Why do Christians have trouble with accepting Evolution?

[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"???



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... (wait for it ...)

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"

And This -- 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").

What you say does not make sense. Dawkins sees the contradictions between literal translations of the Bible and the theory of evolution. Christians don't. And by the way, the words of the Hebrew Professor you have been posting come from an informal personal letter of his, not a scholarly work. In that same year, he published a book called "Escaping from Fundamentalism". You read his mined words spouted by Creation Science but don't get that he himself does not support a six-day creation model. And his claim (albeit an informal, unpublished one) of no other Hebrew professors taking a non-literal translation stance, is not true - Walton and Kaiser, to name a few. Speaking of James Barr, he explains in his paper, "The Image of God in the Book of Genesis: A Study of Terminology" that there is no reason to believe that the author of Genesis chapter one “had in his mind any definite idea about the content or location of the image of God.”

 

[Faith77]

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




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.

Here is what Colin Patterson had to say in 1993 when asked about his words being quoted by creationists:

"The famous "keynote address" at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 was nothing of the sort. It was a talk to the "Systematics Discussion Group" in the Museum, an (extremely) informal group. I had been asked to talk to them on "Evolutionism and creationism"; fired up by a paper by Ernst Mayr published in Science just the week before. I gave a fairly rumbustious talk, arguing that the theory of evolution had done more harm than good to biological systematics (classification). Unknown to me, there was a creationist in the audience with a hidden tape recorder. So much the worse for me. But my talk was addressed to professional systematists, and concerned systematics, nothing else.

I hope that by now I have learned to be more circumspect in dealing with creationists, cryptic or overt. But I still maintain that scepticism is the scientist's duty, however much the stance may expose us to ridicule."

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

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.

So when along the evolutionary cycle were we stamped with the image of God? When we were that ancestral relation, or even further back... what was the beginning of all this life? Was that the image of God? If evolution doesn't answer hat question then, imo, you have to look at the validity of something that doesn't support clear scripture that we were made in the image of God, being made a little lower than the angels. What about angels, are they all apart of the evolutionary process? They must have been if everything created was through evolution. Does this mean that we will evolve into angels or that angels evolved from our current state?

Any answers to the above questions? Anybody?

 

[BobRyan]

Here is what Colin Patterson had to say in 1993 when asked about his words being quoted by creationists:

"The famous "keynote address" at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 was nothing of the sort. It was a talk to the "Systematics Discussion Group" in the Museum, an (extremely) informal group. I had been asked to talk to them on "Evolutionism and creationism"; fired up by a paper by Ernst Mayr published in Science just the week before. I gave a fairly rumbustious talk, arguing that the theory of evolution had done more harm than good to biological systematics (classification). Unknown to me, there was a creationist in the audience with a hidden tape recorder. So much the worse for me. But my talk was addressed to professional systematists, and concerned systematics, nothing else.
I hope that by now I have learned to be more circumspect in dealing with creationists, cryptic or overt. But I still maintain that scepticism is the scientist's duty, however much the stance may expose us to ridicule."

Old news but does not remove the point. I never claim that Patterson turned into a Christian over that bit of honesty in his remarks. My whole point is that as an atheist he 'had no other choice' but the religion of evolutionism even though he was lamenting some of its failings.

The Point was that it is a the very sort of "lament" that we do NOT find for math, chemistry, physics, observable biology in the past 150 years.

As for "systematics" supposedly having little to do with the religion of blind faith evolutionism --

- without the systematics that allows classification and story-telling about "progress over time" you have nothing.

Notice that these honest statements by Patterson cannot be found among T.E.s on that same subject. It is the creationists that use them to show that the "lament" of Patterson reveals a flaw as HE HIMSELF states that evolutionism is being pursued more on the grounds of religious fever than objective "Science".

 

[KWCrazy]

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.

More to the point, that's their intent.
You don't see Christians pretending to be scientists posting on atheists websites attacking the theory of evolution, but we see unbelievers pretending to be scientists and Biblical scholars coming to this forum to attack Christian's faith in the Bible. How do we know they are pretending? Very simple. In all their "expertise" they can't justify the Scriptures which they claim to believe with the "science" they are touting. They can't blow their cover by admitting that there is nothing in the Scriptures they find holy and true, but they can't manufacture a rationale for believing in one miracle but not another.

One thing you can be sure of. You will never see an evolution believer posting passages of Scripture to support his belief.

 

[Faith77]

Old news but does not remove the point. I never claim that Patterson turned into a Christian over that bit of honesty in his remarks. My whole point is that as an atheist he 'had no other choice' but the religion of evolutionism even though he was lamenting some of its failings.

The Point was that it is a the very sort of "lament" that we do NOT find for math, chemistry, physics, observable biology in the past 150 years.

As for "systematics" supposedly having little to do with the religion of blind faith evolutionism --

- without the systematics that allows classification and story-telling about "progress over time" you have nothing.

Notice that these honest statements by Patterson cannot be found among T.E.s on that same subject. It is the creationists that use them to show that the "lament" of Patterson reveals a flaw as HE HIMSELF states that evolutionism is being pursued more on the grounds of religious fever than objective "Science".

The original poster asked about evolution, not evolutionism. Evolutionism is not evolution. Colin Patterson did not change his mind on evolution, but he was lamenting the tendency of humans to make meta-narratives that go beyond the theories.

 

[AmericanChristian91]

So when along the evolutionary cycle were we stamped with the image of God? When we were that ancestral relation, or even further back... what was the beginning of all this life? Was that the image of God? If evolution doesn't answer hat question then, imo, you have to look at the validity of something that doesn't support clear scripture that we were made in the image of God, being made a little lower than the angels. What about angels, are they all apart of the evolutionary process? They must have been if everything created was through evolution. Does this mean that we will evolve into angels or that angels evolved from our current state?

Any answers to the above questions? Anybody?

We don't have the answers to everything, and for some that is fine.

I don't know when in the timeline God made creatures in the image of himself. A long time ago, but I don't know exactly how long ago.

And evolution itself should not have to answer those questions you pose, because the ToE is a SCIENTIFIC theory, it doesn't deal with Theology or various spiritual based answers and questions. That is what religion is for.

ToE is not about questions of.......why are we here? Is there a God? Is there an afterlife? Do we have a soul?

That is for a whole other realm.

You are attacking evolution on a field it doesn't deal with.

When it comes to Angels, since they are not from this earth, I don't see why they would go through some evolutionary process. Could God have used evolution somewhere else to make them? Possibly but I don't know.

Still even that question about Angels, the ToE was never meant to deal with things beyond this universe.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

I gather you work from an anti-intellectual viewpoint.

You can gather all you want but I will let God judge who is bringing intelligence to these conversations.

I already pointed out to you teh enormous age of teh universe, the fossils,

What did you present on behalf of the age of the universe? That you pointed it out? Well, then, I guess it's settled, it appears the evidence we have all been looking for is in Hog's ability to point out rhetoric.

experiments whereby bacteria were brought to evolve into a new species, etc.

Bad form Hog, to use the word ETC. when you only ever mentioned the bacteria experiment... it is deceptive, implying that you presented something greater than what you did... even at that, what you presented as evidence was just you statement that there's this bacteria thing that shows us everything.... here's the facts, the bacteria that were observed to have mutated into another adaptive species were still, at the end of the day, still bacteria. You could have used another more commonly known example, dogs. Did you know that people have actually selectively bred dogs to create new species of dogs? I know, crazy, right? Evolution?... ummmm, no.

I also recommended you take a look at the classical work and findings of AR Wallace.

I did, and I could find nothing that he postulated that was anything but a suggestion or an "I think" or an "it must have been". Lots of guesswork going on... reading some letters between himself and Darwin, Lyell and Hooker, there is not one shred of real evidence but lots of speculation, hypotheses and conjecture... the evidence of the evolutionist.

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.

I wouldn't want you to tax yourself in finding me just one iota of true, observable evidence. I think I'll stick with observable science, not speculative science.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

We don't have the answers to everything, and for some that is fine.

I don't know when in the timeline God made creatures in the image of himself. A long time ago, but I don't know exactly how long ago.

And evolution itself should not have to answer those questions you pose, because the ToE is a SCIENTIFIC theory, it doesn't deal with Theology or various spiritual based answers and questions. That is what religion is for.

ToE is not about questions of.......why are we here? Is there a God? Is there an afterlife? Do we have a soul?

That is for a whole other realm.

You are attacking evolution on a field it doesn't deal with.

When it comes to Angels, since they are not from this earth, I don't see why they would go through some evolutionary process. Could God have used evolution somewhere else to make them? Possibly but I don't know.

Still even that question about Angels, the ToE was never meant to deal with things beyond this universe.

You are a Christian though, right? And you are fine taking from God the power He displayed in creating everything from the Word of His mouth in perfect form and stature into the lesser role of providing the spark for evolution to exist and then leave it up to itself... that doesn't sound very impressive for God to do? Why demote God to that role when He has clearly said differently in His Word? Do you not believe the Bible, parts of the Bible or the whole Bible as God's Word to us?

 

[KWCrazy]

ScottA, I have trouble when people say in a matter-of-fact way that they have experienced the Spirit. Every kook and fanatic claims the same thing. How do you know it was God and not your grandmother?

So you are unsaved?
No wonder you're so wrong about so many things.
You see, had you experienced the Holy Spirit you would know the truth of God. You haven't encounterted God, so you see God as an unknowable hypothesis.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

We don't have the answers to everything, and for some that is fine.

Sorry brother, evolution doesn't have answers for anything, just rhetoric, conjecture and speculation... I'm not being rude or dismissive, just truthful. I gave a list of observable natural phenomenon that support a young earth creation... please, would someone on here give me a clear piece of evidence that evolution happened. And please don't say..."I already did" when nothing has been shown in this entire thread, beyond some references to species adaptation, which is not evolution.

 

[AmericanChristian91]

He displayed in creating everything from the Word of His mouth in perfect form and stature into the lesser role of providing the spark for evolution to exist and then leave it up to itself... that doesn't sound very impressive for God to do?

You are implying that if evolution exits, God started the process....and just left it to do something else. Sounds like deism.

There are various views in evolutionary creationism about God's will/action and how it relates to evolution. God could have began the process and made it so the process created life according to his will without him needing to intervene directly. Or perhaps he is constantly being involved in the evolutionary process so what comes forth is apart of his will.

Either way....evolution is still very impressive. God not creating life instantaneously in present day form doesn't make him less awesome.

 

[Hoghead1]

So you are unsaved?
No wonder you're so wrong about so many things.
You see, had you experienced the Holy Spirit you would know the truth of God. You haven't encounterted God, so you see God as an unknowable hypothesis.

KW, it is a no-no in serious theological discussion and also on this forum for you or anyone else to sit and knock the spirituality and Christianity of fellow Christians, as you are doing with me here. Posts such as this simply show you are very intolerant and lacking in respect for those Christians who maybe do not share your views. Certain forms of religious ideation border on irrational, neurotic thinking. And frankly this and other hate posts you have aimed at me come awful close, too close, to such ideation.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

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?

But yet you accept evolution through faith... interesting.

 

[Luke17:37]

"Not my idea of God's image" has no backing - it may be OK for you, but it can't be the foundation of what's true and what's not.

However, the Bible provides the foundation of truth through which we are supposed to understand God, the creation, and ourselves. And evolution is not Biblical. It degrades the foundation of the gospel and contradicts every Scripture concerning creation. This is how I see it... as Cinderella's stepsister trying to fit into the dainty glass slipper. It's not going to happen. To say it's compatible is to reject Scripture in favor of the doctrines of men.

Romans 1:25
25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

Isaiah 45:12
12 I have made the earth,
And created man on it.
I—My hands—stretched out the heavens,
And all their host I have commanded.

Revelation 4:11
11 “You are worthy, O Lord,
To receive glory and honor and power;
For You created all things,
And by Your will they exist and were created.”

 

[ViaCrucis]

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

I'm guessing at this point you're just trying to throw stones.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

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?

You make a strawman statement like that and expect people to take you seriously?

 

[AmericanChristian91]

You make a strawman statement like that and expect people to take you seriously?

But he is right in the fact that various human groups pre-date Noah's Flood....and kept on living.

You should explore the background of the native americans.

Hint they used this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beringia

So the race of Men were not FloodNuked.

 

[Hoghead1]

You can gather all you want but I will let God judge who is bringing intelligence to these conversations.



What did you present on behalf of the age of the universe? That you pointed it out? Well, then, I guess it's settled, it appears the evidence we have all been looking for is in Hog's ability to point out rhetoric.



Bad form Hog, to use the word ETC. when you only ever mentioned the bacteria experiment... it is deceptive, implying that you presented something greater than what you did... even at that, what you presented as evidence was just you statement that there's this bacteria thing that shows us everything.... here's the facts, the bacteria that were observed to have mutated into another adaptive species were still, at the end of the day, still bacteria. You could have used another more commonly known example, dogs.
While you may let God judge these conversations, how about you take the initiative and bring some real intelligence to them? All you are really doing is providing a lot of sarcastic inflammatory rhetoric aimed at me. Is that your definition of what it means to participate in a Christian discussion group?
Did you know that people have actually selectively bred dogs to create new species of dogs? I know, crazy, right? Evolution?... ummmm, no.



I did, and I could find nothing that he postulated that was anything but a suggestion or an "I think" or an "it must have been". Lots of guesswork going on... reading some letters between himself and Darwin, Lyell and Hooker, there is not one shred of real evidence but lots of speculation, hypotheses and conjecture... the evidence of the evolutionist.



I wouldn't want you to tax yourself in finding me just one iota of true, observable evidence. I think I'll stick with observable science, not speculative science.

Here are the facts, EastCoast. Science has determined the universe to be about 14.5 billion years old. This is based on c. Now, unless you go with that nutcase Setterfield, then c has remained constant and these scientific measurements are accurate. Don't you ever read anything in science? Do I have to take you by the hand through high-school-level science? You remarks on the experiments with bacteria closely show you have absolutely no understanding of evolution. Evolution is about generating new species and that is what happened with the bacteria. The fact they remained bacteria is beside the point.

 

[Hoghead1]

But yet you accept evolution through faith... interesting.

No, I accept evolution through fact. And if you paid any real attention to modern science, you would, too.