Why are some Christians anti Evolution?

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

No they are the result of the flood

There's no way a flood can account for the patterns of fossils, even if you tried to claim that each global extinction event was due to a separate global flood...

 

[stevil]

Then why did you make such an egregious error here:
Could it be that your attitude towards Genesis 1 being mythical, coupled with your attitude that certain terms are "pseudoscience," that it has clouded your thinking?

When you are claiming that the bible talks about photosynthesis and entropy, then you are wandering into the promised land of pseudo science.

 

[stevil]

Yes I do actually it’s called common sense. Let’s say your going to measure the circumference of a cup that has a lip or brim on it with a string, do you realize how difficult it would be to measure the circumference of the brim compared to the edge right below the brim? You’d have to hold that string in about 50 different points to measure the brim, why not just measure right below the brim it’s much easier to do? That solves the math problem you presented in 1 Kings 7 perfectly and makes perfect logical sense at the same time.

How long is a piece of string?
How wide is the breadth of a hand?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I really don't think their problem is with the math.

It's a much deeper one.

Much deeper.

And wider..

 

[stevil]

Too much education getting in your way.

That seems to be the crux of it.
Education, knowledge, evidence gets in the way of a literal interpretation of the bible.

Does this mean if someone wants to maintain their belief in a literal interpretation that they then must lead a simple life where they avoid education, knowledge and evidence which comes from outside the bible?

 

[AV1611VET]

That seems to be the crux of it.
Education, knowledge, evidence gets in the way of a literal interpretation of the bible.

Does this mean if someone wants to maintain their belief in a literal interpretation that they then must lead a simple life where they avoid education, knowledge and evidence which comes from outside the bible?

No.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Sure.
Creatio ex nihilo = creation from absolute nothingness.
Valentine: God created animals in Genesis 1 and 2.
Bible: Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Creatio ex materia = creation from preexisting matter/energy.
Valentine: God created Earth in Genesis 1.
Bible: Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Fair enough -- I misremembered "the Earth was without form and void..." As being pre-existing. I should've known God would've had to go back and do it right.

 

[stevil]

So just saying "God did it" is good enough for you?

I'm not a believer in god. I'm just saying that a person who revers the book and insists on a literal reading, well they shouldn't embellish, they should stick only to what the bible says. If it doesn't say something, they shouldn't just make up an answer, they should be happy just to say, the bible doesn't tell us the details on that.

 

[TLK Valentine]

When you are claiming that the bible talks about photosynthesis and entropy, then you are wandering into the promised land of pseudo science.

More like "down the garden path."

 

[TLK Valentine]

No.

But it helps.

 

[stevil]

No.

Can you then explain your comment of "too much education getting in your way"
How does too much education become a problem here?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Everybody kows that. And that you made up
the 0.08 and how it was derived.
Are you being deliberately evasive about the
question about what it means that the bible says
some things that are not accurate?

No I didn’t make up the .08”. 1 cubit is 18” 10 cubits is 180” minus the 4” lip or rim on both sides leaves 172” multiplied by pi 3:14 is exactly 540.08 now the circumference was 30 cubits multiplied by 18 equals exactly 540”. That’s how I derived at a .08” discrepancy. It’s not perfect but it’s close enough to call reasonably accurate.

 

[BNR32FAN]

There's no way a flood can account for the patterns of fossils, even if you tried to claim that each global extinction event was due to a separate global flood...

When different sediments of different densities are stirred up in liquid then settle they will form several layers. Not just one layer.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not a believer in god. I'm just saying that a person who revers the book and insists on a literal reading, well they shouldn't embellish, they should stick only to what the bible says. If it doesn't say something, they shouldn't just make up an answer, they should be happy just to say, the bible doesn't tell us the details on that.

Then you run into people who can't reconcile how Judas died, so then they claim the Bible contradicts Itself.

Sometimes filling in the gaps can help a person understand better.

And in case you haven't seen them before, here are my standards I use in my apologetics:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

 

[AV1611VET]

More like "down the garden path."

What path do you take?

 

[BNR32FAN]

In nature when the rocks are formed they are composed of a particular isotope.
Over time the isotopes decay at a consistent rate. So some of them change to a different isotope.
The scientists can tell how old the rock is by checking how much of a percentage of the rock is of the decayed isotope.
So in essence, when the rock is new it is shiny (shiny meaning, composed of a particular isotope) and overtime it gradually decays into a different isotope (losses its shine).
If God created the rocks the way that nature creates them then gods rocks are going to be composed as shiny (with the original isotope) and it would take time for these atoms to decay. Scientists measure how much decay has happened, they know the rate of decay (the half life) and so they can work out how much time has passed since the rock first formed.

If god wanted to make his new rocks to look old, then god would have had to make rocks that are already decayed. God would have had to make his rocks differently to what happens naturally. God would have had to have put already decayed isotopes into his new rocks.
Let's just say that god did this. Now because of this detail that god did, it makes scientists think the rocks are millions of years old. Scientists date things based on many different methods and everything comes together consistently to tell a consistent story. This means, that if god did it, then god was very careful to construct a planet and universe to make it look consistently old, to tell a story for scientists to discover. Scientists aren't making stuff up, they are discovering this story that god is telling. Isn't it fascinating that god left this message for us and that scientists are discovering god's message?

It takes millions of years for sediment to become rock. So even a brand new rock is going to look millions of years old.

 

[BNR32FAN]

How long is a piece of string?
How wide is the breadth of a hand?

How long is a piece of string today?

Approximately 4”

 

[Astrid]

No I didn’t make up the .08”. 1 cubit is 18” 10 cubits is 180” minus the 4” lip or rim on both sides leaves 172” multiplied by pi 3:14 is exactly 540.08 now the circumference was 30 cubits multiplied by 18 equals exactly 540”. That’s how I derived at a .08” discrepancy. It’s not perfect but it’s close enough to call reasonably accurate.

The assumptions behind the numbers are not

 

[Astrid]

It takes millions of years for sediment to become rock. So even a brand new rock is going to look millions of years old.

I thought you said it happens in a day.

 

[eleos1954]

Evolution does not approach the topic of redemption, does not seek to diminish the achievements of people by classifying humans as great apes. It is just a classification, it isn't an insult nor is it any indication that humans are any less than they are.
Evolution does not teach that humans are made in the image and likeness of god.

I don't actually even know what that means "made in the image and likeness of god"
If a god doesn't eat, doesn't reproduce, then a god would have no need for teeth, mouth, digestive system, anus, sex organs. If a god doesn't walk then there is no need for arms or legs.
I understand that the Christian belief has Jesus as a man and a god. But before god was on Earth in physical form, why would the god need teeth, mouth, lungs, heart etc???

Being made in His image don't mean physical image .... we were made with the same type of character as He (perfect in the beginning) but after the fall of mankind now our character (image) is flawed because of sin and sin is transgression of God law and that is why planet earth is in such a mess.