Why do Christians hate the theory of evolution?

[Bluelion]

I don't see this assertion supported by scripture.

I believe what he is speak of is highly debated among Christians. I think he is refer to the sons of God who slept with women, many speculate these were angels, I to hold this believe, but that is another thread. The debate others say it was men who found favor with God.

 

[Alithis]

That is the point. The WORD was manifested as Melchizedek in Genesis and then in Jesus, the WORD became flesh, who actually became our High Priest IN THE ORDER of Melchizedek.

you wont get disagreement from me when you put it that way haha(except in the case of Melchizedek) .. the manifestation of the "word" is one of my fav topics ..
and he was manifest later ..in the flesh . god ..his word one the same , equal to and subject to ..all at the same time .how glorious is our GOD ..amen

but Melchizedek was a man who lived there in that city .. known to the inhabitants of the land .he was not alone over the eons ..Job was much like him also .. a man of God who the lord delighted in and spoke to and listened to .the only difference is ..there is no recorded history of Melchizedek .. not that he had none .

 

[Bluelion]

you wont get disagreement from me when you put it that way haha(except in the case of Melchizedek) .. the manifestation of the "word" is one of my fav topics ..
and he was manifest later ..in the flesh . god ..his word one the same , equal to and subject to ..all at the same time .how glorious is our GOD ..amen

but Melchizedek was a man who lived there in that city .. known to the inhabitants of the land .he was not alone over the eons ..Job was much like him also .. a man of God who the lord delighted in and spoke to and listened to .the only difference is ..there is no recorded history of Melchizedek .. not that he had none .

careful that could be a metaphor Just playing

 

[now faith]

Yes Salem was his origin,then it became Jerusalem the city of God.

 

[chiwawa]

You're equating a hamburger with creation?

Its called an analogy. It explained that the process is not the same as the end result.

 

[stan1953]

Its called an analogy. It explained that the process is not the same as the end result.

Yes I understand what an analogy is, but it has to actually be analogous.

 

[chiwawa]

Yes I understand what an analogy is, but it has to actually be analogous.

....I don't think you do. When someone says "there's plenty of fish in the sea" Do you think they are "equating" people to fish?

When Jesus says heaven is like a mustard seed, do you think He's equating heaven to a plant?

 

[stan1953]

....I don't think you do. When someone says "there's plenty of fish in the sea" Do you think they are "equating" people to fish?
When Jesus says heaven is like a mustard seed, do you think He's equating heaven to a plant?

That would depend on whether they were fishermen or a member of POF.com

Jesus never said heaven is like a mustard seed, He said...."if you have faith as small as a mustard seed"....

That would be a metaphor, not an analogy.

 

[chiwawa]

That would depend on whether they were fishermen or a member of POF.com

Jesus never said heaven is like a mustard seed, He said...."if you have faith as small as a mustard seed"....

That would be a metaphor, not an analogy.

Matthew 13 31:
He told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field.

 

[stan1953]

Matthew 13 31:
He told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field.

I forgot about that one. Thanks.
So many parables to remember and my hard drive is getting full.

 

[JB123]

Hi, NT11.

I've just come across this discussion. It interests me, and I want to thank you for raising it. The discussion is currently 38 pages long (!), so I can't claim to have read every word of it, but I just want to say that I am completely with you.

I have no difficulty at all reconciling Darwinian Evolution with the teachings of the Bible. In fact, most leading Christians had come to terms with it before the end of the nineteenth century. I believe that revelation is progressive, and that God reveals Himself in many different ways. In the last 200 years, He has been revealed through the sciences in the most wonderful ways.

Pre-Darwinian Christians naturally understood the early chapters of Genesis in a completely literal way - they had no reason not to. For us post-Darwinians, the landscape has changed. We now know much more, and can interpret Genesis in a much more informed way, as the sciences have revealed to us so much more about the wonder of our God.

Instead of burying our heads in the sand and trying to defend the indefensible, we should glory in what has now been revealed to us - and in the wonderful benefits which evolutionary science has brought to humankind. We live in amazing times, and God has blessed our generation with the key to so many new discoveries and possibilities, and we should thank Him for that.

Science and Faith are not the enemies that some people want to make them. The God who gives us our faith is the same God who created the sciences. He is the source of ALL truth - whether it comes through the Scriptures or through the laboratory.

As you have rightly pointed out, it is possible to be a Christian believer and at the same time accept the careful research which Charles Darwin set out in his writings, and which his successors have continued to study and validate.

Thank you for raising this subject in such a straightforward and honest manner. It is something which needs to be aired, if only because some fundamentalist Christians have tried to make it a stumbling block, and in doing so have made our faith look foolish to much of the rest of the world.

God bless you in your daily walk with Him.

 

[Alithis]

.........

 

[Bluelion]

Hi, NT11.

I've just come across this discussion. It interests me, and I want to thank you for raising it. The discussion is currently 38 pages long (!), so I can't claim to have read every word of it, but I just want to say that I am completely with you.

I have no difficulty at all reconciling Darwinian Evolution with the teachings of the Bible. In fact, most leading Christians had come to terms with it before the end of the nineteenth century. I believe that revelation is progressive, and that God reveals Himself in many different ways. In the last 200 years, He has been revealed through the sciences in the most wonderful ways.

Pre-Darwinian Christians naturally understood the early chapters of Genesis in a completely literal way - they had no reason not to. For us post-Darwinians, the landscape has changed. We now know much more, and can interpret Genesis in a much more informed way, as the sciences have revealed to us so much more about the wonder of our God.

Instead of burying our heads in the sand and trying to defend the indefensible, we should glory in what has now been revealed to us - and in the wonderful benefits which evolutionary science has brought to humankind. We live in amazing times, and God has blessed our generation with the key to so many new discoveries and possibilities, and we should thank Him for that.

Science and Faith are not the enemies that some people want to make them. The God who gives us our faith is the same God who created the sciences. He is the source of ALL truth - whether it comes through the Scriptures or through the laboratory.

As you have rightly pointed out, it is possible to be a Christian believer and at the same time accept the careful research which Charles Darwin set out in his writings, and which his successors have continued to study and validate.

Thank you for raising this subject in such a straightforward and honest manner. It is something which needs to be aired, if only because some fundamentalist Christians have tried to make it a stumbling block, and in doing so have made our faith look foolish to much of the rest of the world.

God bless you in your daily walk with Him.

It started with a lie or at best misconception when stating the Hebrew word did not mean dust but fatten the man. and it is a stumbling block.

 

[least]

The problem I have with the Darwinian Theory stems from the implications it makes against God's word. In my mind, Darwinian evolution cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Bible, mainly because God has said that death came as a result of man's sin. Evolution teaches that death was a natural occurrence for billions of years before man came on the scene. Someone has said many, many pages ago that it only meant spiritual death, and while that is certainly true (partially), it is also true that physical death was a result of man's sin. God told Adam, "By the sweat of your face you will eat bread, Till you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken; For you are dust, and to dust you shall return." (Genesis 3:19, NASB). If death had been a common occurrence, why would God need to describe this process?

And then Paul supports this in his letter to the Romans, "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned," and, "For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many." (Romans 5:12, 15). What was the grace of Jesus? That he, "died for the ungodly." And so we see that God's word is speaking of spiritual AND physical death. Evolution does not agree with this.

I do agree that science and faith are not enemies. There are many folks on this discussion that are firm in their stance on traditional creationism that happily agree that science is a wonderful thing; after all, God made it so! But we disagree with the evolution theory. Does it look appealing from a distance? Absolutely! However, the closer we look, the more we find way too many missing pieces and far too many assumptions that are paraded as facts.

I wonder why those of us who are traditional creationist are said to be "burying our heads in the sand and trying to defend the indefensible?" The burden is not on us to prove God created the world as recorded in his Word. Rather, the burden is on those who would compromise with the world's attempt to explain God away with a deceptive theory that is not supported by science.

Are we then foolish? Praise the Lord! "Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe." (1 Corinthians 1:20-21)

Finally, I want to address something of the original post: "Why do Christians hate the theory of Evolution?" Obviously, there are many Christians here who not only do not hate the theory of Evolution, but embrace the theory; more than that, they claim it to be a fact! As for me, I do not "hate" the theory at all, I just simply disagree with it because it doesn't measure up to the biblical witness of creation (whether by my argument about death, or even the order of creation vs the order of evolution) and it has way too many gaps, or missing links, to be considered factual. In other words, it is far from being scientifically proven. I don't hate a theory, nor do I hate the scientist (or anyone else for that matter) that seek to push the evolutionary agenda.

With all of that said, I pray that while we may all disagree on many things, we may always agree in the Blessed Hope, our Lord Jesus Christ! May his grace be upon you!

 

[AmericanChristian91]

Hi, NT11.

I've just come across this discussion. It interests me, and I want to thank you for raising it. The discussion is currently 38 pages long (!), so I can't claim to have read every word of it, but I just want to say that I am completely with you.

I have no difficulty at all reconciling Darwinian Evolution with the teachings of the Bible. In fact, most leading Christians had come to terms with it before the end of the nineteenth century. I believe that revelation is progressive, and that God reveals Himself in many different ways. In the last 200 years, He has been revealed through the sciences in the most wonderful ways.

Pre-Darwinian Christians naturally understood the early chapters of Genesis in a completely literal way - they had no reason not to. For us post-Darwinians, the landscape has changed. We now know much more, and can interpret Genesis in a much more informed way, as the sciences have revealed to us so much more about the wonder of our God.

Instead of burying our heads in the sand and trying to defend the indefensible, we should glory in what has now been revealed to us - and in the wonderful benefits which evolutionary science has brought to humankind. We live in amazing times, and God has blessed our generation with the key to so many new discoveries and possibilities, and we should thank Him for that.

Science and Faith are not the enemies that some people want to make them. The God who gives us our faith is the same God who created the sciences. He is the source of ALL truth - whether it comes through the Scriptures or through the laboratory.

As you have rightly pointed out, it is possible to be a Christian believer and at the same time accept the careful research which Charles Darwin set out in his writings, and which his successors have continued to study and validate.

Thank you for raising this subject in such a straightforward and honest manner. It is something which needs to be aired, if only because some fundamentalist Christians have tried to make it a stumbling block, and in doing so have made our faith look foolish to much of the rest of the world.

God bless you in your daily walk with Him.

Great Post

 

[Sayre]

The problem I have with the Darwinian Theory stems from the implications it makes against God's word. In my mind, Darwinian evolution cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Bible, mainly because God has said that death came as a result of man's sin.

Genesis also tells us that on the day Adam ate the fruit, he died. But he lived 930 years. So what kind of death is Genesis talking about? It cannot be physical death, or Genesis lied. So what death is it? Evolution speaks of physical death - not the kind of death Genesis speaks about. So I'm not sure where you are going with this.

The burden is not on us to prove God created the world as recorded in his Word. Rather, the burden is on those who would compromise with the world's attempt to explain God away with a deceptive theory that is not supported by science.

The burden is on you to demonstrate that we should read Genesis and come away with a scientific recipe for creation. It is your assumption - your claim, not mine.

With all of that said, I pray that while we may all disagree on many things, we may always agree in the Blessed Hope, our Lord Jesus Christ! May his grace be upon you!

Yes God bless you

 

[now faith]

Genesis also tells us that on the day Adam ate the fruit, he died. But he lived 930 years. So what kind of death is Genesis talking about? It cannot be physical death, or Genesis lied. So what death is it? Evolution speaks of physical death - not the kind of death Genesis speaks about. So I'm not sure where you are going with this.


The burden is on you to demonstrate that we should read Genesis and come away with a scientific recipe for creation. It is your assumption - your claim, not mine.


Yes God bless you

On the day Adam was beguiled to eat of the fruit,he became mortal.
The wages of sin is death,God rent skins and covered their shame.

The skins were animals sacarficed for atonement of their sin.

They were not told not to eat of the tree of life,which would give them immortal life.

Only after the tree of knowledge, were they removed from access to the tree of life.

So indeed Adam died.

 

[Sayre]

On the day Adam was beguiled to eat of the fruit,he became mortal.
The wages of sin is death,God rent skins and covered their shame.

The skins were animals sacarficed for atonement of their sin.

They were not told not to eat of the tree of life,which would give them immortal life.

Only after the tree of knowledge, were they removed from access to the tree of life.

So indeed Adam died.

How did Adam die ON THAT DAY?

 

[Bluelion]

The problem I have with the Darwinian Theory stems from the implications it makes against God's word. In my mind, Darwinian evolution cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Bible, mainly because God has said that death came as a result of man's sin. Evolution teaches that death was a natural occurrence for billions of years before man came on the scene. Someone has said many, many pages ago that it only meant spiritual death, and while that is certainly true (partially), it is also true that physical death was a result of man's sin. God told Adam, "By the sweat of your face you will eat bread, Till you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken; For you are dust, and to dust you shall return." (Genesis 3:19, NASB). If death had been a common occurrence, why would God need to describe this process?

And then Paul supports this in his letter to the Romans, "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned," and, "For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many." (Romans 5:12, 15). What was the grace of Jesus? That he, "died for the ungodly." And so we see that God's word is speaking of spiritual AND physical death. Evolution does not agree with this.

I do agree that science and faith are not enemies. There are many folks on this discussion that are firm in their stance on traditional creationism that happily agree that science is a wonderful thing; after all, God made it so! But we disagree with the evolution theory. Does it look appealing from a distance? Absolutely! However, the closer we look, the more we find way too many missing pieces and far too many assumptions that are paraded as facts.

I wonder why those of us who are traditional creationist are said to be "burying our heads in the sand and trying to defend the indefensible?" The burden is not on us to prove God created the world as recorded in his Word. Rather, the burden is on those who would compromise with the world's attempt to explain God away with a deceptive theory that is not supported by science.

Are we then foolish? Praise the Lord! "Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe." (1 Corinthians 1:20-21)

Finally, I want to address something of the original post: "Why do Christians hate the theory of Evolution?" Obviously, there are many Christians here who not only do not hate the theory of Evolution, but embrace the theory; more than that, they claim it to be a fact! As for me, I do not "hate" the theory at all, I just simply disagree with it because it doesn't measure up to the biblical witness of creation (whether by my argument about death, or even the order of creation vs the order of evolution) and it has way too many gaps, or missing links, to be considered factual. In other words, it is far from being scientifically proven. I don't hate a theory, nor do I hate the scientist (or anyone else for that matter) that seek to push the evolutionary agenda.

With all of that said, I pray that while we may all disagree on many things, we may always agree in the Blessed Hope, our Lord Jesus Christ! May his grace be upon you!

well said.

 

[Bluelion]

How did Adam die ON THAT DAY?

as least said both spiritual and body death enter the world that day, Adam would not have died ever had he not eaten so on that day mark two deaths, his spiritual and body even though the body would take 900 years to die he started to die that day.

And God told him now his body would die with "from dust you came and to dust you will return". Note the from dust not ape, chimp, monkey or what ever else you want to call it.

Oh I forgot you don't like speaking to me