Why do Christians have trouble with accepting Evolution?

[GeorgiaGuyinAtlanta]

For example, your body contains vestigial ear wiggling muscles, a clear remnant from an ancestral species that could move its ears to good effect.

Nothing more than your own presuppositions.

Don't you know that the wisdom of the world is but foolishness to God?

 

[Armoured]

Not according to Armoured... no matter how many times gravity proves itself when he falls on his face, it still doesn't prove science.... right Armoured?

goading smileys notwithstanding, yes, that's right.

 

[Hoghead1]

Sorry, Georgia, can't agree. Evolution was based on painstaking observations in nature. Wallace, a colleague of Darwin, spent almost ten years living in jungles, painstakingly collecting and studying specimens. When you are an arm-chair naturalist, it is east to cast aspersion on evolution. However, you need to remember you were not out there on the front lines of research, either. Given a choice between laity and a scientist who lived it, became one with nature, it's a no-brainer whom I am going to believe.

 

[Armoured]

ok, let's begin....

The link you provided cited a paper for evidence of speciation. I clicked on the link and this is what I got.... in the plant world, scientists have observed that crossing or comparing different sub species of a fern, for example, could produce the same species of fern but with mutations or variation to the original parent stock.... but it was still a fern. So much for evidence in the plant world.

Then, in response to the animal world this is what they cited...
"Speciation through hybridization and/or polyploidy has long been considered much less important in animals than in plants"..."Bullini and Nasceti (1990) review chromosomal and genetic evidence that suggest that speciation through hybridization may occur in a number of insect species,"

Ahhh, the favorite words of the evolutionists.... 'suggest' and 'may'. And then they end this very short paragraph (most of which is quotes above) with... "I will tackle this topic in greater depth in the next version of this document."... the old "I'm just giving you a taste of my brilliance through suggestion but I'll give you some kind of evidence at a later time" schtick.

So basically the report shows that the scientists observed mutations that caused a chromosomal change with incidence of infertility... that then justifies a species name change in their minds. If that is true, then people with Down's syndrome should be considered a different species using the flawed logic presented in this piece. There chromosones are mutated and they exibit frequent infertility.

What else you got Armoured?

Hand waves and strawmen. See? I was right.

 

[ChristiansWorldWideWeb]

I love this forum!!!!! I decided to open one on Facebook, Add me!!! https://www.facebook.com/christians.worldwideweb

 

[Hoghead1]

But all you are providing here is the wisdom of the world, Georgia. You are presenting your judgments, your opinions are how God, Science, and Scripture should be related. Who says your worldly wisdom is correct?

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

Please don't defame religion by using religion as a derogatory term. I am a religious man myself, a Christian, and I think that being religious is a good thing, not a bad thing.

People don't trust evolution for their salvation. They have, however, discovered that species did evolve to become what they are today. Its analogous to discovering that the gravity of the moon causes tides. Interesting, but not a religion.

The science behind evolution theory is quite sound. In fact, evolution is confirmed over and over again by new discoveries in the fossil record and in analysis of living forms. For example, your body contains vestigial ear wiggling muscles, a clear remnant from an ancestral species that could move its ears to good effect.

Christian don't support the religion of "evolution" knowing it's rebellion against very God and his word.and seeing you do speaks volumes about your religion. You bring much shame to the name Baptist.

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

That isn't at all accurate, BornAgain. Evolution came from painstaking observations of nature. Alfred Russell Wallace, a colleague of Darwin, spent almost ten years living in jungles, painstakingly studying specimens. That shows a lot of courage and determination. Certainly far more spirit that we arm-chair naturalists have. So, yes, I am going to listen to Wallace, to the man who lived it first-hand.

Yes I agree your religion of "evolution" is anything but Christian or science. BTW your religion of "evolution" has never been "observed" because there are no records or witnesses that are millions let alone billions of years old.

 

[Hoghead1]

It proves quite a lot, Patlee34. An axiom in science is that we can learn much from the dead. Yu would be surprised.

 

[GeorgiaGuyinAtlanta]

Sorry, Georgia, can't agree. Evolution was based on painstaking observations in nature. Wallace, a colleague of Darwin, spent almost ten years living in jungles, painstakingly collecting and studying specimens. When you are an arm-chair naturalist, it is east to cast aspersion on evolution. However, you need to remember you were not out there on the front lines of research, either. Given a choice between laity and a scientist who lived it, became one with nature, it's a no-brainer whom I am going to believe.

Explain the evidence. The fact is that you want to trust the wisdom of man which is nothing but foolishness to God. If I wanted to I'd run circles around your reasoning, but you simply don't want to do the research.

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

Yes I agree your religion of "evolution" is anything but Christian or science.

That simply doesn't work, EastCoast. The Bible says we are made out of dirt. Actually dirt is a far more humble beginning than coming from a common ancestor to ourselves and apes.

Hmmm how can we be made from dirt and still be related to apes? Yes your religion of "evolution" is indeed contradictory.

 

[GeorgiaGuyinAtlanta]

If there's no such thing as gravity, how does a denser object know which way to fall?

Newton couldn't even complete his book. All those pages and nothing proven.

If gravity were real butterflies would not be able to take flight.

After all, the argument made is that the larger mass of the Earth pulls the moon into orbit by the force of gravity. If gravity is so powerful to pull the moon toward the Earth, then this overwhelming mass is powerful enough to hold a few ounce butterfly to the Earth.

It's preposterous to think that oceans can be held to a ball (have you tried that one), but butterflies can't be held to the Earth by this "gravity".

Denser objects fall downward. It's a universal principal. God created the laws.

 

[Hoghead1]

Yes, EastCoast. But can you prove that water boils at 212 degrees? Truth is, it doesn't always work out that way. Also, science has a very limited window into the past and the rest of the universe. Hence, science must speculate. That means we are not dealing with absolute truth and absolute proof, but degrees of probability of something being right or wrong. The same holds with your religious beliefs. They are also matters of speculation. After all, nobody was around to directly observe God creating the world in six days, either.

 

[BobRyan]

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.

Depends on whether you mean real science as in mathematics, physics, chemistry, observable biology - or junk-science mythology about a big pile of dirt turning into a rabbit. Which form of "science" are you thinking would defy the doctrine on origins that we find in Genesis - with its own doctrine on origins?

Dawkins, Darwin, Provine, P.Z. Meyers et al -- freely admit that the doctrine on origins found in blind-faith evolutionism totally destroyed their own prior-belief in the Bible and Christianity.

The main point i am making is that Creation Story had two interpretations in medieval ages.

The dark ages are not the height of enlightment - and asking the question "but what did people think in the dark ages" is not an accepted form of "exegesis".

A better reference point is to observe that EVEN the atheist and agnostic professors of Hebrew and OT studies in all world-class universities freely admit that the author of the Genesis account - write his text to be accepted as a valid historic account of a 7 day creation week consisting of real 24-ish hour days... and then we have it in "legal code" here in Ex 20:11 same thing.

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

until you look at "the kind of literature that it is" when it comes to the Genesis account

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

=======================

That is the opinion of professors not at all inclined to accept the 7 day creation week that we find in Gen 1:2-2:3 yet they can still 'read' and point to the author's intent - whether they agree with the author or not.

 

[GeorgiaGuyinAtlanta]

But all you are providing here is the wisdom of the world, Georgia. You are presenting your judgments, your opinions are how God, Science, and Scripture should be related. Who says your worldly wisdom is correct?

What "wordly wisdom" am I offering?

I'm 100% anti-evolution.
I'm 100% flat Earth

Both of these have the science to back them up, but they are not worldly principles since they don't conflict with God's Word.

 

[Hoghead1]

Yes, BornAgain, but nobody was around to directly observe God crating in six days, either. That, too, is a matter of speculation.

 

[Hoghead1]

BornAgain, God didn't evolve us from dirt but from common ancestor common to both apes and humans. Also, you should be more careful about casting aspersion onto the character of fellow Christian's here. I am a theologian and my thinking goes right along with a major movement in contemporary Christian thought.

 

[Hoghead1]

I really don't think, Georgia, that with your views on the flat earth and gravity, you are going to land any bombs shell on the scientific community or myself.

 

[BobRyan]

Now if you choose not to care about the likes of Darwin, Dawkins, Provine, P.Z. Meyers as they all witness to just how thoroughly the false doctrine on origins found in blind faith evolutionism - destroyed their Christianity - -what about having some mercy on this guy?

Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT... were the OT writers simply writing what they "thought" and the way they "felt" about God, and not in an actual words God actually said. Well my problem is I believe the scientific evidence which casts doubt on some of the Bible writers, BUT, I have too much personal experiencial evidence of a God and other spirits existing on another side beside this one.. My personal experiencial evidence stands on it's very own as enough proof for me, but have I encountered the same God (YHWH) spoke about in the OT, some OT acts and verses by God cast a shadow of a doubt on him being a or the God of Love...

Anyone help?

God Bless!

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...periencing-part-of-a-pm-conversation.7843548/

This is his own thread - over on the origins section of the board - a thread that is soon "swamped" by atheists and agnostics all singing all-praise-evolutionism ... and even the occasional T.E. that drops by once the atheists take over the thread - basically has nothing to say other than some comment of the form "yes indeed evolution is the best".

 

[Hoghead1]

But all you are giving us here, Extraneous, is the wisdom, of man. You are simply giving your own opinions are how God, science, and the Bible should be related. Your whole post is simply the wisdom of one man, Extraneous.