Why do Christians have trouble with accepting Evolution?

[Faith77]

When I speak of the Bible, I use words that are definitive not ambiguous. God's Word is sure not to be guessed on.

You use words that are definitive. Fine, that doesn't mean that you couldn't be wrong. If we find works of English written hundreds of years ago difficult to understand, how much more ancient Hebrew and worse, Koine Greek, which ceased being used after a few centuries A.D. Translators and experts themselves dare not be definitive. They translate to the best of their existing knowledge, but they know that modifications will be necessary with new knowledge.

 

[Hoghead1]

Apparently they refuse to.
It doesn't make sense...

You are way, way off base here in what you are saying about TE. Apparently you haven't bothered to study much of the literature. If you had, you would realize the design argument is proposed as one of the arguments for God.

 

[Faith77]

Read Genesis. 'nuff said.You just assume that.

Exactly. You didn't, because you made the statement, "only blind people..." If you thought of alternatives, you would have said, "My first recourse is to wonder why you make such statements since it seems obvious to me, but maybe I'm missing something." But instead, you seem to say, "I see it. You don't. You must be blind."

 

[Hoghead1]

Read Genesis 1:26-27
It's there, can you see it ?

Get busy and study the history of Christianity. Read that. It is very clear there has been debate over what exactly the Imago Dei is.

 

[Hieronymus]

Yes God is a creationist....since he created the world

Indeed He did.
Characteristics of design are found also in the rest of creation.
Things that dead unconscious things are unable to do.
Only if you hold on to naturalistic thinking, you have no other option than to believe things can create themselves.
But you, as a super-naturalist have no reason to limit the possibilities.

 

[Hieronymus]

Exactly. You didn't, because you made the statement, "only blind people..."

Because blind people can not see.

 

[Hoghead1]

When I speak of the Bible, I use words that are definitive not ambiguous. God's Word is sure not to be guessed on.

Yes, but whether your interpretation is right is to be guessed on. The Bible is subject to many interpretations in Christianity. Yours is not the only one, nor necessarily the best.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

But he is right in the fact that various human groups pre-date Noah's Flood....and kept on living.

You should explore the background of the native americans.

Hint they used this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beringia

So the race of Men were not FloodNuked.

So here's more evidence that you don't believe the claims of the Bible, yet your username sure looks like you do... ahhh, the psychology of deception.

 

[Hieronymus]

So here's more evidence that you don't believe the claims of the Bible, yet your username sure looks like you do... ahhh, the psychology of deception.

Maybe he's uncertain, but gets polarised by the discussion.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Try reading Pere Teilhard de Chardin.

A Jesuit priest... yeah, that's who you want to trust Biblical teaching to....

 

[Hoghead1]

Of course, it is a power statement. It is stating how evolution has real power simply because it is based on solid scientific observation. Now maybe in hour opinion modern astronomy is all wet. But big deal, so what? You are no astronomer or scientist, so what do you really know anyway?

 

[Hoghead1]

So here's more evidence that you don't believe the claims of the Bible, yet your username sure looks like you do... ahhh, the psychology of deception.

The Bible is not in question here. Your interpretation thereof is. It's your claims that are under fire, not the Bible.

 

[AmericanChristian91]

So here's more evidence that you don't believe the claims of the Bible, yet your username sure looks like you do... ahhh, the psychology of deception.

Then EastCoast said..."If you do not agree with me....then you are not Christian", and I say "only a Sith deals in absolutes....I will do what I must". Btw it's an interpretation of humans that the Noah's flood story is intended to be factual history. Me disagreeing with that does not make me unchristian. Also stop disrespecting forum rules.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Of course, it is a power statement. It is stating how evolution has real power simply because it is based on solid scientific observation. Now maybe in hour opinion modern astronomy is all wet. But big deal, so what? You are no astronomer or scientist, so what do you really know anyway?

I know you keep blowing but haven't produce one piece of observable evidence since you started. It's like your computer is stuck on rhetorical reply...

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

The Bible is not in question here. Your interpretation thereof is. It's your claims that are under fire, not the Bible.

Then why should I believe any of it Hog? I mean if one part can be reinterpreted from what it plainly says and what has been the understanding of for centuries, why can't it all be blown up and disregarded??

 

[Hieronymus]

Then EastCoast said..."If you do not agree with me....then you are not Christian", and I say "only a Sith deals in absolutes....I will do what I must". Btw it's an interpretation of humans that the Noah's flood story is intended to be factual history.

You have no evidenc for that.
But there is enough evidence to support the Flood.
That's why you lose this argument.

Me disagreeing with that does not make me anti-bible.

Yes it does, because you contradict and thus dismiss the Bible.

Also stop disrespecting forum rules.

This is what you get when you want to see God through naturalistic glasses.
It can't be done.
Because naturalismis the worldview of atheists, there is no God in naturalism.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Wow, you make statements like "only blind people don't" as a bare assertion. You don't think of other alternatives.
Many, many Christian scholars and scientists do not read it that way, especially after researching the original context and audience of the passages. It only presents a problem if you read it one way (as an informer of science), and that's putting a burden on Genesis it was never meant to bear.

Do you think you might get around to telling me when the image of god was placed on man? Thanx...

 

[Hoghead1]

It's a naturalistic model.
This means there is no room for a possible supernatural God, so it proves nothing to who has reason to believe in God.

The earth and universe have been well dated by science as being unbelievably old. No question about it. Science is not equipped to deal with questions of God. Science is neutral on this question. So the date of the earth and universe have got nothing to do with whether there is or isn't a God.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

You use words that are definitive. Fine, that doesn't mean that you couldn't be wrong. If we find works of English written hundreds of years ago difficult to understand, how much more ancient Hebrew and worse, Koine Greek, which ceased being used after a few centuries A.D. Translators and experts themselves dare not be definitive. They translate to the best of their existing knowledge, but they know that modifications will be necessary with new knowledge.

So God can't preserve His Word?

 

[Hoghead1]

A Jesuit priest... yeah, that's who you want to trust Biblical teaching to....

And why not? Jesuit priests are very fine Christians.