Why are some Christians anti Evolution?

[ottawak]

There is evidence that other primates can assess the consequences of their acts, both prospectively and retrospectively. IOW, they know that social transgression will invite retribution or punishment and will prepare for that, and they can learn from the results of social transgression how to better prepare for the consequences next time (form alliances, have more than one escape route, etc). The same applies to risky non-transgressive behaviours, such as challenging the alpha male.

Of course, but from the standpoint of the Genesis etiology, an abrupt transition has more literary utility than gradual development--even assuming the author(s) knew such a thing was possible.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

The behaviours are what I thought we were focused on though .. which is why I referred to 'predatorial instincts and survival instincts', being present in the context of 'a war'.

Ok. The core of my belief is humans are not animals. Contrary to evolutionists. This is my last post. Thanks for engaging!

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Yes we do. Do you not know of the instincts that humans are born with?

Moro, Gallant, Rooting? Are you unfamiliar with those?

Ok. The core of my belief is humans are not animals. Contrary to evolutionists. This is my last post. Thanks for engaging!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Of course, but from the standpoint of the Genesis etiology, an abrupt transition has more literary utility than gradual development--even assuming the author(s) knew such a thing was possible.

Sure - it's just one more reason not to take it literally.

 

[RDKirk]

The real reason is they do not believe that Genesis can be rightly interpreted in any way that deviates from the Earth being created within 144 hours around (roughly) 5782 years ago. An attack on that interpretation to them is an attack on the faith itself, because they consider their method of interpretation to be foundational to the faith.

That is a dependence on knowing the scripture rather than knowing the Author if the scripture.

I wonder if there is a correlation between scripture fundamentalism and cessationism.

 

[Sketcher]

That is a dependence on knowing the scripture rather than knowing the Author if the scripture.

I wonder if there is a correlation between scripture fundamentalism and cessationism.

I don't believe so. I don't see the correlation between belief in evolution and the charismatic movement, which I would expect to see if that were so.

 

[RDKirk]

I don't believe so. I don't see the correlation between belief in evolution and the charismatic movement, which I would expect to see if that were so.

Point, yours.

 

[stevil]

Maybe you should have told him that your god would bring him back to life, forgive him for not believing, and welcome him into eternal bliss - then you could have asked him which was the most merciful, forgiving, and loving god

I don't have a god, and he knew I was an atheist.
I'm pretty sure he was a believer because he was taught that he must be a believer in order to get eternal life. So if I said what you suggest, then it is win/win for him.
He believes in his god, if he is right he goes to heaven but if he is wrong and "my" god is the real one, he still goes to heaven.
I don't think he really cares about which is the most merciful, forgiving or loving. And I don't think he is capable of thinking anything other than what he has been indoctrinated with.

I told him that without evidence how are we to pick which god to believe in? I said it seems like random luck, and that the god seems to be rewarding the lucky ones for no reason other than luck. Like we may as well be blindfolded and throw a dart at a dartboard with each segment representing one of the many gods and then just believe in that god and then maybe we get lucky. He considered his god to be perfect and just in rewarding the lucky ones and killing the unlucky ones.
I obviously can't make sense of this way of thinking.

 

[stevil]

There is cessation of life for all creatures and has always been, but death as such can only come to those creatures with enough self-aware intelligence to make them capable of contemplating their own mortality. Likewise, that self-aware intelligence allows them to contmplate the consequences of their acts, which is what makes "sin" possible. That is how sin and death entered the world as a consequence of eating the symbolic fruit.

That's putting a new definition on the word "death", but I understand what you are saying, and this makes more sense than what others are saying. Albeit with a changed definition of the common word "death" resulting in an unremarkable and untestable difference between Adam and Eve from before or after the original sin.

But the English translation of the bible says
"in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die."
and as far as I understand it Adam and Eve did not die on that day.

 

[stevil]

I don't mind explaining.
As soon as Adam ate, both of them died spiritually.

Man is body, soul (mind) and spirit.
God then pronounced the curse, part of which was "from dust you were made to dust you will return" and he also said this is "because you listened to your wife and disobeyed"
It wasn't happening before that. We get old and die and the body returns to dust because of Adam's sin.

The Christian faith, while alive on earth is only about the spiritual side, the spirit coming to life. The body coming back to life happens later at the return of Christ.
1 Corinthians 15:52
In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
Then those who alive at the time of the second coming
Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air:
This is the bodily change from a body that dies to a body that is immortal.

Later everyone else is raised and there is the white throne judgment.
12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death.

The second death is the obliteration of body, soul and spirit in the lake of fire and that doesn't take place until a thousand years after the return of Christ.

Thanks for taking the time to post that.
Is there evidence in the bible of creatures doing things before the fall that will ordinarily result in physical death however no death happens?
If Adam and Eve were in Eden before the fall, why would Adam and Eve need to eat? Why would they need teeth? Doesn't this seem wasteful if there is no death?

 

[stevil]

There's no evidence from the Bible that any person or any animal died before the curse.

Is there evidence in the bible that creatures survived events before the fall that we now deem to be unsurvivable events?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Maybe you should have told him that your god would bring him back to life, forgive him for not believing, and welcome him into eternal bliss - then you could have asked him which was the most merciful, forgiving, and loving god

That’s a common misconception about hell amongst nonbelievers, that there will be partying and drinking and drugs and naked girls poolside, when the truth is there won’t be anything except torment in a lake of fire. If they would only take a chance and accept Christ they wouldn’t desire those things anymore.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Thanks for taking the time to post that.
Is there evidence in the bible of creatures doing things before the fall that will ordinarily result in physical death however no death happens?
If Adam and Eve were in Eden before the fall, why would Adam and Eve need to eat? Why would they need teeth? Doesn't this seem wasteful if there is no death?

We will eat and drink in heaven perhaps for pleasure and fellowship purposes.

 

[SelfSim]

Ok. The core of my belief is humans are not animals. Contrary to evolutionists. This is my last post. Thanks for engaging!

Ok .. no worries.
IMO, your harmony with nature idea seems like a reasonable distinction between humans and other animals. Its generally an observation made by humans though, so it satisfies our need to make sense of our observed co-existence, yet distinctiveness from/with these animal 'things' .. Or is that latter view just us seeking a harmonious perspective on the nature we share with them?

 

[SelfSim]

That's also true of many, if not most, species with 'minds'; they're all different. Basic human social behaviours are not so different from closely related primate species, once you account for the complexity and sophistication of our cultures.

Is it cultural complexity and sophistication that causes us to turn a blind eye to the environmental dependencies we evolved with, for eg; when we go chasing the belief that earth-life can exist in radically different environments elsewhere in the universe?

 

[renniks]

Is there evidence in the bible that creatures survived events before the fall that we now deem to be unsurvivable events?

Scripture is silent on some things. I don't recall anything about animals dying however before they were killed to make clothing for our first parents.
As a brain tanner, what I want to know is if God used the same tanning method I do?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Actually humans fight against nature.

Quite often -- however, on a long enough timescale, nature always wins in the end.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...I obviously can't make sense of this way of thinking.

Yeah... it's sad.

 

[SelfSim]

Quite often -- however, on a long enough timescale, nature always wins in the end.

Especially on the occasions where we choose to consider ourselves as also being part of 'nature'.

 

[SelfSim]

I told him that without evidence how are we to pick which god to believe in? I said it seems like random luck, and that the god seems to be rewarding the lucky ones for no reason other than luck. Like we may as well be blindfolded and throw a dart at a dartboard with each segment representing one of the many gods and then just believe in that god and then maybe we get lucky. He considered his god to be perfect and just in rewarding the lucky ones and killing the unlucky ones. I obviously can't make sense of this way of thinking.

No .. its a matter of belief-based faith .. (which clearly isn't random .. its completely the opposite of that, I think?)