Why do Christians have trouble with accepting Evolution?

[Extraneous]

Even though abiogenesis and even the big bang idea are also evolution 'theories', the ToE is about the origin of species specifically.
But an atheist evolutionist has no other option than to subscribe to evolution in every sense.

Well, i have seen too many arguments based on nothing but argument itself. Consider examples of Christians disagreeing with the idea that man evolved from prehistoric apes. ToE posters then come in and say "well man is an ape, duh" as if that invalidates the disagreement.

First off, man is only classified as an ape, its just a classification, also that classification itself doesn't mean that man evolved from a prehistoric ape necessarily. I have seen way too many arguments based on nonsense, which serves only to argue.

 

[BobRyan]

Even though abiogenesis and even the big bang idea are also evolution 'theories', the ToE is about the origin of species specifically.
But an atheist evolutionist has no other option than to subscribe to evolution in every sense.

the "pile of dirt ---> to rabbit" stories - mythology -- fiction requires evolutionism to tell its story because it rejects the Bible alternative. No evolutionist can deny this.

Rather they "hope" you won't notice the 'detail' - and hope they can start with " a single celled animal plus a sufficiently talented long period of time filled with just-so stories" to get to their "hopeful rabbit" goal.

That sort of nonsense passes for "science" for the "believer" in evolutionism.

 

[Extraneous]

Abiogenesis and the Big Bang are not "evolutionary theories", and the Big Bang was first postulated by a Catholic priest.

So was praying to saints and selling indulgences

 

[BobRyan]

My premise that a large number of Christians accept the theory? Why would I need scripture to support that premise?

You just have to read the surveys! .

duping the masses -- "ad populum" is a well documented logical fallacy.

I prefer "the details" when rejecting the mythology that "pile of dirt will sure enough turn into a horse over time - given a sufficiently large pile of dirt and a sufficiently talented long period of time filled with just-so stories" form of evolution.

Or you may be suggesting now that the starting point is -- God came here and scattered amoebas around to get things started.

both of those ideas contradict the Bible -- but your atheist version of it - is probably the more consistent between the two evolution scenarios (if Darwin knew anything about evolutionism)

 

[BobRyan]

Abiogenesis and the Big Bang are not "evolutionary theories", and the Big Bang was first postulated by a Catholic priest.

No catholic priest first proposed "the big bang" rather it was Fred Hoyle's Steady State theory opponents of the "Big Bang" that proposed that term -- because they thought it the theory sounded too much like Genesis 1:1 and they never wanted to miss the opportunity to denegrade the Bible at the same time they were opposing the "expanding universe" model for the cosmology.

In 1927, the Belgian Catholic priest Georges Lemaître proposed an expanding model for the universe to explain the observed redshifts of spiral nebulae, and calculated the Hubble law. He based his theory on the work of Einstein and De Sitter, and independently derived Friedmann's equations for an expanding universe. Also, the red shifts themselves were not constant, but varied in such manner as to lead to the conclusion that there was a definite relationship between amount of red-shift of nebulae, and their distance from observers.[citation needed]

In 1929, Edwin Hubble provided a comprehensive observational foundation for Lemaître's theory
from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Big_Bang_theory

 

[KWCrazy]

I don't have any problem with evolution. It is stated unequivocally in the Bible.

Of course it isn't.

Science maintains that life began in the primordial oceans of the earth, and that's exactly where the Bible says life began, (Genesis 1:20).

Yes, on day five of the creation, all marine life was created in its matures state. Are you claiming that's what evolution teaches?

The Bible also says that creatures were later brought forth by the earth, (Genesis 1:24).

Genesis 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. God made the animals on day six. They did not evolve from anything. That's why I require passages from the Bible; because I know how people take words or phrases out of context and twist them to their own intent. It is not possible for an intelligent person to read the first chapter of Genesis and conclude that it promotes evolution.

 

[BobRyan]

question for the group -- consider this from recent posts --

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


Here is a recent "victim" - a T.E. pleading 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 poor pleading T.E. friend - is ultimately swamped by atheist and agnostic posts of the form "all-praise-evolution". Not too surprising that atheists don't really care if our poor T.E. friend is driven to reject the Bible - by his faith in evolutionism.

But what is more surprising is that some of the same T.E. posters here on the thread you are on -- also contribute to that thread once the atheists take over - and they too merely have the same "all-praise-evolution" focus -- find the "Cause" of uplifting blind-faith evolutionism of far more "Value" than helping some one not reject the Bible, than helping a T.E. avoid the lake of fire in Rev 20.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So here is the question - have you seen even ONE T.E. posting here with concern for anything faced by that poor T.E. who started his own thread in that example -- other than much-predicted atheist POV "trash the Bible and add more praise for evolutionism"???

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Not True. The Bible is one of the most edited and changed books that has ever existed. There are literally dozens of different versions of the Bible. Entire books of the Bible have been eliminated and discarded as Apocrapha by various Christian sects. Other (so called Christian sects), have invented and added their own Apocrapha to the Bible. So what Bible exactly are you referring to that has never been changed by man ???

To those that mistook my comment on never changing to mean since the beginning of time, let me clarify...

In the 400 years since the KJV has existed, it has remained relatively unchanged, save for a couple of typo revisions... also, we know from the Dead Sea Scrolls that the accuracy of what we have now goes back 2000 years... how much has science changed since 1611? Science is, by it's own admission, an ever changing entity because it involves man's wisdom.

 

[KWCrazy]

Well we pretty much recognize today great whales are neither terrible nor monstrous creatures, don't we ?!

Not whales, but there are these things called sharks which can be terrible and monstrous. Of course, if you're in a small boat and get to close to a whale you might find yourself adrift. It has happened. Just ask the crew of the Essex.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

question for the group -- consider this from recent posts --

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


Here is a recent "victim" - a T.E. pleading 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 poor pleading T.E. friend - is ultimately swamped by atheist and agnostic posts of the form "all-praise-evolution". Not too surprising that atheists don't really care if our poor T.E. friend is driven to reject the Bible - by his faith in evolutionism.

But what is more surprising is that some of the same T.E. posters here on the thread you are on -- also contribute to that thread once the atheists take over - and they too merely have the same "all-praise-evolution" focus -- find the "Cause" of uplifting blind-faith evolutionism of far more "Value" than helping some one not reject the Bible, than helping a T.E. avoid the lake of fire in Rev 20.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So here is the question - have you seen even ONE T.E. posting here with concern for anything faced by that poor T.E. who started his own thread in that example -- other than "more praise for evolutionism"???

Misery loves company....

 

[Extraneous]

question for the group -- consider this from recent posts --

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


Here is a recent "victim" - a T.E. pleading 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 poor pleading T.E. friend - is ultimately swamped by atheist and agnostic posts of the form "all-praise-evolution". Not too surprising that atheists don't really care if our poor T.E. friend is driven to reject the Bible - by his faith in evolutionism.

But what is more surprising is that some of the same T.E. posters here on the thread you are on -- also contribute to that thread once the atheists take over - and they too merely have the same "all-praise-evolution" focus -- find the "Cause" of uplifting blind-faith evolutionism of far more "Value" than helping some one not reject the Bible, than helping a T.E. avoid the lake of fire in Rev 20.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So here is the question - have you seen even ONE T.E. posting here with concern for anything faced by that poor T.E. who started his own thread in that example -- other than "more praise for evolutionism"???

That's called a stumbling block. That's why we are exhorted to all speak the same thing. God cares for us, and don't want us to hurt each other with stumbling blocks. He wants us to build each other up in faith and knowledge of Christ, not ToE, politics or denominations. I have many battles inside, and i know how hard they are. Its bad enough that we have our own struggles, but we shouldn't add more to them with worldly things. Truth isn't easy in these last days. That's what the bible teaches us. It teaches us that many people will turn their ears away from truth, and listen to teachers that will tickle their ears. This indicates that truth isn't always easy to hear and faith is a fight at times.

There is only one answer to this problem, which is Christ alone, as Paul teaches us.

 

[KWCrazy]

Again, the problem I have with your post, KW, is that it in not an ob3jctive exegesis of Scripture. You are not just presenting Scripture and that's it.

Whereas, you have NOT presented Scripture because the Bible very clearly states that man was created. He did not evolve. The OP asks why people can't believe in two very contrary fundamental understandings. The easy answer is that both cannot be true. You simply cannot validate your perspective through the Scriptures because it is contrary to the Scriptures.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

My premise that a large number of Christians accept the theory? Why would I need scripture to support that premise?

You just have to read the surveys!




Take that up with your numerous fellow Christians. That there is a conflict between dogma and reality matters not a whit to me.



That is indeed one possibility, albeit very slim. But it's not the only possibility.



And yet you cannot provide a single scrap of evidence from the real world to support any of that.

You'll have your evidence soon enough...

 

[BobRyan]

I don't have any problem with evolution. It is stated unequivocally in the Bible.

what? The Bible is preaching darwinism???? seriously?? This is the atheist POV???

News to me!

News to Darwin!

News to Dawkins.

News to you - when you said that Exodus 20:11 is in fact contradicting evolutionism.

 

[BobRyan]

Not True. The Bible is one of the most edited and changed books that has ever existed. There are literally dozens of different versions of the Bible. Entire books of the Bible have been eliminated and discarded as Apocrapha by various sects. Other sects have invented and added their own Apocrapha to the Bible. So what Bible exactly are you referring to that has never been changed by man ???

If two guys in a garrage next door add a chapter to their two Bibles -- it does not mean the Bible "changed".

It is irrefutable that the Catholic and Protestant AND the Evangelical Bibles ALL contain the same 27 books for the NT and ALL contain the same 39 books in the OT.

IT is irrefutable that Jerome who translated the Vulgate -- explicitly stated that the apocrypha was not part of OT or NT - was not canonical. (Hint - how many apocryphas in Bibles before the Vulgate?)

Just look at the passage in the KJV version of the Bible "And God created the great whales" (Genesis 1:21). In the original Hebrew those words appear as "God created the terrible creatures in the sea". In various other transliterations of the Bible, the phrase appears as "great and terrible sea creatures, sea monsters and so forth" (ASV, ISV, ect. ect.).

Another rabbit trail?

Nehemiah 9
Now therefore, our God, the great, the mighty, and the terrible God, who keepest covenant and mercy,

hint: more than one meaning of the english term -

And "of course" the "Bible does not change" each time a group of translators update the english translation to make the meaning more clear to modern english readers.

Obviously.

 

[KWCrazy]

Creationists should come together and figure out the best way to question ToE, without getting too involved with creationism itself. Its not worth arguing aver the 7 day creation with ToE scientists. Its better to argue instead over the flaws in the theory itself. THe world only sees crazy christian scientists who are deluded by biblical fantasy. Its better to just question ToE without getting the bible involved. This however is just my opinion, i cant say whether its right or wrong.

I believe we should defend in both arenas; that evolution is bad science, and that evolution is contrary to God's word. I got bored with the scientific approach because every argument that could be made has been made.

 

[BobRyan]

I think we can expect atheists to adopt an "any ol excuse will do" approach when it comes to tossing the Bible under a bus - but what about T.E.'s should they follow suit? Let's ask Hoghead1.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Weŕe not gonna win this.

God wins in the end...

But who knows if there will be a wave of sanity.
But it will be temporary.

There will be a revival but it will be falsely led and will again persecute God's people.... think tribulation, time of trouble.

 

[BobRyan]

I believe we should defend in both arenas; that evolution is bad science, and that evolution is contrary to God's word. I got bored with the scientific approach because every argument that could be made has been made.

There is no doubt that evolutionism has not only a zillion exposed, frauds and hoaxes - but it has a zillion+1 "stories" -- a rich pile of source material from which will come "tomorrows list of confirmed frauds and hoaxes" - plus tomorrows "list of bad ideas that were accepted at first". It is an endless game "Chasing down EVERY story" -

So then - better to step back and look at the BIG picture -- contrast real SCIENCE to the exposed junk-science "Tells" in evolutionism's "wall of stories" (Wall of weird).

Notice that every time a discussion about blind faith evolutionism is started up - evolutionists blast out a bevy of 'stories' -- "proof by puzzle" where "extreme quesswork and inference" is used to "imagine strained conclusion" for observations "they do not have".

The LAST thing they want to do is learn from the evidence - the confirmed findings -- contrasting the Bible doctrine to their own doctrine on origins -- or contrasting real science to their exposed confirmed junk-science methods lamented by their OWN atheist evolutionist professors like Patterson.

We can be thankful for two evolutionist contributors here - Hogshead and stephen583 ...

They both fully demonstrate the logical end-point for belief in evolutionism.

Just when the other T.E.s want to claim 'no such thing is possible' -- these two posters are present to remind us that this is exactly where evolutionism leads as compared to accepting the Bible, the Gospel, Christianity.

They prove Darwin's own statement on the subject - over and over again.

Notice that the other T.E.s will not touch this subject -- even though it comes up on page 1 of this thread and on almost every other page of it.

 

[Extraneous]

I believe we should defend in both arenas; that evolution is bad science, and that evolution is contrary to God's word. I got bored with the scientific approach because every argument that could be made has been made.

I let scientific minds argue science, but i will cite their opinions sometimes.