodies came to be. So I can still believe we were created in the image of God and given a soul while acknowledging my body is a product of evolution.

Torah states man was created directly and not a product of a process.