Why I don't believe in evolution...

[Job 33:6]

I don't believe in evolution because the Bible says that the earth was created in 7 days and that's good enough for me.

The age of the earth is not evolution. I suppose you mean that you don't believe in geology.

 

[spiritfilledjm]

The age of the earth is not evolution. I suppose you mean that you don't believe in geology.

I just believe that the Earth was created in 7 days. What God meant by 7 days and how He did it, only He knows and we will know in the end.

 

[Job 33:6]

I just believe that the Earth was created in 7 days. What God meant by 7 days and how He did it, only He knows and we will know in the end.

This would imply that you don't believe in geology.

That's fine if that's how you feel. Many don't believe in things like plate tectonics either.

 

[Job 33:6]

This would imply that you don't believe in geology.

That's fine if that's how you feel. Many don't believe in things like plate tectonics either.

I think that a lot of people will say that they don't believe in evolution, and on the surface it doesn't really sound particularly unreasonable for a Christian. But I think when we actually unpack what it means, the implications are a lot deeper than just not believing that hairy primordial apes evolved into people. But rather what it really boils down to is a belief that runs in contradiction to a significant bulk of fields of geology, chemistry, physics, astronomy. And biology of course.

"Evolution" on the surface doesn't seem particularly difficult to not believe in. But when you realize that evolution is grounded in geology, then you effectively end up not believing in all sorts of things. Plate tectonics, typically there's a lack of belief in paleontology and the existence of the fossil record, typically there's a lack of belief in the geologic column, Which draws into question the reality of gravity. It draws into question the physics behind things like plate tectonics though the field of geophysics.

But there is a difference between not believing in something and outright rejecting something. Most people who don't believe in geology typically don't know enough about geology to rightfully reject it. I think that the same generally applies for evolution.

I think that people who do make an effort to reject evolution, they should probably be familiar uniformitarianism and relative dating methods beforehand.

And if you can logically get around the implications of plate tectonics and superposition and how they are a backbone to evolution, then I think there would be a bit more meaning behind the statement "I don't believe in evolution". Until then, this statement of disbelief just kind of a blank check without much meaning behind it.

 

[Job 33:6]

@spiritfilledjm

You don't have to respond if you don't want to. But to better explain what I am saying above:

Are you familiar with relative dating methods in geology that act as supporting evidence for the theory of evolution? I'm not talking about radiometric dating, but rather methods grounded in physics and logic?

If so, what is it about these methods that you don't believe in?

If not (which I'm guessing is more likely the case), then I don't know if there is any meaning behind your lack of belief in evolution. No more would it be meaningful for a chef or a gymnast to disbelieve in quantum mechanics if they aren't familiar with the subject.

 

[spiritfilledjm]

@spiritfilledjm

You don't have to respond if you don't want to. But to better explain what I am saying above:

Are you familiar with relative dating methods in geology that act as supporting evidence for the theory of evolution? I'm not talking about radiometric dating, but rather methods grounded in physics and logic?

If so, what is it about these methods that you don't believe in?

If not (which I'm guessing is more likely the case), then I don't know if there is any meaning behind your lack of belief in evolution. No more would it be meaningful for a chef or a gymnast to disbelieve in quantum mechanics if they aren't familiar with the subject.

I believe what's in the Bible. Man can come up with all the excuses and theories and their own way of explaining things all they want to. It doesn't matter. The Word of God will stand forever. The Bible doesn't mention that we were evolved from something else, therefore I don't believe it. The Bible says God created us from dirt and He breathed life into us. That is truth.

 

[Job 33:6]

I believe what's in the Bible. Man can come up with all the excuses and theories and their own way of explaining things all they want to. It doesn't matter. The Word of God will stand forever. The Bible doesn't mention that we were evolved from something else, therefore I don't believe it. The Bible says God created us from dirt and He breathed life into us. That is truth.

Alright. Well if you ever do decide to give my question a shot, I'll be around. All the best.

 

[Job 33:6]

I must say, thought the topic is titled "why I don't believe in evolution", about 99% of the discussion hasn't actually had anything to do with discussing evolution, and much less even science.

And I know it isn't the fault of the scientists in the room. My feeble efforts to actually discuss science have continued to fall on deaf ears and brick walls.

It is further telling about the nature of the discussion. And quite telling about the mindset of the individuals who don't believe in evolution though they simultaneously do not actually want talk about it either. The Christian dilemma with science.

 

[Paradox.79]

I don't believe in evolution because the Bible says that the earth was created in 7 days and that's good enough for me.

Yeah the bible says 7 days, astronomy and geology say billions of years...you can preach your 7 days all you want...math does not lie...2+2 will all equal 4 no matter what the bible says...there is plenty in the bible that has been debunked. I do look at astronomy, archeology and geology. The thing is the speed of light debunks it all. When we see the andromeda galaxy...were seeing something from 2.537 million lightyears from us...it means it took over 2 million years for the light from that galaxy to reach. We have seen galaxies from over 13 billion light years away...that means it took 13 billion years to reach us...the earth and the universe are billions of years old...again I do not care what the bible says...2+2=4 its math

 

[spiritfilledjm]

Yeah the bible says 7 days, astronomy and geology say billions of years...you can preach your 7 days all you want...math does not lie...2+2 will all equal 4 no matter what the bible says...there is plenty in the bible that has been debunked. I do look at astronomy, archeology and geology. The thing is the speed of light debunks it all. When we see the andromeda galaxy...were seeing something from 2.537 million lightyears from us...it means it took over 2 million years for the light from that galaxy to reach. We have seen galaxies from over 13 billion light years away...that means it took 13 billion years to reach us...the earth and the universe are billions of years old...again I do not care what the bible says...2+2=4 its math

k

 

[Thomas White]

I believe what's in the Bible. Man can come up with all the excuses and theories and their own way of explaining things all they want to. It doesn't matter. The Word of God will stand forever. The Bible doesn't mention that we were evolved from something else, therefore I don't believe it. The Bible says God created us from dirt and He breathed life into us. That is truth.

The Bible does not talk about how an engine works. Does that mean engines aren't real?

 

[Job 33:6]

You flat out deny the inerrancy of scripture, call the Bible a collection of myths, accuse Christians of committing atrocious acts, and don't even have enough respect to render God with a capital G.

The idea that religion is somehow bad is a modern atheistic narrative. And you have flat out confessed that you are not a Christian and that you are irreligious. This is a Christians Only subforum and a moderator might very well restrict your account for that very reason. Attacks against the church aren't supposed to be welcome here.

I think that his response and your response are good examples of why young earth creationism is an issue.

A. It pushes many in the church to take approaches that some may find controversial, but also, more importantly, it pushes many to simply leave the church all together.

B. Those that do double down in support of young earth creationism never really address the issues identified through scientific inquiry. For example, the individual suggests that a global flood isn't scientifically feasible, but in truth, he's correct.

Only through understanding scripture, as it was literally written, through the lense of scientifically naive people's, can this issue be resolved. Which is an approach commonly held by the theistic evolution position. Its biblical, it's theologically backed by Christian scholars, and it's supported by science and history.

 

[Sam Saved by Grace]

More precisely you said that they say that the supernatural cannot be said to exist. But of course, as Dawkins pointed out, such a stand is not reasonable, since one can't rule out the supernatural.

So one can say it exists. It merely can't be proven or disproven by science.

That reeks of pure desperation. How can you have any credibility at all when you won't even admit when you are so clearly in the wrong? Within the exact context of the discussion, saying the supernatural "cannot be said" to exist is exactly the same thing as saying that there is no evidence for it. It does not mean that there definitely is no such thing as the supernatural - yet you responded as if it does. And while knowing full well the difference. Because you are dishonest.

"Cannot be said", "One cannot say", or "Who can say?" are relatively common phrases meaning "not for sure" or "unknowable".

 

[Sam Saved by Grace]

I think that his response and your response are good examples of why young earth creationism is an issue.

A. It pushes many in the church to take approaches that some may find controversial, but also, more importantly, it pushes many to simply leave the church all together.

B. Those that do double down in support of young earth creationism never really address the issues identified through scientific inquiry. For example, the individual suggests that a global flood isn't scientifically feasible, but in truth, he's correct.

Only through understanding scripture, as it was literally written, through the lense of scientifically naive people's, can this issue be resolved. Which is an approach commonly held by the theistic evolution position. Its biblical, it's theologically backed by Christian scholars, and it's supported by science and history.

Anyone who leaves the church does so due to the fact that many are called but few are chosen. Those who belong to Christ are secure in Him, and no one can pluck them out of His hand. Those who love not the truth can find whatever reason for betraying Christ - we don't have to give them one.

It's not my prerogative to double down in support of anything other than the Word of God. And I do not make it my mission to go around preaching a young earth. I preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And those who are chosen of the Father will come to Christ, and none will be lost.

Something doesn't have to be scientifically feasible to be true. That is my contention. I am not here to say that science says this or that. I stand on the rock of God's Word. Science is not the ultimate determiner of what is true. The Bible, God's Word, is the standard for all truth. It wouldn't matter to me if science demonstrated with absolute certainty that the Bible was wrong about something - I believe God and His Word more than I believe science. If that stance is unreasonable to some, then there is a spiritual reason for that.

Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For indeed Jews ask for signs, and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block, and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised, God has chosen, the things that are not, that He might nullify the things that are, that no man should boast before God. 1 Corinthians 1:20-29

 

[Job 33:6]

Anyone who leaves the church does so due to the fact that many are called but few are chosen. Those who belong to Christ are secure in Him, and no one can pluck them out of His hand. Those who love not the truth can find whatever reason for betraying Christ - we don't have to give them one.

It's not my prerogative to double down in support of anything other than the Word of God. And I do not make it my mission to go around preaching a young earth. I preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And those who are chosen of the Father will come to Christ, and none will be lost.

Something doesn't have to be scientifically feasible to be true. That is my contention. I am not here to say that science says this or that. I stand on the rock of God's Word. Science is not the ultimate determiner of what is true. The Bible, God's Word, is the standard for all truth. It wouldn't matter to me if science demonstrated with absolute certainty that the Bible was wrong about something - I believe God and His Word more than I believe science. If that stance is unreasonable to some, then there is a spiritual reason for that.

Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For indeed Jews ask for signs, and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block, and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised, God has chosen, the things that are not, that He might nullify the things that are, that no man should boast before God. 1 Corinthians 1:20-29

The above doesn't address the issues of scientific infeasibility.

Saying that something doesn't have to be scientifically feasible to be true doesn't absolve the issue.

If the sun is hot and you come out saying the sun is cold and that it's coldness can be true regardless of what science has to say, you'd sound like a fool because you aren't even attempting to address the elephant in the room (that every scientific observation we make with our eyeballs tells us it's hot). And keep in mind that this is God's creation that we are talking about.

Nobody doubts that anything is possible and that God has the power to do anything. But if you can't address the science, then you're left making empty and meaningless statements. And practically speaking, in this sense, this would result in worship of a YEC false god (assuming the sun is actually hot and you argue that it's cold).

So if you aren't worried about missionary work saving people or deterring people from the church, you ought to still be concerned about your own actions in light of being one of God's chosen, assuming you are.

If your church stands in contrast with what we see with our eyeballs, then all I can say is that your personal church is in deep trouble. I'd implore you to reconsider, but in the end, as you said, God has already either accepted or rejected you. It's in His hands in the end.

 

[Job 33:6]

@Sam Saved by Grace

I'll try expressing this again.

Imagine if person A comes around saying the sun is cold.

Person B says no, science says it's hot.

Then person A comes back and says, no no, something can be scientifically infeasible and can still be true (thereby justifying their position that the sun is cold).

Wouldn't this response sound strange to you? You don't see anything wrong with person A's response?

The reality is that unless you actively address the scientific conflict, there won't be a resolution and your position is destined to be rejected. And rightfully so.

And reminding us that anything is possible doesn't somehow make physical reality just go away. The issue with YECism is still very clearly present, just as it would be in the belief of a cold sun.

 

[Sam Saved by Grace]

Macroevolution and observing that the sun is hot isn't even in the same ballpark. Not even the theory of gravity can be that clear cut. The idea that human beings evolved from ape-like creatures is not something that we "see with our eyeballs". Saying that a majority of scientists believe they see clear evidence for darwinism is one thing. It is quite another thing altogether to say that the truth of the theory is as obvious as the sun is hot. I didn't even want to dignify that post with a response. It is a gross exaggeration.

But believe me when I tell you that the time is fast approaching when believing in Christ and holding to God's Word will indeed entail denying the clear evidence of your own eyes, and where obvious reason stands opposed to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Yes, as Christians, we are required to hold the Word of God even above our own sight, relying not on our own understanding. As it is written, God Himself is sending a strong delusion that will envelope the whole world. A time when only those who love the Truth, the Lord Jesus Christ, will strive to keep Him for themselves, while those who do not will have every justifiable reason to let Him go.

Have your science. But it is not the good news. And it will not save you.

 

[Job 33:6]

Macroevolution and observing that the sun is hot isn't even in the same ballpark. Not even the theory of gravity can be that clear cut. The idea that human beings evolved from ape-like creatures is not something that we "see with our eyeballs". Saying that a majority of scientists believe they see clear evidence for darwinism is one thing. It is quite another thing altogether to say that the truth of the theory is as obvious as the sun is hot. I didn't even want to dignify that post with a response. It is a gross exaggeration.

But believe me when I tell you that the time is fast approaching when believing in Christ and holding to God's Word will indeed entail denying the clear evidence of your own eyes, and where obvious reason stands opposed to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Yes, as Christians, we are required to hold the Word of God even above our own sight, relying not on our own understanding. As it is written, God Himself is sending a strong delusion that will envelope the whole world. A time when only those who love the Truth, the Lord Jesus Christ, will strive to keep Him for themselves, while those who do not will have every justifiable reason to let Him go.

Have your science. But it is not the good news. And it will not save you.

Because you aren't actually discussing the theory itself, I get the impression that you're not in a position to judge how obvious it is. I suspect that you probably aren't familiar with the theory to begin with.

I'm a geologist who's published in paleontology and I think evolution is as obvious as the sun is hot.

Unless you have some elaborate explanation (aside from some global data forging conspiracy) for the fossil succession and why it happens to reflect phylogenetic trees developed in genetics studies, it's about as obvious as it gets.

As I've once heard it described, if it were not due to evolution, the odds of so much data being synchronized across independent fields would be like building a jigsaw puzzle the size of planet earth and all the pieces fitting together by mere chance (because no other theory could explain what we see).

Just as with a belief that the sun is cold, If you can't address the evidence that demonstrates otherwise, then your words really are just empty. And saying that God can do all things doesn't just make the evidence for a hot sun go away.

I'd wonder too, if you won't even discuss the science, how could you even know how obvious it was or was not? I have to wonder if you even understand what I'm saying here in this post. You haven't shown any evidence that you do.

You are wrongfully assuming that there isn't an option to have the good news, and science. As opposed to only being able to have one or the other.

 

[Sam Saved by Grace]

It's one thing to talk about evolution in terms of adaptation and claim that there is a boatload of interconnecting evidence, but laymen or not, I have seen absolutely nothing to convince me that a fish can become a man no matter how much time or how many intermediary stages you throw in. "Each seed according to it's own kind" is what the Lord God spoke. So even if I did see evidence that a family of fishes could have human descendants, I would not believe it. And if God told me that the sun was not hot, I would believe Him on that, too. And I would be correct.

That said, claiming that darwinism is as obviously true to the same degree as the sun is obviously hot just abundantly demonstrates that you are not a reasonable man.

 

[Job 33:6]

It's one thing to talk about evolution in terms of adaptation and claim that there is a boatload of interconnecting evidence, but laymen or not, I have seen absolutely nothing to convince me that a fish can become a man no matter how much time or how many intermediary stages you throw in. "Each seed according to it's own kind" is what the Lord God spoke. So even if I did see evidence that a family of fishes could have human descendants, I would not believe it. And if God told me that the sun was not hot, I would believe Him on that, too. And I would be correct.

That said, claiming that darwinism is as obviously true to the same degree as the sun is obviously hot just abundantly demonstrates that you are not a reasonable man.

So what is your elaborate explanation then for how the fossil succession mirrors phylogenetic trees of genetics studies? (If not what I would consider the obvious answer of evolution).