Why do Christians have trouble with accepting Evolution?

[Armoured]

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?

Most Christians are perfectly fine accepting evolution as scientific and historical fact. Don't be put off by a small group of very loud people with so little faith they can't contemplate the idea of a God who works over timescales of more than a few thousand years.

 

[Armoured]

That's just their bluff.
You can not test speciation over millions of years.
The fossil record doesn't help the idea either.

No it's not
Yes you can
Yes it does.

 

[Senod2]

Most Christians are perfectly fine accepting evolution as scientific and historical fact. Don't be put off by a small group of very loud people with so little faith they can't contemplate the idea of a God who works over timescales of more than a few thousand years.

Thats ok and all. But i have trouble with people sucking too much up to it. What i mean is if the scientific data says something then its just a fact, but that doesnt make the creation story untrue, that is what someone needs to tell atheists because there are many mockers on the internet who lack understanding of what allegory means. I even read about "young earth creationists" while some accepted it there were some who completely saw creation story as allegory including Augustine and Origen.. Its a reason why i like Augustine, just full of common sense! He saw it as truth but not as a literal thing. So it is true more or less. They just dont know what one means by it.

Like there are lots of good thing one can draw from this. Like why does evil exist? Because Satan has some dominion over earth, before it was free of evil, which is the idea of sin of men comes from, knowing good and evil as we do today. But to everyone who struggle to be on the good path then god will reward that person. Just to use some beautiful example of this story.

I think the reason why atheists win over such arguments is that people are really stubborn and no wonder why they get people away from God when one doesnt have ways of refuting their statements.

 

[Hieronymus]

No it's not
Yes you can
Yes it does.

You're wrong, they have convinced you of their elaborate lies.

 

[Senod2]

Aha. So this is why protestants must take the literal approach. Wow thats just desperate i think, because ever since Martin Luther it was literal. Thats just sad. Maybe they fear people will go to the church fathers aka the idea of a true church and thats why so many protestants are stubborn on literal interpretation. No wonder why most protestant countries becomes atheists.

Some religious historians consider that Biblical literalism came about with the rise of Protestantism;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleg...ians_on_allegorical_interpretation_of_Genesis

Saint Augustine, one of the most influential theologians of the Catholic Church, suggested that the Biblical text should not be interpreted literally if it contradicts what we know from science and our God-given reason. From an important passage on his "The Literal Interpretation of Genesis" (early fifth century, AD),
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis#Days_of_creation

 

[Noxot]

careful, russia was orthodox.

the problem of understanding the bible in a naive manner has always been a problem that in fact predates Christianity. Moses knew what he was saying, can't say all the jews understood as deeply as he did. Jeremiah was near God, can't say all the israelites were like the prophets were.

 

[Hieronymus]

Thats ok and all. But i have trouble with people sucking too much up to it. What i mean is if the scientific data says something then its just a fact,

Data needs to be interpreted, and it highly depends on what paradigm is used to do so.
Evolution as sold to us for decades now is not proven, at all.
There are many problems which actually render it impossible.

 

[Armoured]

Thats ok and all. But i have trouble with people sucking too much up to it. What i mean is if the scientific data says something then its just a fact, but that doesnt make the creation story untrue, that is what someone needs to tell atheists because there are many mockers on the internet who lack understanding of what allegory means. I even read about "young earth creationists" while some accepted it there were some who completely saw creation story as allegory including Augustine and Origen.. Its a reason why i like Augustine, just full of common sense! He saw it as truth but not as a literal thing. So it is true more or less. They just dont know what one means by it.

Like there are lots of good thing one can draw from this. Like why does evil exist? Because Satan has some dominion over earth, before it was free of evil, which is the idea of sin of men comes from, knowing good and evil as we do today. But to everyone who struggle to be on the good path then god will reward that person. Just to use some beautiful example of this story.

I think the reason why atheists win over such arguments is that people are really stubborn and no wonder why they get people away from God when one doesnt have ways of refuting their statements.

Hey, don't tell me about it. I think Biblical literalists drive far more away from Christianity than they ever attract. But hey, tell that to people who think it somehow makes them look faithful to look ridiculous.

 

[Hieronymus]

Aha. So this is why protestants must take the literal approach. Wow thats just desperate i think, because ever since Martin Luther it was literal. Thats just sad. Maybe they fear people will go to the church fathers aka the idea of a true church and thats why so many protestants are stubborn on literal interpretation. No wonder why most protestant countries becomes atheists.

That is because the serpent attacks the true faith.

I wouldn't want to call myself a 'protestant' though...

 

[Armoured]

Data needs to be interpreted, and it highly depends on what paradigm is used to do so.
Evolution as sold to us for decades now is not proven, at all.
There are may problems which actually render it impossible.

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

Now, impossible, things can be DISproven, sure. So, "There are may problems which actually render it impossible." for instance?

 

[Hieronymus]

Accepting evolution and accepting truth are definitely not the same thing.

 

[Extraneous]

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

Now, impossible, things can be DISproven, sure. So, "There are may problems which actually render it impossible." for instance?

Science is used in the Courts of law all the time, so it must deal in "proof". However, sometimes that proof is misinterpreted.

 

[Extraneous]

Hey, don't tell me about it. I think Biblical literalists drive far more away from Christianity than they ever attract. But hey, tell that to people who think it somehow makes them look faithful to look ridiculous.

Yes, saying man evolved from a prehistoric ape, that makes us look good. (not)

 

[Armoured]

Yes, saying man evolved from a prehistoric ape, that makes us look good. (not)

Believing man was made out of dirt is somehow better?

 

[Hieronymus]

Science is used in the Courts of law all the time, so it must deal in "proof". However, sometimes that proof is misinterpreted.

That would be misinterpreted evidence, i think.
Because proof is proof.

 

[Noxot]

dirt, star poo, same difference. well, I guess star poo is a little bit cooler.

 

[Extraneous]

Believing man was made out of dirt is somehow better?

Evolution teaches that as well. ToE asserts that we evolved from primordial soup, then into various forms of prehistoric ape with less intelligence than a chimp, then to the "brilliant" scientific mind he is today.

 

[Noxot]

well when you die/fall away in eternity you have to be something. thank God we have gotten part of our minds back. for a min there I thought we would stop existing.

 

[Armoured]

That would be misinterpreted evidence, i think.
Because proof is proof.

I see talking, I don't see "There are may problems which actually render it impossible." examples. I wonder why?

 

[Hieronymus]

Evolution teaches that as well. ToE asserts that we evolved from primordial soup, then into various forms of prehistoric ape with less intelligence than a chimp, then to the brilliant scientific mind he is today.

That would be abiogenesis, which indeed is an evolutionary idea, but the ToE is about living organisms evolving into various kinds of organisms.
It stopped being scientific when man discovered DNA though...
But it still seems to sell well.