Why do Christians have trouble with accepting Evolution?

Evolutionism is not science - that is the whole point. Even their own promoters such as Collin Patterson lament the fact that evolutionism is promoted on religious grounds. When we debate the subject - this is the point 'being debated'.

If only one side of the argument is "allowed" on this area of the board (unlike the evolution vs creation area of the board), if we are only allowed to agree with atheist claims that "evolutionism is pure science and Christians that accept the Bible are being opposed to science' -- then the debate has ended ... nothing left to discuss other than condemning us Christians that inexplicably believe the Bible -- no matter that we get our living in the field of science.

There is no statement in the Bible claiming that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. In carefully studying the texts, it seems more likely that there are four sources here later gathered into one by the redactors. When Jesus says that Moses wrote of him, that dos not necessarily men he is assuming Moses wrote the Pentateuch. So again, the issue here isn't the Bible, the issue is whether other here agree with your interpretation.

Paul of Eugene OR said:

Aw c'mon, there's lots of empirical evidence for evolution. Vestiges in your body such as your coccyx, your little toes, your ear wiggling muscles. (There are more).

The observed nested hierarchy of characteristics among species, that is the foundation of species classification and the clear result of inherited variations over millions of years.

Genetic markers that verify common descent, such as the shared exogenous retroviral inserts.

Fossils that show the rise and extinction of forms of life consistent with the theoretical tree of life.



Its a specious argument to claim that only if we watch something can we have evidence that it happened. Thousands of criminals, convicted on mere physical evidence, would love to have had you hang the jury and claim they were innocent due to lack of witnesses. But physical evidence DOES work.



Which is why we repeat the observations. Go back and look for, find, new species. Go back and recheck the genetic analysis, verify by alternate laboratories that the retroviral inserts exist and show common descent. Analyze more bodies, confirm that hey, people really do have those vestigial ear wiggling muscles.

Click to expand...

All you need do is to show me how life created itself and how the universe created itself. It's just that simple. BTW every one of your arguments has no bearing on what I stated. They are in fact erroneous unfounded claims. The fact is species go extinct but never were observed coming into existence.

Paul of Eugene OR said:

Your doctor will advise you, when prescribing antibiotics, to finish the whole course. Why? Because of evolution. The bacteria in your body may evolve resistance, .

Click to expand...

IF that were the actual substance of evolution - it would be science.

instead evolution is the by-faith-alone statement that a pile of dirt will sure enough turn into a rabbit given a sufficiently large pile of dirt and a sufficiently long period of time (And of course a truck load of just-so stories to go with it).

If all-the-world would LIMIT the definition of "evolution" to - "bacteria become resistant to some drug over time" - then the entire OP is meaningless - and we all know it.

But in evolutionism - the prokaryote will one day turn into eukaryote - no matter that over the millions of generations that we have observed - that never happens "in real life".

the debate is between "real life" and a doctrine on origins found in evolutionism that is totally at war with the Bible - in fact -- with the Gospel.

BornAgainChristian1 said:

All you need do is to show me how life created itself and how the universe created itself. It's just that simple.

Click to expand...

Not if they are willing to downsize the scope of the term so that it only references bacteria developing resistance to a drug over time. In that case - THAT form of "Evolution" is fully compatible with the Bible. AND it is observable science.

But the "pile of dirt will turn into a horse over time - given a sufficiently large pile of dirt and a sufficiently long period of time" form of evolution -- is not "observed to be true" it is blind faith, it is religion, it is evolutionISM.

I understand that, BornAgain. However, those who affirm divine omnipotence think otherwise.

Hoghead1 said:

BornAgain, I still say you are being most disrespectful with your "opponents." The fact that a fellow Christian may not share your particular views does not mean they are an atheist. You should at least have the courtesy to ask a person what they believe, before you attack them.

Click to expand...

You could have the courtesy to use the regular reply method when responding to posts. Do you see that thing at the right hand bottom which says "reply"? Please use it, thank you.

BobRyan said:

Not if they are willing to downsize the scope of the term so that it only references bacteria developing resistance to a drug over time. In that case - THAT form of "Evolution" is fully compatible with the Bible. AND it is observable science.

But the "pile of dirt will turn into a horse over time - given a sufficiently large pile of dirt and a sufficiently long period of time" form of evolution -- is not "observed to be true" it is blind faith, it is religion, it is evolutionISM.

Click to expand...

What they call "evolution" with bacteria I call adaption because something living can't introduce new genetic codes/information but rather turns on and off already existing genes.

Hoghead1 said:

Biblical truth isn't the issue here, BornAgain. Your interpretation of the Bible, God, science is. I have pointed that out a number of times to you. You have simply stated your own, homespun belief

Click to expand...

Totally false.

What is true - is that you have already declared your own home-spun version of Christianity does not include acceptance of the virgin birth or miracles in the Bible. You are free to such 'views' but a number of your own fellow T.E.'s have posted that the sort of Christianity you are promoting - is not at all what they wish to support - though I frankly agree with you on one key point. Your position is the logical conclusion for belief in evolutionism.

Your position that the only part of the Bible that can be true - is that part which an atheist would not have a problem with -- is in fact the very model that belief evolution requires when it comes to evolutionism's doctrine on origins.

Extraneous said:

You could have the courtesy to use the regular reply method when resounding to posts. Do you see that thing at the right hand bottom which says "reply"? Please use it, thank you.

Click to expand...

It's funny how he touts to others about the rules but can't seem to post a reply correctly.

We can all agree that actual science has made a lot of progress over the past 150 years.

But in what branch of science do we find statements like this -- lamenting the junk-science nature of their field?

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..."

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

Now on this thread we are being "told" to equivocate between blind faith evolutionism - and ... 'Gravity' and 'the law of thermodynamics'. AS IF our top scientists today ALSO come out saying "the law of thermodynamics conveys no knowledge.. in fact it seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge. apparent knowledge that is harmful to physics".

AS IF our top scientists today would say "Gravity --and the gravitational constant so near and dear to science text books today - NEVER HAPPENED in nature".

REALLY?? That is what you see happening???

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

Thus the perfect contrast was given - exposing that sort of "equivocation" as was attempted trying to get evolutionism in the "legit box" of science - that has Gravity and Thermodynamics in it

I once believed in evolution, I was once an athiest, I once thought that only dumb people dont believe in evolution. Then my eyes where opend and I realised just how stupid evolution is. There is littraly NO prufe of evolution, they have only ever discoverd about 200 complete dinosaur bones. They have descoverd about 500 individual dinosaur samples. If evolution was real then there would be a hell of a lot more! We would be finding them all the time! There would have to have been 100s and BILLIONs of dinosaurs to make evolution even a little bit possible, and we have found about 500! I listen to plenty of people who know more about this then I do and it just makes sence that evolution isnt real. Just as much as evolution probably sounds real to you.

Chgz said:

I once believed in evolution, I was once an athiest, I once thought that only dumb people dont believe in evolution. Then my eyes where opend and I realised just how stupid evolution is. There is littraly NO prufe of evolution, they have only ever discoverd about 200 complete dinosaur bones. They have descoverd about 500 individual dinosaur samples. If evolution was real then there would be a hell of a lot more! We would be finding them all the time! There would have to have been 100s and BILLIONs of dinosaurs to make evolution even a little bit possible, and we have found about 500! I listen to plenty of people who know more about this then I do and it just makes sence that evolution isnt real. Just as much as evolution probably sounds real to you.

Click to expand...

Dinosaurs are supposedly millions of years old (supposedly), and they find fossils for them, yet they cant find missing link fossils anywhere. WHat they do have are not actually missing links.

Chgz said:

I once believed in evolution, I was once an athiest, I once thought that only dumb people dont believe in evolution. Then my eyes where opend and I realised just how stupid evolution is. There is littraly NO prufe of evolution, they have only ever discoverd about 200 complete dinosaur bones.

Click to expand...

So then you gave up the notion that "a pile of dirt will sure enough turn into a rabbit over time -- given a sufficiently large pile of dirt and a sufficiently long period of time -- plus a lot of just-so stories"? Nice!

And think of it this way -- atheist evolutionism has the worst upside - and the worst downside - it combines the worst of all possibilities!.

The worst upside - because in the end all the atheist evolutionist claims he will get - is a "hole in ground". And he readily offers that same wonderful atheist 'ending' to all believing Christians. In that atheist world-view we do not suffer some "bad outcome" in the grave if we die as a Christian but all there is for us - is "that same hole-in-ground" ending.

The worst downside of course is the Rev 20 "lake of fire" combined with a false belief in a junk-science about a pile of dirt turning into a horse (as your doctrine on origins) rather than the Bible statement on origins of rabbits and horses.

Hoghead1 said:

There is no statement in the Bible claiming that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. .

Click to expand...

Until you read the actual Bible - in places like Mark 7:6-13.

BornAgainChristian1 said:

All you need do is to show me how life created itself and how the universe created itself. It's just that simple. BTW every one of your arguments has no bearing on what I stated. They are in fact erroneous unfounded claims. The fact is species go extinct but never were observed coming into existence.

Click to expand...

? why should I have to show "life created itself"? Life certainly appeared, somehow, we can't deny that, and once life appeared, evolution started happening. Its just that simple.

Species never observed coming into existence? What, in your eyes, would actually constitute observation of species coming into existence? I realize you can continue to deny, deny, deny in spite of the evidence. I merely need to point that out for our readers.

Here's a link showing some observed new species coming along:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Paul of Eugene OR said:

? why should I have to show "life created itself"? Life certainly appeared, somehow, we can't deny that

Click to expand...

If we had no Bible - how might we imagine that life came about? (Oh no wait! We get the Christian option of having a Bible!)

Once all the basic kinds were created - evolution started happening - bacteria began adapting to their environment so they could "eat different things for breakfast" and could survive in different environments.

But dirt was not turning into rabbits - (we already had rabbits -- see Genesis 1) and prokaryote bacteria were not turning into eukaryote amoebas - we already had amoebas.

Extraneous said:

Dinosaurs are supposedly millions of years old (supposedly), and they find fossils for them, yet they cant find missing link fossils anywhere. WHat they do have are not actually missing links.

Click to expand...

Its an error to say we can't find missing links. We have lots of linking fossils. Of course, if you want to quibble, all the links that we DO have are, by definition, no longer missing.

Wikipedia has a nice list of linking fossils

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

I wish we wouldn't drag this carnal worldly junk into our biblical studies. WE only add more carnal things rather than spiritual ones. I don't need to agree with the world because they will never agree with the resurrection anyway. My mind is set on spiritual things, not worldly things, and its a constant battle at times to remember that. Politics, science, and other forms of mans wisdom and religion, these things are not spiritual. Not that science is wrong all the time, but when it comes in conflict with spiritual things then its time to treat it as rubbish. Our fight is one of faith, and it spiritual not carnal. Our weapons are spiritual as well. I would take the spiritual sword and slay this carnal monstrosity known as ToE. Treat it like Goliath and kill it. Its only a giant who mocks God In the end, its like a deep pit, a harlot, and all who go there reside with the dead. Do we want faith? Look at spiritual things rather than carnal. Set your mind on things above, not things on the earth. Colossians 3, Philippians 3

BobRyan said:

If we had no Bible - how might we imagine that life came about? (Oh no wait! We get the Christian option of having a Bible!)

Once all the basic kinds were created - evolution started happening - bacteria began adapting to their environment so they could "eat different things for breakfast" and could survive in different environments.

But dirt was not turning into rabbits - (we already had rabbits -- see Genesis 1) and prokaryote bacteria were not turning into eukaryote amoebas - we already had amoebas.

Click to expand...

Alas, the idea of "basic kinds" has never been defined, and therefore cannot be considered a serious concept.