Why do Christians have trouble with accepting Evolution?

[EastCoastRemnant]

Look, Extraneous, I don't think you quite get the picture here. The Bible is one thing. Your interpretation is something wholly different. You have not presented just Scripture here. Y9ou have also presented your opinion, underline your opinion, as to what Paul is saying. OK, fine. Expressing opinions ids what this forum is for. But an opinion is just that, it is a mere opinion. Your opinion on Paul is just one among a zilli0on others. So if you had simply said, "Well, that's my opinion<' and stopped right there, no problem. But you seemed to go way over the line. You seem to be assuming every Christian on the planet should believe what you have to say. So the question is, Who says you are right? Who says you really know anything about the Bible and Paul at all? I, for one, can't even begin to see how you have the authority to insist all Christians comply with your beliefs. Are you an ordained pastor? A biblical scholar? Were you elected as the representative of some Christian community? Do you even bother to attend church? I wonder. Why should I belief your word over and against a major Pauline scholar such as Johannes Munch, whose careful research completely debunks anything you have to say here about Paul? And please don't give me those lame excuses that he wasn't a good Christian, too worldly, etc.

The same question could be asked of every single poster on this and every other forum.... lot's of words to state the obvious = rhetoric.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

It depends on the "evolutionists." For example, I would argue that evolution is impossible without God, as evolution is creativity at work, and creativity requires a transcendental imagination, i.e, God.

Your answer has nothing to do with what I asked... thanx for you random thoughts though.

Btw, thanx for finding the "Reply" button...

 

[AmericanChristian91]

According to legend, apes may not be our immediate paternity but we are evolutionary cousins, made from the same stock, right?

Yes and being biologically related doesn't mean we are not created in the image of God. Part of your issue is you can't fathom a reality in which we share common ancestry to Apes while being children of God. Thankfully many see that the truth in science does not contradict the truth that goes beyond biology when it comes to being Gods creation.

 

[Hoghead1]

In that whole quote Hog, you provided not a stitch of evidence... if there are tons then please sir, can I have a pound?

Rhetoric doesn't constitute facts or evidence... but perhaps that is the way of the scholarly intellectuals, a veritable plethora of rhetorical folly.

A lot you know about scholarly intellectuals. I gather you work from an anti-intellectual viewpoint. I already pointed out to you teh enormous age of teh universe, the fossils, experiments whereby bacteria were brought to evolve into a new species, etc. I also recommended you take a look at the classical work and findings of AR Wallace. I could go on, but I shouldn't have to spoon feed you. it's up to you to take the initiative, go do some research and see for yourself what science has to say on the matter.

 

[Hoghead1]

It doesn't work that way. History and personal confirmation from God is the only proof.

It doesn't work that way with me. I need to see something beyond the mere claim that one feels moved by the Spirit. Every kook and nut case in the book has claimed they were moved by the Spirit. Why should you be an exception?

 

[Hoghead1]

Big difference between arguing heliocentric vs. geocentric perspective and demoting God to a less spectacular and secondary role in creation... evolution, whether pronounced by a Christian or an atheist, demotes God... not exalts Him. It promotes theism...

Evidence, please, In what way does this demote God?

 

[Faith77]

Why not explain it to me yourself? When was the stamp of His image impressed upon us?

Because I can see that your ability, or inclination, to grasp something within posts, is somewhat hindered by presumptions. Something that someone posts is going to be a summary and not comprehensive. It will be enough to set a reader to further lines of inquiry if they want, and those who genuinely want to know (because truth matters) will take the time to find out. Those who don't can either acknowledge their limitations, that they haven't had the time nor inclination to do so and therefore not equipped with enough information, or I suppose they can just pretend they know better and mock those who oppose them.

 

[Hoghead1]

When did God make man in His image? At the beginning when He set the whole ball of wax rolling (making all things God' image and not just us) or later when He determined which mutation was suitable? Good thing the evolution train didn't stop at cro-mags... not my idea of God's image.

It all depends upon what you mean by the Imago Dei. Do you mean that things should look like God? If so, my take is that the universe is the self-actualization of God, the body of God. So everything looks like God, or a part thereof, and then nothing looks like God. The whole always transcends its parts.

 

[Hoghead1]

Your answer has nothing to do with what I asked... thanx for you random thoughts though.

Btw, thanx for finding the "Reply" button...

Well then, just what do you want to know?

 

[Hoghead1]

The same question could be asked of every single poster on this and every other forum.... lot's of words to state the obvious = rhetoric.

Very true and precisely my point. We have to be careful to distinguish between our interpretation and the actual reality of what we are talking about. For example, many will complain that you are attacking God or Scripture, when, in point of fact, God per se and Scripture per se aren't the issue here, one's interpretation is.

 

[Colter]

Why don't the Australian Aboriginies, who have been in Australia 40,000 + years, remember the day when Noahs descendants started miraculously popping out Aborigine baby's?

 

[BobRyan]

Since a new T.E. has joined our discussion - maybe we have one who will answer this question at last --

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"???

 

[BobRyan]

Why don't the Australian Aboriginies, who have been in Australia 40,000 + years, remember the day when Noahs descendants started miraculously popping out

Those who imagine they know 40,000 year old aboriginies are not unlike those who imagine that a ""a pile of dirt -- will sure enough -- turn into a horse -- given a sufficiently large pile of dirt and a sufficiently talented long period of time filled with improbable just-so-stories"

 

[BobRyan]

5,000 years (or was it 4000?) is all we have for all the divergence in human DNA to get back to one people group.

A short video:

http://www.icr.org/article/genetics-research-confirms-biblical/

Sorry Hieronymus, all quackery, wishful thinking

You neglected to watch the video ? You refuted the entire human genome project -- in one detail-avoiding dismissal??

is that how faith in evolutionism is "maintained"?

You don't even know what you disagree with, because you refuse to look.

Apparently that is how "faith" in evolutionism is "maintained".

In a 2012 Science report, geneticists analyzed DNA sequences of 15,585 protein-coding gene regions in the human genome for 1,351 European Americans and 1,088 African Americans for rare DNA variation.1,2 This new study accessed rare coding variation in 15,336 genes from over 6,500 humans—almost three times the amount of data compared to the first study.3 A separate group of researchers performed the new study.

The Nature results convey a second spectacular confirmation of the amazingly biblical conclusions from the first study. These scientists confirmed that the human genome began to rapidly diversify not more than 5,000 years ago. In addition, they found significant levels of variation to be associated with degradation of the human genome, not forward evolutionary progress. This fits closely with research performed by Cornell University geneticist John Sanford who demonstrated through biologically realistic population genetic modeling that genomes actually devolve over time in a process called genetic entropy.5

Now we are "told" that the Journal of Nature, Science and Cornell are all wrong if their observations in nature - reflect poorly on blind faith evolutionism.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

It all depends upon what you mean by the Imago Dei. Do you mean that things should look like God? If so, my take is that the universe is the self-actualization of God, the body of God. .

So tell us again how the bible claims your pantheism is a good idea.

(or are you saying "God evolved"??)

 

[Faith77]

Since a new T.E. has joined our discussion - maybe we have one who will answer this question at last --

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"???

Whether anyone posts with "concern for anything faced by that poor T.E...." is irrelevant. It doesn't say whether anyone is truly concerned. I am concerned about many things I don't post about. I post on what I think is relevant to the topic at hand, and in forums like this, it is too easy to digress to topics that are not relevant. Why I think it is irrelevant is because that original poster posted somewhere else and would have received responses there. If I had time, I would go there and give my opinions because unlike him (or is it her?), evolution does not bring doubts about the Old Testament, only doubts about the interpretations of the O.T. taught to me by certain parties. Evolution itself says nothing about God. The ones worried about it are like the religious authorities worried that Galileo's arguments would displace the Bible as arbiter of truth, and make God smaller than He was.

 

[BobRyan]

Here is a "happy fiction" where all details are ignored - and the fiction itself is the only "fact" in the statement.

Look, Extraneous, I don't think you quite get the picture here. The Bible is one thing. Your interpretation is something wholly different. You have not presented just Scripture here. Y9ou have also presented your opinion, underline your opinion, .

And here is one of the more recent posts that repeatedly debunk the happy fiction

One of the keys to promoting "belief in" evolutionism is - alternate reality - while "avoiding inconvenient details" .

For example -- what is the "reality" when it comes to what the Bible says about creation -- and the doctrine on origins?

Wake up call -- Those who argue that only mean ol "Bible believing Christians" would think Genesis is talking about a 7 day creation week... think again.

consider what happens when you look at "the kind of literature that it is" when it comes to the Genesis account

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

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

That is the opinion of professors not at all inclined to accept the 7 day creation week that we find in Gen 1:2-2:3 yet they can still 'read' and point to the author's intent - whether they agree with the author or not.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
now what if we could gloss over all that "reality" and spin a 'story' of the form -- "That is just the way BobRyan reads the Bible"

See - how easy that was to "suggest" alternate reality - then pretend that merely suggesting it - turns it INTO documented fact -- "real life"??

Now the interesting part of that is this --

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

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

 

[BobRyan]

Since a new T.E. has joined our discussion - maybe we have one who will answer this question at last --

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"???

Whether anyone posts with "concern for anything faced by that poor T.E...." is irrelevant. It doesn't say whether anyone is truly concerned. I am concerned about many things I don't post about. I post on what I think is relevant to the topic at hand, and in forums like this, it is too easy to digress to topics that are not relevant. Why I think it is irrelevant is because that original poster posted somewhere else and would have received responses there. If I had time, I would go there and give my opinions because unlike him (or is it her?), evolution does not bring doubts about the Old Testament,

Unlike you - Darwin claims such statements as you posted there - are not to be taken seriously. So also do Dawkins, Provine, P.Z. Meyers and others all admit to the glaringly obvious contradiction between their prior Christian faith and their newfound religion of evolutionism -- notice the contrast for yourself ... (wait for it ...)

Doctrine - A - This: (for those evolutionists not denying some abiogenesis link between the big-bang and "life" )
""a pile of dirt -- will sure enough -- turn into a horse -- given a sufficiently large pile of dirt and a sufficiently talented long period of time filled with improbable just-so-stories"

Doctrine - B -- in legal code.
Ex 20:11 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.



So also the T.E. who started that thread pleading for help - and getting little to nothing from fellow T.E. once the thread was taken over by atheists.

So also this thread - that asks that very question - whether the Bible is to be tossed out the window for the sake of 'more praise to evolutionism' as the opposing religion on origins of all the "kinds" on earth - (where humanity is one of those Gen 1 "kinds").

 

[BobRyan]

Why toss you Bible out the window for this high-concentration of junk-science and bad religion?

It's like saying "gravitationism" involves giant magnets making apples fall on people's heads.
-CryptoLutheran

Just not in "real life".

In real life this is what the high-priests of evolutionism say about their own religion in the past 150 years. (Statements you never find about physics in the last 150 years)

================================================================
As we saw that again in the case of the fraudulent horse series

"I admit that an awful lot of that [imaginary stories] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum of Natural History] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable ..."
Niles Eldredge, as quoted in Luther D Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th ed. 1988, pg 78.


"The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature."—G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119.

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

The sorts of things world class scientists were not saying about gravity and thermodynamics in the 1980's and 1950's

Here is a fact already in evidence.

After the bold equivocation between junk-science evolutionism and actual science like the law of Gravity and the laws of thermodynamics - I pointed out the blunder - showing that in real life you don't see world class scientists saying the sorts of thing about gravity as evolutionism's own atheist scientists say about evolutionism.

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


Collin Patterson (atheist and diehard evolutionist to the day he died in 1998) - Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history speaking at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 - said:

Patterson - quotes Gillespie's arguing that Christians

"'...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'"

Patterson countered, "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact (saying):'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"

"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here...

"...,Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge , apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."

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

A great example of what scientists do NOT say about the study of Gravity.

And yet... at no loss for large levels of glossing over details and equivocation - we could just "repeat" the suggestion for "gravitationism" as do some.

It's like saying "gravitationism" involves giant magnets making apples fall on people's heads.
-CryptoLutheran

 

[BobRyan]

Notice that every Bible-affirming observation is nature - is taken with a great deal of dismay by our atheist evolutionist friends - and even a great number of T.E.'s -- the reason is that many T.E.'s go overboard in that they unwittingly argue against 'design' -- which is a "distinctively atheist" argument. They simply never stopped to think about it.