Why are some Christians anti Evolution?

[AV1611VET]

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?

No.

 

[ottawak]

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...

Disparaging the word of God happens only rarely in this forum. Disregarding a literal reading of Genesis happens quite frequently--not the same thing at all.

 

[ottawak]

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).

There is no leap, just gradual change. The way the term is used by biologists, "macro-evolution" begins with speciation--which has been observed.

 

[TLK Valentine]

No.

Thanks for the QED.

 

[SelfSim]

Post 666, ff please.

Now that's a nasty post number .. if ever there was one, eh?

 

[Bradskii]

Post 666, ff please.

The question has been asked because a sufficiently relevant or comprehensive answer to this question hasn't been given. I've read the whole thread so without bouncing around a dozen pages or so looking for what I guarantee will be a one sentence answer by you that you feel is a fait accompli, I'll simply ask again.

If God designed carbon 14 to have a half life of a few thousand years, why are some rocks containing carbon 14 determined to be older than 6,000 years? Carbon 14 doesn't 'need' to have the half life as it does.

The problem is not that rocks need certain characteristics that only come with age. God is omnipotent. He can do as He pleases. So he made rocks that have the characteristics of being very old. Just like I can make a new whisky that has the characteristics of an old one. But why include in those rocks an element that tells us it's not new? Why not start the radioactive clock from the moment it was created?

 

[BNR32FAN]

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.

I could if God created the rocks naturally and simply sped up the process so that it could be completed in a day.

 

[BNR32FAN]

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.

What does a brand new sedimentary rock look like? How could you possibly have a sedimentary rock that looks like it was made in 1 day? If God created sedimentary rocks in 1 day it’s not entirely implausible that it would appear to be millions of years old. And God wouldn’t be deceptive because He specifically told everyone when He did it and how long it took.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I could if God created the rocks naturally and simply sped up the process so that it could be completed in a day.

How does one speed up the process naturally?

 

[Bradskii]

What does a brand new sedimentary rock look like? How could you possibly have a sedimentary rock that looks like it was made in 1 day? If God created sedimentary rocks in 1 day it’s not entirely implausible that it would appear to be millions of years old. And God wouldn’t be deceptive because He specifically told everyone when He did it and how long it took.

I have no problem with that. The whole creation event was unnatural. Plants and animals don't naturally come into existence fully formed. Adam woul have had a thirty year old body when he was formed. No problem. Trees would be decades old. No problem.

But God included into all living things a clock. That tells us when they were formed. Not their apparent age. So why say 'I made this today but I'm going to set the clock so it says I made it a million years ago'.

Why?

 

[SelfSim]

What does a brand new sedimentary rock look like? How could you possibly have a sedimentary rock that looks like it was made in 1 day? If God created sedimentary rocks in 1 day it’s not entirely implausible that it would appear to be millions of years old. And God wouldn’t be deceptive because He specifically told everyone when He did it and how long it took.

and he then made humans with eyes and a brain that 'see' something other than what's in front of them and gave them no way of distinguihing between the apparent age and the non-apparent age?
Same question: Why?

 

[AV1611VET]

Now that's a nasty post number .. if ever there was one, eh?

I gotta admit, it took me by surprise!

 

[stevil]

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).

There is no leap from micro evolution to macro evolution. It is all microevolution all the way.

 

[AV1611VET]

The question has been asked because a sufficiently relevant or comprehensive answer to this question hasn't been given. I've read the whole thread so without bouncing around a dozen pages or so looking for what I guarantee will be a one sentence answer by you that you feel is a fait accompli, I'll simply ask again.

If God designed carbon 14 to have a half life of a few thousand years, why are some rocks containing carbon 14 determined to be older than 6,000 years? Carbon 14 doesn't 'need' to have the half life as it does.

The problem is not that rocks need certain characteristics that only come with age. God is omnipotent. He can do as He pleases. So he made rocks that have the characteristics of being very old. Just like I can make a new whisky that has the characteristics of an old one. But why include in those rocks an element that tells us it's not new? Why not start the radioactive clock from the moment it was created?

I don't know.

 

[stevil]

Post 666, ff please.

LOL, there is some Irony here.

 

[Bradskii]

I don't know.

So you see no reason for God telling us one thing about rocks in what was written on his behalf and then Him telling us another thing in the actual design of the rock. It makes no sense to you. Me neither.

Now this just doesn't concern a few rocks. This concerns every physical feature of existence. Literally everything. The totality of creation. Because we have methods for determining the age of literally anything. Using scores, if not hundreds of methods that overlap and correlate. All checked and rechecked and confirmed by literally countless experiments and observations by scientists without number over hundreds of years.

Now we have a decision to make. You say you have no idea why the age of everything in the universe that God designed shows it to be vastly older than 6,000 years old. And there are two options. Either every single scientist, every single experiment, every single observation, all the available evidence, every theory that we have, all information gathered over hundreds of years in scientific areas such as geology, astronomy, physics, evolutionary biology etc etc etc is wrong...or you are taking an explanation of the act of creation, written by people a couple of thousand years ago in a book which is replete with parables and metaphors, who had zero idea of the science needed to make even a rough guess at actual ages and reading it literally.

Now if you had a reasonable person with average intelligence with a basic understanding of how and when the bible was written and had a basic grasp of scientific principles but didn't really have a dog in the fight as to which option was the correct one, which do you honestly think she would choose?

 

[ottawak]

What does a brand new sedimentary rock look like? How could you possibly have a sedimentary rock that looks like it was made in 1 day? If God created sedimentary rocks in 1 day it’s not entirely implausible that it would appear to be millions of years old. And God wouldn’t be deceptive because He specifically told everyone when He did it and how long it took.

No, not everyone. He only "told" people who read Genesis literally.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Now we have a decision to make. You say you have no idea why the age of everything in the universe that God designed shows it to be vastly older than 6,000 years old. And there are two options. Either every single scientist, every single experiment, every single observation, all the available evidence, every theory that we have, all information gathered over hundreds of years in scientific areas such as geology, astronomy, physics, evolutionary biology etc etc etc is wrong...or you are taking an explanation of the act of creation, written by people a couple of thousand years ago in a book which is replete with parables and metaphors, who had zero idea of the science needed to make even a rough guess at actual ages and reading it literally.

Now if you had a reasonable person with average intelligence with a basic understanding of how and when the bible was written and had a basic grasp of scientific principles but didn't really have a dog in the fight as to which option was the correct one, which do you honestly think she would choose?

AV being AV, however, may pick the third option -- that God deliberately falsified the "apparent" age of the universe and literally everything in it as a test of faith... because only an unquestioning belief in the absolute literalism of the Book of Genesis is sufficient for a Christian.

 

[atpollard]

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.

Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas affirmed the evolution of Adam rather than a special act of creation? Yes, I missed that.

 

[AV1611VET]

LOL, there is some Irony here.

Yupper!