Why do Christians have trouble with accepting Evolution?

[Root of Jesse]

I never mentioned "MOst Christians" You did, and you were wrong. Give it a rest.

The OP stated that "Christians have trouble accepting Evolution." I submit that most do not. Knowing that my Church has a plurality of "Christianity", I know that most do not. You're the one who jumped in saying I was incorrect. And trying to sea-lawyer your way to correctness. Doesn't work.

 

[Albion]

Except that theory takes away the fall of man and death being a consequences of sin. In order for evolution to happen, things had to die from the beginning. The Bible says death is a result of sin.

I must say that I don't see why a longer time frame for creation would take away the fall of man, death, etc.

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

I think i know some key ideas. Its because it undermines the creation story and that people will become irreligious?

Well wouldnt that be an issue about the idea of the earth is flat if the bible is literal on that part i mean?

What i mean is that science explains our physicial world. The main point i am making is that Creation Story had two interpretations in medieval ages. Allegory" basically a deeper meaning than it is. Or "Literally" like just like it is written.

So basically allegory seems to be the key point then. Since that can be used. Since God is outside our understanding. Science is a method just to understand the world we live in more or less.

So i dont see the problem with evolution, because it doesnt undermine the scripture in the sense of it not being true?

Although i do believe its a shame that more people who lack understanding go away because of ignorance and just dont bother trying to understand why Christianity is a religion to help your life.

But i am curious to what you think?

God said and Christ created the world in 6 literal days.

Gen 1:8 And God called the firmament, Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.

Gen 1:13 So the evening and the morning were the third day.

Gen 1:19 So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Gen 1:23 So the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

Gen 1:31 And God saw all that he had made, and lo, it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Gen2:2-3 For in the seventh day God ended his work which he had made, and the seventh day he rested from all his work, which he had made.
3 So God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it, because that in it he had rested from all his work, which God created and made.

Exodus 20:11
11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Exodus 31:17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever: for in six days the Lord made the heaven and the earth, and in the seventh day he ceased and rested.

Paslm 33:
4 For the word of the Lord is right and true;he is faithful in all he does.
5 The Lord loves righteousness and justice; the earth is full of his unfailing love.
6 By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth.
7 He gathers the waters of the sea into jars; he puts the deep into storehouses.
8 Let all the earth fear the Lord;let all the people of the world revere him.
9 For he spoke, and it came to be;he commanded, and it stood firm.

Romans 5:14
But death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them also that sinned not after the like manner of the transgression of Adam, which was the figure of him that was to come.

1 Corinthians 15:22
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

1 Corinthians 15:45
As it is also written, The first man Adam was made a living soul: and the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

 

[Hieronymus]

Actually no. The law of gravity describes the attraction between two objects. The theory of gravity describes why the objects attract each other.

But gravity is not only a theory.
gravity is a fact you can prove, actually you don't even have to prove it, most everything proves it is a fact every moment in time.

I'm still waiting for anyone to explain the discrepancies between the two chapters.

You're right, nobody addressed this.
There are a couple of things you can do with it.
Others have pointed out good reasons to safely assume that Genesis tells just one story,
but with different focus.

Genesis 2:4-7 is a summary of the 6 days of Genesis 1.
Genesis 2:8-25 is the 6th day, and this is all in the Garden of Eden.
Yes, it was a very busy day, that 6th day.
But the Garden is not the earth that God filled with life.
God created trees and plants also in the Garden, although plants were created on the earth on the 3rd day.

But now for the stumbling block: The creation of animals, and Adam naming all of them.
But we're still in the Garden at this point of the story.

In Genesis 2:18 God wants to make Adam a 'help' because Adam shouldn't be alone, and he creates animals, but Adam found no help that 'fit' him.
This problem is solved by God by forming Eve form Adam's rib.
This may imply that God created all female animals, including Eve (the female version of the mammal in God's image) from within the Garden, or that he just created all the animals again for some reason.
Ultimately Eve was formed as a 'fitting help'. Adam was very happy.
This ends the creation week, and God takes the 7th day off.

So on the 7th day, fertile and with an assignment to procreate they stood there naked in Paradise.
It must have been rather hot.
But they have no intercourse before Genesis 4:1

Apparently something ruined the party...
The serpent (could be "the shining one") must have been very distractive..
God was having this day off, perhaps out of courtesy for the young couple and their assignment.
So He says: Where are you, Adam? when He notices something is going on.

I think we'll never find proof for any interpretation, but who knows what tell tale signs we may bump in to in the future...

 

[Hoghead1]

I hear you, Tina. However, there is absolutely no evidence the ancient Hebrews entertained the gap theory.

 

[ScottA]

I think i know some key ideas. Its because it undermines the creation story and that people will become irreligious?

Well wouldnt that be an issue about the idea of the earth is flat if the bible is literal on that part i mean?

What i mean is that science explains our physicial world. The main point i am making is that Creation Story had two interpretations in medieval ages. Allegory" basically a deeper meaning than it is. Or "Literally" like just like it is written.

So basically allegory seems to be the key point then. Since that can be used. Since God is outside our understanding. Science is a method just to understand the world we live in more or less.

So i dont see the problem with evolution, because it doesnt undermine the scripture in the sense of it not being true?

Although i do believe its a shame that more people who lack understanding go away because of ignorance and just dont bother trying to understand why Christianity is a religion to help your life.

But i am curious to what you think?

You are wrong on many levels.

First, God is not outside our understanding...we have the mind of Christ 1 Corinthians 2:16.

What is the matter with you...that you should think that the pot should tell the Potter how things are? Science is simply a method of studying what He has made. Which is not wrong in and of itself, but it has NO authority in such matters. Why do you join those who purpose to wag the dog?

And Christianity is NOT "a religion to help your life." It is the name given to the followers of Christ, who died for the salvation of Israel who served within the scientific world of the flesh - but we who follow Christ, do not live within the scientific world, but are "dead" to it - and now live within the Spirit, having been born again of the spirit of God. Our salvation (the salvation of the gentiles, in these times of the gentiles) is not by His sacrifice, but by His gift of the Holy Spirit unto eternal life - we are grafted in.

The world [or science] is passing away.

 

[Hieronymus]

I hear you, Tina. However, there is absolutely no evidence the ancient Hebrews entertained the gap theory.

...or evolution, or an old earth...

 

[Taom Ben Robert]

I'm an evolutionary creationist , I have no idea why some refuse evolution

 

[Hieronymus]

Exactly. I'm not sure where this wave of new "flat earthers" is coming from or what's fueling it. Part of me wants to dismiss them as some of the biggest trolls on the internet - especially Youtube.

Indeed, there seems to be evidence this was spread with malicious intent.
Many suspicious youtube channels with God's name in it...

On the other hand, in trying to speak some common sense as to why a flat earth is wrong, they do all sorts of hand-waving to dismiss it and claim it's all some sort of conspiracy by NASA.

There are many ways to prove the earth is a sphere, and many ways to see it with your own eyes.

It indicates not only gullibility, but also distrust in science and or scientists and or popular (mandatory) science, among people who would rather believe certain Bible passages must be taken literally...
There are reasons to be careful with what organisation with 'authority over knowledge' have you believe though.
Meanwhile, the actual case for a flat earth based on Scripture is weaker than the case for a spherical earth, based on Scripture.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

I've got no problem accepting the Theory of Evolution as the best explanation on how we got the diversity of life on this planet.

Guessing you don't believe God could do all that He says He did...?

Can you explain to me, in basic, elementary language, how a slug becomes a horse? The Theory Of Evolution states that a mutation took place and the creatures, in one generation changed into another species. So, in order for this to work, we need not just one mutation, which I would guess would be rare as we have not seen them in our world, but we would need at least two creatures of the same species mutating at the same time, into a new species. One being the male and one mutating into the female in order for them to procreate and multiply. Wow... that's a lot or coincidental random mutations happening at the same time, I wonder what the odds are of that happening even once. But wait, that same scenario would have had to replicate itself millions of times to account for the millions of species we have on earth. How logical or likely is it that this is how we all came about?

Why hang your hat on science which is ever changing and evolving, yesterdays solid theories are today's new announcements of a better idea. Even evolutionists can't agree on what is truth... and they have all stepped away from previously held beliefs that were proven wrong.

On the contrary, the Bible has been the same yesterday, today and tomorrow and can still stand the scrutiny of our investigation today of what it states as the truth about creation.

 

[Hieronymus]

I'm an evolutionary creationist , I have no idea why some refuse evolution

That is refute, not refuse.
Why do you have no idea?
Didn't you read the thread?

 

[pat34lee]

But i am curious to what you think?

I think that while Christians are probably the largest and
most vocal group against the hoax of evolution, they are
not the only ones. As more evidence comes out, evolution
just looks worse and worse as a theory. DNA should have
killed it, but finding soft tissue supposedly hundreds of
millions of years old? That was like finding a live T-Rex.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

I'm an evolutionary creationist , I have no idea why some refuse evolution

Because macro evolution cannot happen.... there is no evidence of it ever happening nor do we see in the fossil record it happening. Observed mutations in nature always tends to destruction, not new life. The second law of thermal dynamics states that objects tend to destruction or chaos... something we can observe in the real world.

Time, no matter if millions and millions of years, can produce what macro evolutionists say it does.

 

[Hoghead1]

The Bible, Hieron, does in fact preach a flat earth and a geocentric cosmos. This was quite common in ancient cosmologies. Where did you get the idea it didn't?

 

[Hoghead1]

Where is your evidence, Patlee? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Just where is yours?

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Nothing in science is ever "proven" science doesn't deal in "proof"

Is mathematics a science? If I give you one apple today and one apple tomorrow, I have given you two apples... 1+1=2, scientific fact, proven through the scientific method. There is science that can bear the standard of the scientific method.... evolution isn't one of them.

 

[Hoghead1]

So is the inerrancy of Scripture, Optimax. That t, too, is a human-made theory or collection of speculations as to how God and Scripture are connected. And as far as evolution goes, it is probably almost over supported with evidence. it's one of the best-supported concepts in modern science.

 

[pat34lee]

I must say that I don't see why a longer time frame for creation would take away the fall of man, death, etc.

Because then you have death as a result of creation, not sin.
That would make God either flawed or evil. And a liar, to boot.

 

[Albion]

Because then you have death as a result of creation, not sin.
That would make God either flawed or evil. And a liar, to boot.

That's not what the Bible says. It attributes death to sin and sin to the decisions of those whom he created.

 

[Hoghead1]

That isn't fully accurate, EastCoast. Math. deals with a priori truths. Incidentally, 1 +1 does not necessarily equal 2 in all math systems. But that is another issue. Science deals with a posteriori truths, facts based on observation. That's why evolution pushed out the natural theology of science at the time. The hard data found in nature did not support such a position and pointed toward evolution. Also, talking about absolute truth is out of fashion today. In science, we have a very limited window into the past. hence, there is always some degree of speculation in what is said. Science deals in probabilities of something being correct. The same thing is also true in other areas. No one was around to directly observe God crating in six days, either. So, that belief is also a matter of speculation.