Why are some Christians anti Evolution?

[AV1611VET]

Perhaps it's late where you are. I'm sure you'll see this more clearly after a good sleep.

Thank you (and TLK) for the correction.

I fixed it in my post.

I'm glad you guys caught that.

See -- you're learning!

 

[Astrid]

That's almost right. The sun and the stars are in a rather awkward position in that list, but otherwise, not too bad. I was actually going quite open minded into this one. It would have been very exciting if whales was the first on the list, but trees coming before Sun and stars is certainly a conversation starter.


Whelp, even I got that one right.



The bible actually talks about entropy??? or did you just make that last bit up?
You can admit to it, it's not a big deal.

When I googled Shekinah I found the following

Shekhinah: Energy of the Divine Feminine — At The Well
Shekhinah takes female pronouns and offers many unique images of the Divine that evoke traditionally female-gendered characteristics. It is said that the Shekhinah “dwelt in” the Holy Temple in Jerusalem in days of our ancestors. Since the Temple’s destruction, Shekhinah spirit now dwells amongst the Jewish people in diaspora. The Shekhinah’s presence is also connected to other female-gendered aspects of the Divine, including Mother Earth, the Sabbath Queen, and definitely the guiding light of the moon.

Shekhinah - Wikipedia
The shekhinah is the English transliteration of a Hebrew word meaning "dwelling" or "settling" and denotes the dwelling or settling of the divine presence of God.

This term does not occur in the Bible, and is from rabbinic literature.

I found this second article quite shocking though.
"This term does not occur in the Bible, and is from rabbinic literature."

So in light of this discovery I have to ask. Has your answer been approved by the rest of your church organisation? Is it acceptable to seek answers from rabbinic literature?



I know the song, and it's the whole world in his hands, not just the sea water.

Really, "Photosynthesis" is mentioned in the bible?


That's a pretty obvious one. But I still stand by my own answer, especially because when Earth first came to be a full rotation was much less than 24 hours.



I'm sure some smart aleck in your class is going to point out the distinction between magicians and illusionists. Harry Potter is a wizard (a type of magician), David Copperfield is an illusionist. Only one of these two does magic, the other does illusions which look like magic but aren't.

So I think here my answer is correct and yours is wrong.


That's consistent with my answer. We are both right here <gives virtual high five>


Never heard of the three heavens.

Kinda similar to the Chinese three domains though
Living in the Chinese Cosmos | Asia for Educators
According to Chinese popular religion, there are three domains in the cosmos — Heaven, Earth, and the Underworld — and each domain is populated by a host of important gods and goddesses. The Heavenly Domain is ruled by the Jade Emperor, who presides over a court of important deities who are worshipped throughout China. Human beings who have lived exemplary lives can enter this domain after death by crossing the “the silver bridge” and being reborn as gods.

I never really was taught anything about folk religion,
coz mom is so allergic to religion of any kind.

 

[stevil]

I never really was taught anything about folk religion,
coz mom is so allergic to religion of any kind.

It's kinda interesting, I certainly would recommend Richard Dawkins The Magic of Reality. It's an interesting and fun read.
He talks about various things. e.g. Rainbows and he talks about a mythology explanation for the rainbow and he also presents the science explanation.
He refers to many different mythology explanations for things, not just Christian and his science explanations are done in a colourful and interesting way. So its not just dry science.
So side by side the science sounds just as interesting and consumable as the myth stories.

 

[stevil]

Thank you (and TLK) for the correction.

I fixed it in my post.

I'm glad you guys caught that.

See -- you're learning!

We are learning together, all of us.

 

[stevil]

Romans 8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

From the Defender's Study Bible footnotes on Romans 8:21, author Henry M. Morris:

"Corruption" is equivalent to "decay," and this is yet another way of stating the entropy principle. Everything tends to decay, running down from a created state of organized complexity to one of randomness and disorganized chaos. This law is thus called a "bondage;" the universe is enslaved by it, and there is no natural principle available to supersede it. Such a law is clearly the exact converse of the notion of evolution, which views the universe as gradually organizing itself over long ages by natural processes into its present state of high complexity and activity."

I've gotta say I find taking the phrase "Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God." to mean the same as "For a spontaneous process, the entropy of the universe increases." seems a bit of a stretch.

However, I also find "For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now" is a bit over the top. Perhaps they were talking about whinging POMs??? I tend to focus on the bright side of things, I don't tend to dwell on things that aren't going exactly the way I would want it to.
I would say that life is full of joy and opportunity but often met with twists, turns and challenges just to add some variety.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Oy vey!

View attachment 314401

Yeah -- It's unfortunate.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Thank you (and TLK) for the correction.

I fixed it in my post.

I'm glad you guys caught that.

See -- you're learning!

 

[TLK Valentine]

We are learning together, all of us.

Indeed -- but to be fair, the fact that creationism is pseudoscience which relies on pseudointellectual jargon in vain attempts to pass itself off as the genuine article was (I would hope) already well known.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'm sure some smart aleck in your class is going to point out the distinction between magicians and illusionists. Harry Potter is a wizard (a type of magician), David Copperfield is an illusionist. Only one of these two does magic, the other does illusions which look like magic but aren't.

"'Real magic' refers to the magic that is not real; while the magic that is real, that can actually be done, is not real magic" Lee Siegel

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

From the Defender's Study Bible footnotes on Romans 8:21, author Henry M. Morris:

"Corruption" is equivalent to "decay," and this is yet another way of stating the entropy principle. Everything tends to decay, running down from a created state of organized complexity to one of randomness and disorganized chaos. This law is thus called a "bondage;" the universe is enslaved by it, and there is no natural principle available to supersede it. Such a law is clearly the exact converse of the notion of evolution, which views the universe as gradually organizing itself over long ages by natural processes into its present state of high complexity and activity."

Henry M. Morris clearly had no idea what he was talking about.

If you like, I can explain why.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Henry M. Morris clearly had no idea what he was talking about.

If you like, I can explain why.

Explain it anyway; you know AV's not going to like it.

 

[ottawak]

Romans 8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

From the Defender's Study Bible footnotes on Romans 8:21, author Henry M. Morris:

"Corruption" is equivalent to "decay," and this is yet another way of stating the entropy principle. Everything tends to decay, running down from a created state of organized complexity to one of randomness and disorganized chaos. This law is thus called a "bondage;" the universe is enslaved by it, and there is no natural principle available to supersede it. Such a law is clearly the exact converse of the notion of evolution, which views the universe as gradually organizing itself over long ages by natural processes into its present state of high complexity and activity."

So not the Bible itself, but something Morris added to the Bible. You know, I hope, what the Bible itself has to say about adding to Scripture.

 

[AV1611VET]

Indeed -- but to be fair, the fact that creationism is pseudoscience ...

No, it isn't.

It isn't pseudoscience, fauxscience, or even junk science.

It isn't science at all.

It is a series of miracles over a six-day period that raised the level of mass/energy from zero to what it is today.

 

[TLK Valentine]

No, it isn't.

It isn't pseudoscience, fauxscience, or even junk science.

It isn't science at all.

It is a series of miracles over a six-day period that raised the level of mass/energy from zero to what it is today.

And yet you use pseudoscientific language in your effort to give it the illusion of credibility.

Physician, heal thyself.

 

[AV1611VET]

And yet you use pseudoscientific language in your effort to give it the illusion of credibility.

What? you mean I use the terms "creatio ex niihilo" and "creatio ex materia" to differentiate between how God created the universe?

Would you rather I not make that differentiation and say He just spoke it into existence as documented?

And if you say YES, then how would YOU differentiate between matter coming from absolute nothingness and matter coming from preexisting mass/energy?

 

[TLK Valentine]

What? you mean I use the terms "creatio ex niihilo" and "creatio ex materia" to differentiate between how God created the universe?

Not what I had in mind... those terms you (might) be sincere about knowing and understanding.

I was thinking more about entropy and the mass/energy ratio of the universe...

Would you rather I not make that differentiation and say He just spoke it into existence as documented?

If you cared about sincerity, you'd be doing it already.

And if you say YES, then how would YOU differentiate between matter coming from absolute nothingness and matter coming from preexisting mass/energy?

I'd do it without pseudoscientific jargon... but then again, I'm sincere in my beliefs.

 

[stevil]

And yet you use pseudoscientific language in your effort to give it the illusion of credibility.

Physician, heal thyself.

I agree whole heartedly with this.
If you are going to do pure Creationism then you shouldn't be using words such as "photosynthesis", "entropy", "universe" these are not mentioned in the bible.

Nor should you be throwing in terms such as "open system/closed system" or "Shekinah energy". These are also not mentioned or explained in the bible. They are simply not biblical.
They are embellishments awkwardly inserted to try to merge biblical understanding into other human realms such as science and rabbinic theology. Although I understand your intent is innocent, embellishing the bible is actually a way of corrupting the bible and in essence it is detracting from and twisting the very word of god. It is working against god rather than sharing the word of god.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Explain it anyway; you know AV's not going to like it.

OK - Henry M. Morris clearly had no idea what he was talking about because of his ignorance of thermodynamics (a charitable interpretation)

 

[AV1611VET]

If you are going to do pure Creationism then you shouldn't be using words such as "photosynthesis", "entropy", "universe" these are not mentioned in the bible.

Why don't you just say you don't know the answers and make yourself look good?

 

[stevil]

Why don't you just say you don't know the answers and make yourself look good?

I don't care about looking good. I gave my best attempt at answering your questions, they are there for all to see. I got a few right, probably most wrong. I don't know the bible. I freely admit that. I don't know creationism. But I am learning from this thread that creationist need to stick to what is literally in the bible, but it seems you are going above and beyond. So I am confussed on this aspect. Please explain.