Why do Christians have trouble with accepting Evolution?

[Hoghead1]

That isn't at all accurate, BornAgain. The term "evolution" first appeared in the Christian mystical tradition.

 

[BobRyan]

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.

Too late - You already admitted that you deny the virgin birth... the bodily resurrection and bodily ascension of Christ into heaven - and "of course" genesis and the flood and any miracle in the Bible that an atheist would not freely accept...

You are free to say you represent mainstream Christianity in that regard - I am just not sure what country you are talking about.

As I have said before your rejection of the Bible in that way - is not "illogical" once you decide to toss out the Bible in exchange for accepting faith in the junk-science blind-faith-religious doctrine on origins found in evolutionism ... faith that a "pile of dirt will eventually turn into a rabbit... given a sufficiently large pile of dirt and a sufficiently long period of time - filled with just-so stories and unlikely events".

 

[KWCrazy]

I am a theologian and my thinking goes right along with a major movement in contemporary Christian thought.

I would hold that the movement is AWAY from the Scriptures and not closer to them, so that's a movement I choose not to join. However, since you are a theologian you should be able to provide a great array of passages which support evolution and disavow the six day creation. Please list them here. Strangely, of all the theologians and biblical scholars who have come to this forum to attack the veracity of the Scriptures and promote evolution, none of them have been abler to show how their views are supported in the Scripture. For example, Jesus mentioned Adam and Eve, and He spoke of Noah by name. Please show us where He explained that none of that really happened. I've been unable to find those references.

Since it was mentioned, do you accept or deny the virgin birth and the resurrection of Christ from the dead. If you do not, by what criteria to you proclaim yourself to be a follower of Christ? This is not an accusation, but a serious question to you.

 

[Jadis40]

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.

I'm with you. I think the evidence that the earth is a sphere is overwhelming. Even the ancient Greeks, like Aristotle, who lived 2000+ years ago, accepted a spherical earth. It makes a lot more sense than the mental gymnastics you have to go through to make things work on a flat earth. By the way, a flat earth was a common belief held among various ancient near east cultures. Common, but incorrect.

Eratosthenes, another Greek, actually used trigonometry to come relatively close to the actual circumference.

Strabo, a Roman who lived from 64 B.C. to 24 AD, was one who noticed how seafarers knew the earth was not flat, based on ships sinking down below the horizon as they got farther from shore.

And don't forget Ptolemy. He documented how, to sailors, it appeared that mountains were rising out of the sea as they grew closer to land.

Even Bede, the English chronicler from England, accepted a spherical earth.

All of these men used observations of the planet itself to come to the correct conclusion that the earth is round. My hats off to Magellan too.

To say it's all a big lie by NASA doesn't make sense to me, since NASA didn't even come into existence until the mid 20th century.

 

[KWCrazy]

Also, there is no denying teh fact that the biblical writers were a product of a prescientific culture and so would not be elected to know about evolution, etc.

That's illogical. If there is a God, then He would know what happened. By definition, if He was indeed God, He could not lie about what happened. If in fact there is no God, then why would you be a follower of a God that doesn't exist? I don't understand your position. I don't know a word of Vietnamese, but if the Holy Spirit was willing I could speak to a Vietnamese person as easily as I can converse with you.

 

[BobRyan]

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.

Hard to know what to say to that one.

Try this --- in your statement you only mention "gravity" and "butterfly" (presumably on the surface of a planet... "Earth-like" -- except on "your planet" there is only the butterfly - and the gravity of the planet.

Well I have good news for you - Newton would also agree that the butterfly cannot fly under those conditions because the mechanism of flight required "air" - aerodynamics... fluid mechanics etc.

The atmosphere that is not in your scenario - would have been held to the surface by gravity. It would also provide the physical properties needed for flight of winged creatures such as a butterfly. But since you don't have any atmosphere in your scenario -- just the butterfly and gravity... well.. you are right... the butterfly won't fly because gravity will hold it to the surface.

Are you interested at this point in calculating the force of gravity on that butterfly at sea level?

(Given "G" at 6.67408 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2)

 

[BobRyan]

That's illogical. If there is a God, then He would know what happened. By definition, if He was indeed God, He could not lie about what happened. If in fact there is no God, then why would you be a follower of a God that doesn't exist? I don't understand your position. I don't know a word of Vietnamese, but if the Holy Spirit was willing I could speak to a Vietnamese person as easily as I can converse with you.

In every debate about evolutionism's doctrine that a pile of dirt will eventually turn into a horse ... the discussion eventually gets to "well if there is a God". I thank you for bringing that up.

 

[GeorgiaGuyinAtlanta]

Hard to know what to say to that one.

Try this --- in your statement you only mention "gravity" and "butterfly" (presumably on the surface of a planet... "Earth-like" -- except on "your planet" there is only the butterfly - and the gravity of the planet.

Well I have good news for you - Newton would also agree that the butterfly cannot fly under those conditions because the mechanism of flight required "air" - aerodynamics... fluid mechanics etc.

The atmosphere that is not in your scenario - would have been held to the surface by gravity. It would also provide the physical properties needed for flight of winged creatures such as a butterfly. But since you don't have any atmosphere in your scenario -- just the butterfly and gravity... well.. you are right... the butterfly won't fly because gravity will hold it to the surface.

Are you interested at this point in calculating the force of gravity on that butterfly at sea level?

(Given "G" at 6.67408 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2)

There is no true force of gravity. All "g forces" are is a unit of centripetal force.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Can you explain what you mean by "new discoveries in the fossil record"? Honestly, I don't see anything to support evolution.

I certainly believe you do not see it, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

Species did not evolve. If you believe that, then you're being deceived. There is no genetic, physical, or any type of evidence to support such a claim.

The above denial of evidence for evolution was written by a human with a coccyx.

Gravity does not exist. It is nothing more than the density of an object being greater in comparison to its surrounding substance. Nothing more, nothing less.

That last sentence doesn't make any sense. First you say gravity doesn't exist, then you define gravity, and then you give nonsense for the definition. Your ability to explain gravity is a match for your ability to deny evolution.

 

[Shadowprophet]

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?

Accepting Evolution? you speak as if Evolution is a proven fact.. Evolution is a theory, science is my domain,, Physics to be precise. And evolution for all it's worth is a theory that remains unproven..

You will find no scientist worth his salt that will deny this.. See there are missing links. those missing links would prove that evolution could be true. but the problem is, those (missing links) have never been found.

It would be different if people just believed in evolution,, But people speak about the issue as if it's fact.. It simply is not fact, it has not been proven. until it is. It is just an idea.. This is coming from a studied physicist..

I have a love for science,, But people boldly proclaim theory as fact,, in the scientific community, this does not fly..

 

[GeorgiaGuyinAtlanta]

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

There is no true force of gravity. All "g forces" are is a unit of centripetal force.

Look, you can discuss the true nature of gravity in interesting ways, no doubt, but hey, gravity does exist.

 

[GeorgiaGuyinAtlanta]

Look, you can discuss the true nature of gravity in interesting ways, no doubt, but hey, gravity does exist.

How do you figure it exists? Things falling is a matter of a greater density in comparison to the surrounding substance.

 

[BobRyan]

There is no true force of gravity. All "g forces" are is a unit of centripetal force.

Gravity provides that force in the case of objects in orbit -- i.e. in free fall.

A string and your own muscle provides that force when slinging a ball on a string around your hand.

But that string can never lense a beam of light that passes by it -- gravity can, and it can hold the moon in orbit... and it can hold our atmosphere to the planet.

 

[BobRyan]

I'm with you. I think the evidence that the earth is a sphere is overwhelming.

or at least a spheroid. in any case it is one of the few points where we can all agree. Does not happen much - but nice when it does.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

How do you figure it exists? Things falling is a matter of a greater density in comparison to the surrounding substance.

I don't see a mechanism in mere greater density that would make things fall. Please enlighten me.

 

[BobRyan]

Ok - but the OP is about the fact that the storytelling that you find in blind faith evolutionism no matter how bizarre the stories in evolution -- are not compatible with the Bible.

 

[Job8]

But the geological record does provide solid proof. Also, what is your reference for your supposed quote from Darwin?

The Darwinian classic On the Origin of Species. Darwin did have the grace to say (in effect) I am simply theorizing, but I nothing to back me up. Then he turns around and tries to justify his fantasies.

 

[GeorgiaGuyinAtlanta]

Earth is also flat

 

[GeorgiaGuyinAtlanta]

I don't see a mechanism in mere greater density that would make things fall. Please enlighten me.

Neither does gravity, since gravity claims that the massive force of the oceans can stay fixed to a ball but a butterfly can take flight.