Why are some Christians anti Evolution?

[Astrid]

Could you be more specific? What in my statement about evolution is not true?

Evolution claims than Men and Chimpanzees both evolved from a common primate ancestor.
How does that not deny man as a special act of creation (named "Adam") by God?

Now you changed it, to "special" and "named".

Christians have many many ways of interpreting
what they take to be Gods word.

Perhaps you find your reading more valid than the
story written right into the earth, presumably by the god
you worship?

 

[stevil]

... but it DOES talk about the creation of man through incremental evolutionary changes that contradict the "God made Adam" explanation. So it SCREAMS in its silence.

It talks about the evolution of humans and all other life forms on life based on observation of evidence.
It is not seeking to contradict the bible or anyone else's religion, it is just derived from physical evidence.
Millions Christians don't think the bible is contradicted by the ToE.

 

[Astrid]

I would call it a lie

Finally. That was all i asked about in the first place.

 

[SelfSim]

I would call it a lie

I'd say its objective evidence of a belief.

 

[Astrid]

Proof is something that is undeniable, you haven’t given any proof all you’ve given is evidence, there’s a difference. And by the way welcome to CHRISTIAN Forums. Going to a CHRISTIAN forum and expecting CHRISTIANS to disregard the word of God then getting mad about it when they won’t and resorting to rude and disrespectful comments is childish and immature behavior. It would be like me going to an atheist website expecting people to praise God, it’s a ridiculous expectation. So this should come as no surprise to you that I would hold to my position despite anything you say because I’ve been thru these discussions several times. You can’t prove me wrong and I can’t prove you wrong so it should just be a discussion of examining evidence but in the end neither of us can expect the other to concede based on inconclusive evidence.

I dont do any of that.
I request you take that back,
as youve no examples to back these
unjust accusations.
I was speaking of nothing more than the sort of
example you kindly provided.

 

[TLK Valentine]

It's called "Salvation by Precision of Doctrine" or Sola Doctrina Precise--the sixth Sola. Though I can't see why having to believe something particular about Genesis like literalism to be saved is not just a "work."

Seems more like a "hustle" to me.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Eh, what?

Job 1:8 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?

What made Job "perfect and upright"?

Because he shunned evil?

Not a chance; that's not how it works.

Philippians 3:9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

Imputed righteousness -- that's how it works.

Thanks for the QED.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You were more than ears, chief.

You had it all.

It's your feet that I'm questioning.

Why'd you walk out on all that?

Who says I walked out on it? Oh, right -- you did.

I still have all that... I just jettisoned the hogwash.

Alas, according to people just like you, Christianity is the hogwash.

And I didn't feel like arguing the point.

Was Paul right when he said embracing evolution can lead to atheism?

Assuming Paul ever said that (and he didn't), then he was dead wrong.

But if I'm not going to be a Christian, then I'm certainly not going to be a Paulian.

Enjoy your hogwash.

 

[Bradskii]

... a typical duration for prograde metamorphism in a slowly subsiding basin or tectonic plate convergence, might be in the order of 20 to 30 million years.

But if 20 million years hasn't existed, then that is a nonsensical statement for existing rocks. That will happen in 20 million years but cannot have happened.

 

[AV1611VET]

A person can't be evolution.
Scientists came up with the ToE using the scientific method. They base their method off evidence, and observable and falsifiable claims. God doesn't meet this criteria and so isn't in the purview of science.

QV please: Post 12

 

[Bradskii]

Can God make a dress tomorrow, so old it falls apart with age?

The question 'why?' is being ignored at every turn. Radioactive decay is part of creation. It's not a surprise to God that the half life of carbon14 is 5,730 years. If He created everything then he determined what it should be. So a rock that is 6,000 years old will appear to be 6,000 years old. No problem. In a million years it could be then determined to be around a million years old. Again, no problem.

But why make a rock that is designed to have within it a radioactive clock and then wind the clock back hundreds of thousands of years so that it appears to be old?

 

[AV1611VET]

And so these discussions about the bible should probably be in the Christian section of this forum so that it doesn't get bogged down with atheists talking about science.

And if we just talk science around here, what would happen?

Let's see:

• Black Hole Paradox Solved: 22 posts
• James Webb Telescope: 83 posts
• James Webb Telescope Updates: 28 posts
  
• Infinity in Math and Eternity: 21 posts
• Brain Studies: 15 posts
• Red Dwarf: 1 post
• Gravity to Store Solar Energy: 20 posts
• Global Warming Consensus: 826 posts!

Are you getting the drift here?

 

[Bradskii]

It makes perfect sense for a God who is both omnipresent and omnipotent and it’s not deceptive at all when He specifically told everyone how long it took to create the earth and the universe. If people refuse to accept what He specifically said that their problem it doesn’t make God deceptive in the least.

So He makes a planet and stars and animals and fish and plants fully formed. All brand new. Plants didn't grow from seeds over decades. Animals didn't take years to grow to maturity. Stars didn't take billions of years to accrete from dust. Heavier elements didn't need to be formed from nuclear reactions within stars. It all happened effectively immediately. One day there was nothing. The next...everything.

But he made the rocks and the mountains and the continents and the stars and the moon and literally every physical aspect of existence appear to be incredibly old. So either every single method of measuring age for literally everything and which overlap to confirm the dates we have is completely wrong. Or God set out to deceive us.

Oh, there's another possibility. I nearly forgot. Or you read a chapter in scripture literally as opposed to metaphorically.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Finally. That was all i asked about in the first place.

In the context that you asked it the previous times it was in reference to people who disagree on the age of the earth. In this last context you asked the question it was in reference to the thickness of the concrete which was varied without any doubt. So there’s a big difference between being able to physically measure the thickness of a slab of concrete as opposed to “predicting” the age of the earth, one is a proven fact the other is a theory supported by evidence.

Have you ever seen the movie called “The Green Mile”? It’s a fact that two girls were murdered. It’s a fact that John Coffee was found holding their dead bodies. It’s a fact that he was found guilty of murdering them. It’s a fact that they executed him for the murder of those two girls. But it’s also a fact that he was innocent and the girls were murdered by another character in the movie. John Coffee was found guilty based on a theory that was supported by evidence but was later found to be innocent despite the overwhelming evidence against him. So does that mean that the people who believed the evidence knew the truth? Does that mean that anyone who believed John Coffee was innocent was a liar because of the evidence stacked against him?

 

[AV1611VET]

But why make a rock that is designed to have within it a radioactive clock and then wind the clock back hundreds of thousands of years so that it appears to be old?

Post 666, ff please.

 

[Bradskii]

...you can’t make a rock in a day that would appear to be made naturally.

But what's with the problem of it being made unnaturally?

You are determined to convince us that everything is indeed unnatural. And you say that He has actually told us in writing that the planet was made unnaturally 6,000 years old. But that for some reason He is determined that it shouldn't look that way.

Why?

 

[atpollard]

Now you changed it, to "special" and "named".

Christians have many many ways of interpreting
what they take to be Gods word.

Perhaps you find your reading more valid than the
story written right into the earth, presumably by the god
you worship?

Non sequitur.

The question was:
Could you be more specific? What in my statement about evolution is not true?

If you have come just to troll for a response, I have no time to waste on you.

 

[atpollard]

It talks about the evolution of humans and all other life forms on life based on observation of evidence.
It is not seeking to contradict the bible or anyone else's religion, it is just derived from physical evidence.

Meh … more half—truths than full truths. “Observation”, “physical” and “evidence” are all a bit strong for what exists for evolution (and I am not even anti-evolution, just skeptical of some of the bigger claims and the leap from micro-evolution to macro-evolution).

 

[sjastro]

And if we just talk science around here, what would happen?

Let's see:

• Black Hole Paradox Solved: 22 posts
• James Webb Telescope: 83 posts
• James Webb Telescope Updates: 28 posts
  
• Infinity in Math and Eternity: 21 posts
• Brain Studies: 15 posts
• Red Dwarf: 1 post
• Gravity to Store Solar Energy: 20 posts
• Global Warming Consensus: 826 posts!

Are you getting the drift here?

If none of these threads had your involvement so much the better.
Turning threads into Bible misquotes so you can bash science and express your pathological hatred of scientists and academics is at the very least off topic.

 

[ottawak]

The Bible states that God created Adam:

• [Genesis 1:27 NASB20] 27 So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
• [Genesis 5:1 NASB20] 1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. On the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God.
• [1 Corinthians 11:9 NASB20] 9 for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake.
• [1 Corinthians 15:45 NASB20] 45 So also it is written: "The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING PERSON." The last Adam [was] a life-giving spirit.
• [1 Timothy 2:13 NASB20] 13 For [it was] Adam [who] was first created, [and] then Eve.

Can a "natural explanation for [THIS] phenomenon" be found that will affirm the truth of the "God-breathed" narrative and support "divine causality"?

A multitude of small changes from Homo Hablis to Homo erectus to Homo heidelbergensis to Homo neanderthalensis to Homo sapien does not support the "God made the first man 'Adam'" narrative. So "a natural explanation" for MAN that includes "divine causality" is likely to do harm to either the given "natural explanation" or the given "divine causality" (or both). It is a laudable goal, but likely one fore-doomed to failure ... like creating a "married bachelor".

Natural causality and divine causality are not mutually exclusive, as has been known since the time of Aristotle and affirmed by Christian theologians like St. Thomas Aquinas. Sorry you missed it. So in fact this discussion, like all others in this forum, is really just about how to read Genesis.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Can God make a dress tomorrow, so old it falls apart with age?

No, but He can make one that falls apart in the exact same manner as one that does so due to age.

Would you know the difference if you saw it?