Why do Christians have trouble with accepting Evolution?

[Extraneous]

You said "all truth is spiritual" but then you agreed that Jesus actually walked on the earth as a man. There is physical truth as well, and that is okay. You say it doesn't matter if He comes back literally and rules the earth. I completely disagree with you. It does matter. He is definitely coming back in the flesh and definitely reigning. He will punish His enemies (Zechariah 14) and reign, and He will begin dismantling the effects of the curse and healing the earth (Isaiah 2, 11, 65, Ezekiel 47).

Consider this: if Jesus was not never coming back in the flesh, life on this sin-cursed planet could continue forever and the wicked would never learn that God is God until they die. This is what the scoffers who disbelieve in God's special creation and the worldwide flood will say (2 Peter 3:3-9) ("Where is this coming he promised?"). Because they don't believe the clear teachings of the Bible on the beginning, it will provide a foundation to reject the clear teachings of the Bible on the end.

But He is coming in the flesh, He will humble man (Psalms 2, Psalms 10), and He will physically reign in Zion. He will heal the earth of the effects of sin. There was a beginning through Jesus Christ, and there will be an end through Jesus Christ.

You misunderstand what spiritual means, and what i mean. It doesn't mean we forsake all things in this world, because if that were so we should just kill ourselves. I didn't mean that Christs return doesn't matter, because we are commanded to keep watch and not sleep, however i did mean that He will come regardless of how we understand it to be, and our job is to stay away and keep watch. How do we do that? By not loving this world or the things in it, and by minding only spiritual things instead of worldly things. Fighting over land, governments, and following worldly politicians, this is not staying awake but instead is sleeping.

Pure religion is to feed orphans and widows and to keep ourselves unspotted by the world.

 

[Luke17:37]

Before Pangea began to break up there had been hundreds of millions of years of evolving life.

Your authority for this is teaching is man. Man was created by God, not the other way around. Man has no authority or control over what happens. Man is not all knowing. Every tongue will confess and every knee will bow before the Creator some day.

The Bible teaches that the earth was broken up by the global flood. So that's likely the reason the continents look like they fit together, and that's likely the reason for most of the fossils we find. (Not millions of years of death before man, which violates the clear teaching of Scripture). Fossils don't form just because a living thing dies naturally (in that case, it would decompose). Conversely, fossils suggest rapid burial.

 

[Hieronymus]

Before Pangea began to break up there had been hundreds of millions of years of evolving life.

Naturalistic conjecture.
Not even supported by scientific evidence.
But hey, smart men told us this, so it must be true, and God lied.

 

[Luke17:37]

You misunderstand what spiritual means, and what i mean. It doesn't mean we forsake all things in this world, because if that were so we should just kill ourselves. I didn't mean that Christs return doesn't matter, because we are commanded to keep watch and not sleep, however i did mean that He will come regardless of how we understand it to be, and our job is to stay away and keep watch. How do we do that? By not loving this world or the things in it, and by minding only spiritual things instead of worldly things. Fighting over land, governments, and following worldly politicians, this is not staying awake but instead is sleeping.

Pure religion is to feed orphans and widows and to keep ourselves unspotted by the world.

That isn't what you said, but okay. I'm glad you don't have a gnostic view.

I'm not misunderstanding spiritual. I was just making sure you weren't denying all physical realities.

 

[BobRyan]

Observations in nature: 50,000 generations of bacteria in a single colony prove - prokaryotes DO NOT evolve into eukaryotes.

http://io9.gizmodo.com/50-000-generations-of-bacteria-prove-that-evolution-nev-1466803805

Here is why we would expect that 50,000 generations of bacteria would continue to "prove" that bacteria do not magically transform into eukaryotes.

See the end of the vid for more "observations in nature"

Yet for the long strung out chain of unlikely just-so stories in blind faith evolutionism - these observations in nature - just calls for "a pile of more stories".

So then why would we reject the Bible - and choose the religion of evolutionism instead?

Not because of 'observations in nature' showing us that 50,000 generations of bacteria do NOT magically morph into eukaryotes.

Not because observations in nature do NOT show us an almost infinitely complex microbiology far beyond our current technology to "reverse engineer with a chemistry set".

NOT because as Christians we have a mandate to reject the Bible.

NOT because it is worth facing the Rev 20 lake of fire - with an atheist-essential-doctrine-on-origins as our "substitute" for the Bible.

NOT for any reason at all.

 

[Extraneous]

That isn't what you said, but okay. I'm glad you don't have a gnostic view.

I'm not misunderstanding spiritual. I was just making sure you weren't denying all physical realities.

Thats not what i said but its what i meant.

 

[BobRyan]

Never, the Bible was written by men who didn't even claim to be writing by inspiration. I would only be making, as ou say, a liar, out of the control freaks in religion that promote their writings as Gods. The people who killed Jesus knew the truth but they were moral cowards.

It was done to you and so you do it to others.

This attack on the Bible in defense of the "all praise evolutionism" model - is much predicted.

While Christians may reject this logical conclusion based on its premise of faith in evolutionism - you have to at least admit that it is a logical conclusion once one takes the misguided step away from the Word of God and towards the atheists-doctrine on origins.

 

[BobRyan]

Here is one good reason why we do not choose the "attack the Bible" option and blind-faith-evolutionism.

"biology is the study of complicated things that appear to have been designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1.

Dawkins illustrates the point that a sufficiently talented “story teller” can spin a story to convince himself to ignore the observations in nature where we can see complicated biological systems that appear to have been designed for a purpose.


"biology is the study of complicated things that appear to have been designed for a purpose.”[/QUOTE]


junk-science failed-religion Evolutionism has two forms:

A. Blind faith atheist evolutionism says “a pile of dirt is sure enough going to turn into a rabbit over time - given a sufficiently large pile of dirt over a sufficiently talented and long period of time (4.5 billion years) - filled with just-so-stories"

B. T.E. says “In the beginning God scattered amoeba all over the planet then left – waiting for a sufficiently talented and long period of time (3.5 billion years) - filled with just-so-stories so He could finally have a horse on planet earth"

By contrasts to both of those false religions - The Bible says this - Exodus 20:11 - in legal code

God did indeed create the life that evolved.

Just not in real life.

(BTW is this the part where you argue for intelligent design seen in our observations in nature?)

As already noted in that video - you have no explanation at all for the horse or a single eukaryote cell IN the horse.

Only the Bible has that.

Hmmmm. How can we judge the premises? I suggest we use evidence.

Evidence supports the Bible -- not blind faith evolutionism's "pile of just-so and improbable stories"

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

So you can read the Stars but you can't read the Bible?

a) Evolution is a theory of origins.
b) The bible is infallible. It is the word of God.
c) The infallible word of God contradicts every claim of evolution and presents a world created in its mature state, then repopulated about 4,500 years ago after a global flood. Contradictory proofs cannot both be true.
d) Therefore, evolution is false. This is an iron clad, absolutely logical proof. There is no flaw in this deduction.

Competing conclusions with no flaw in their supporting arguments means there is an error somewhere in the premises.

Hmmmm. How can we judge the premises? I suggest we use evidence.

Evidence supports evolution.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

To choose mans wisdom over scripture, this is apostasy. It doesnt glorify God but man. God has made mans wisdom foolish as Paul teaches us. To accept all beliefs in the name of love and unity, this is apostasy as well. This fulfills 2 Timothy 4:3.

There is only one logical and spiritual thing we can do, which is to mind only spiritual things, i.e., to mind Christ and him alone, and agree only on that and nothing else.

Well that might be appropriate in church, but not in the science lab or the larger world.

 

[BobRyan]

Well that might be appropriate in church, but not in the science lab or the larger world.

Atheism's doctrine on origins is the only model "deemed appropriate" for some.

But "observations in nature" prove that such prokaryote-->eukaryote and pile-of-dirt --> rabbit fictions in blind faith evolutionism - are nothing more than "wishful thinking"

 

[Colter]

Your authority for this is teaching is man. Man was created by God, not the other way around. Man has no authority or control over what happens. Man is not all knowing. Every tongue will confess and every knee will bow before the Creator some day.

The Bible teaches that the earth was broken up by the global flood. So that's likely the reason the continents look like they fit together, and that's likely the reason for most of the fossils we find. (Not millions of years of death before man, which violates the clear teaching of Scripture). Fossils don't form just because a living thing dies naturally (in that case, it would decompose). Conversely, fossils suggest rapid burial.

The Bible authors weren't scientist or historians, they were holy men, shamans. Floods don't break up continents, plate tectonics is what leads to the movement of continents. In fact the lad masses have floated apart and come back together before.

Fossils have been rapidly deposited over millions of years through millions of floods.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Naturalistic conjecture.
Not even supported by scientific evidence.
But hey, smart men told us this, so it must be true, and God lied.

You are unaware of the evidence for the dividing of the continents? The mid-atlantic ridge . . . the fact they are still creeping further apart . . . the variations of age of the ocean floor, being youngest at the ridge, oldest at the continental shelves? Your assertion "not even supported by scientific evidence" is yet another false statement.

Since you can only support your ideas with false statements, we won't bother to heed them.

 

[Colter]

Atheism's doctrine on origins is the only model "deemed appropriate" for some.

But "observations in nature" prove that such prokaryote-->eukaryote and pile-of-dirt --> rabbit fictions in blind faith evolutionism - are nothing more than "wishful thinking"

Blind faith is trusting the writings of holy men. We have real evidence.

 

[Colter]

This attack on the Bible in defense of the "all praise evolutionism" model - is much predicted.

While Christians may reject this logical conclusion based on its premise of faith in evolutionism - you have to at least admit that it is a logical conclusion once one takes the misguided step away from the Word of God and towards the atheists-doctrine on origins.

Its only an attack on the men of church government who derived their authority and wealth from the claim that their writing is Gods writing.

God doesn't write books, Jesus didn't leave ANY writing behind and for this very reason!!!

 

[Extraneous]

Well that might be appropriate in church, but not in the science lab or the larger world.

The theory is just a flawed theory. Its not the holy truth of mans origin, like you are asserting it to be. Furthermore, we dont act one way in Church and another in the world. We are always abiding in Christ the same way everyday, if we are actually abiding in him that is.

 

[Extraneous]

Blind faith is trusting the writings of holy men. We have real evidence.

You sound like an atheist. They say the same thing. Its not evidence anyway, its just a flawed theory. Its a false doctrine, created in the minds of spiritually blind scientists who created a doctrine of their own, in order to tickle their itching ears. THis is a great delusion that mankind reaps.

 

[Extraneous]

You think you have fossils and you think you win. We have God, we win.

 

[Hieronymus]

You are unaware of the evidence for the dividing of the continents?

I'm aware of the trenches and the buckling of the earthś crust, of course.
But they can hardly drift when they fit like a puzzle.
Isn't that just obvious?

Since you can only support your ideas with false statements, we won't bother to heed them.

You're reading too much into what i wrote.

 

[Hieronymus]

Its only an attack on the men of church government who derived their authority and wealth from the claim that their writing is Gods writing.

But you have no evidence to link to or mention.