Why do Christians have trouble with accepting Evolution?

1213 · Apr 6, 2016

Kobbern said:
Why do Christians have trouble with accepting Evolution?

I have problem with it, because there is no good reason to believe it. It has not been scientifically proven, it is just scientific belief. And actually all evidence seems to show that species are rather devolving than evolving. For example mutations tell that there was originally more complete genome, which now is degenerating. Most probably all “evidence for evolution” is actually evidence for devolution, which fits well to Biblical idea that everything was good at the beginning, until it begin to degenerate because God was rejected. It can be possible that for example in the Ark there were the ancestors of many modern species and there were actually less species then, but because of degeneration, we have now more species that are the result of mutations (mistakes in DNA copying). For example there could have been single kind of bears and all modern bears are offspring of those with results of devolution. Nothing indicates that things are going in more complex direction. But many things seem to indicate that things are becoming less complex or less complete.

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

I don’t think Bible says earth is flat. Also earth in Bible means dry land, not necessary entire planet earth. Dry land may have been relatively flat, when there was single continent as the Bible claims, before it collapsed during the great flood.

GeorgiaGuyinAtlanta · Apr 6, 2016

Calminian said:
My statement was not that all christians deny the resurrection. My statement was that, by your own reasoning, Biship Spong's rejection of the resurrection, based on science, is perfectly valid. If you disagree, tell me why.

A person is not saved if they do not believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Yeshua).

The Bible makes it clear that a person who confesses the Lord Jesus and who believes that God has raised Jesus from the dead is saved.

Calminian · Apr 6, 2016

Hoghead1 said:
Science, Cal, is not at all equipped to study what happens after death. The Resurrection is not a scientific matter, to start with.

Resurrection is the idea that one can die and than come back to life. We can resuscitate, but there is no known process by which we can bring people back to life. This is why we don't try to do so, once someone has passed away, especially 3 to 4 days. This is a scientifically accepted fact.

It's also scientific fact that deformed arms can't just suddenly grow back and restore themselves, as we see in the Bible.

And, also, planets full of life, don't just miraculously form over the course of 6 days.

All of these are miracles that fly in the face of modern scientific understandings. The question is, why is it acceptable and important to deny science in the 1st two instances, but not okay to deny it in the last? Seems we have a consistency issue. Or, even worse, an unbelief issue.

Calminian · Apr 6, 2016

<staff edit>

Hmmm. I've been studying Genesis for over 20 years. I've never seen those contradictions yet.

It is possible that Moses used records passed down to him, and that Genesis 1-2:4 and Genesis 2:5-5:1 were from different sources. But Moses was the author of the entire book of Genesis. The events pre-dated him, so he had to get the account from somewhere. I think he used older records, perhaps even some records that were taken aboard the ark.

You can read more about that here: The Origins of Genesis: Solving the Toledoth Mystery (this is not the debunked documentary hypothesis, BTW.)

But that doesn't mean there are contradictions. In fact, it shows that Genesis is a book of antiquity, compiled from source material that predated Moses, and even Abraham. The harmony between Genesis 1-5 is actually astonishingly, remarkable. The timelines are totally in sync.

Sonclad · Apr 6, 2016

<staff edit>
Re: doubtfulness - It's doubtful that God took a virgin and created a baby within her womb. It's doubtful that nearly 1 million slaves left Egypt without lifting a sword and then made their way through the desert to Canan. It's doubtful that Peter actually walked on water (and Jesus). Need I go on? The list of doubtful's is very long, but that's what makes them miracles. As for supposed contradictions, I'd like to have references. Woodworking - now that's something I relate to. Yes, he works with the grain; but then he created the tree with the grain to begin with didn't he? So, even though John actually saw future wars on Patmos, he wrote in terms that he could understand. Airplanes, helicopters, nuclear warfare, missiles, etc., were not recorded in such terms in Reveleation, yet they were all seen by John and penned in terms that he could relate. The mark of Beast - totally incomprehensible how this could be until a decade or so ago, yet John saw it. I'm not quite sure what you're "ridiculous to expect that God would impart advances scientific knowledge to a prescientific culture" comment is getting at.

As for my presenting... I may be just a layperson, but then Jesus was just a carpenter and the disciples were just fishermen. I have been involved with such "debating" with secular humanists and liberal "Christian" types for 30 years+. I wonder why you presume others have "more advanced knowledge" just because they may have attended seminary? If you could see my personal library, you might shelf that comment. Just saying...

Sonclad · Apr 6, 2016

Calminian said:
Hmmm. I've been studying Genesis for over 20 years. I've never seen those contradictions yet.

It is possible that Moses used records passed down to him, and that Genesis 1-2:4 and Genesis 2:5-5:1 were from different sources. But Moses was the author of the entire book of Genesis. The events pre-dated him, so he had to get the account from somewhere. I think he used older records, perhaps even some records that were taken aboard the ark.

You can read more about that here: The Origins of Genesis: Solving the Toledoth Mystery (this is not the debunked documentary hypothesis, BTW.)

But that doesn't mean there are contradictions. In fact, it shows that Genesis is a book of antiquity, compiled from source material that predated Moses, and even Abraham. The harmony between Genesis 1-5 is actually astonishingly, remarkable. The timelines are totally in sync.

Yes, there is no contradiction between Gen 1 and 2 (from www.carm.org):

Is there a contradiction in creation events of Genesis 1 and 2?
by Matt Paulson

Question: Is there a contradiction in creation events of Genesis 1 and 2?

Answer: Genesis, Chapter 1, Creation Events in Complete Harmony

Day 1 God creates the Heavens and the Earth. The sun brings forth light, the Earth spins, and darkness is upon the face of the deep (and Earth).

Day 2 The firmament is the volcanic eruptions in the sea. Firmament above is the sunshine above the vapor canopy.

Day 3 God separates the land from the ocean. Firmament of the volcanic eruptions creates the land. The grasses and other vegetation start to grow.

Day 4 The Canopy dissipates. The sun and the moonlight start to hit the Earth. The seasons of life begin.

Day 5 God creates the sea animals, winged insects, and birds.

Day 6 God creates animals and man.

Day 7 God rests. (A humanic term to “cease” from creating).

Genesis, Chapter 2, Creation Revisited--Summary Form

2:1 (This is Day 1, but it is not mentioned) God creates the Heavens and the Earth.

2:2-3 (This is Day 7) God rests on the seventh day.

2:4 (This is a repeat of Day 1) God mentions He created the Heavens and the Earth.

2:5 (This is Day 5, but it is not mentioned) God mentions that He created grasses and plants.

2:7 (This is Day 6, but it is not stated) God creates man and animals, but this time He mentions man first and animals second. He does this because He has Adam name the land animals that were created on Day 6.

2:19 (This is Day 6 continued, but it is not stated) And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air, and brought [them] unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that [was] the name thereof.

2:22 (This is Day 6 continued, but it is not stated) And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman and brought her unto the man.

Compare the creation events day to day of Genesis 1 and 2. There is no contradiction.

Extraneous · Apr 6, 2016

1213 said:
I don’t think Bible says earth is flat. Also earth in Bible means dry land, not necessary entire planet earth.

I never considered that before. I usually consider language about the 4 corners of the world to be symbolic language. I believe all scripture has hidden spiritual knowledge in it. Its not hidden exactly. but it takes a spiritual mind to see it. Also, it takes obeying Gods commands to get spiritual sight. So its like two layers of spiritual truth. You obey the first layer and your eyes are opened to the second as well. In my opinion. This however doesn't mean that people who don't see the hidden things are disobedient to God, but instead i believe its for those who need to be strengthened by the Word. I don't know, its just my theory, based on what i see.

Patmos · Apr 6, 2016

ClothedInGrace said:
Genesis 1:20-31

Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.” God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good. God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day. Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so. God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good. Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so. God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

Folks, you either believe the Scriptures or you don't; it's that simple. Anyone who tells you this is allegory is just giving an excuse to not believe it. You either believe in millions of years of death and mutation or you believe what Genesis 1 teaches. As someone who was saved reading God's Word, I'll take Genesis 1 over secular theories any day.

Keh ?

I went to a lecture many years ago by a professor of maths from Cambridge Uk. Forgotten his name so I'll look for it an d post it later.
In short he was promoting information theory. Being maths orientated it was music to my ears. After 2 hours of lecture and questions, my only thought was, go on.This Professor was not anti Genesis. rather he interpreted it in an entirely different way.

I'll research his name and some you tubes and post back.

Hieronymus · Apr 6, 2016

Hoghead1 said:
I believe , Hier., that God reveals himself or herself through nature, and that evolution is then a revelation of God. I believe creation is God's own self-evolution from unconsciousness and mere potentiality into self-consciousness and self-actualization.

So you're a closet New Ager.

Hoghead1 · Apr 6, 2016

No, it is definitely not symbolic language. The biblical culture viewed the earth as flat with the sun going around it.

Extraneous · Apr 6, 2016

Hoghead1 said:
No, it is definitely not symbolic language. The biblical culture viewed the earth as flat with the sun going around it.

No, thats just you opinion Hoghead. I have seen many wonderful things in the poetic language of scripture, things that tie the whole bible together like a finely woven fabric. Its like having your eyes opened. I believe God wrote the word this way for a reason.

Hoghead1 · Apr 6, 2016

Wrong, Extraneous. Historians and biblical scholars are well aware that the biblical world viewed the earth is flat. There at least 70 biblical passages that provide a flat earth with the sun going around it. Now, maybe you want to read in some hidden meaning here, but that's going way beyond the plain meaning of the text.

BornAgainChristian1 · Apr 6, 2016

Hieronymus said:
So you're a closet New Ager.

BINGO!!!!!! ;-)

Hoghead1 · Apr 6, 2016

No, I not, Hier. I am a process theologian. Process theology is a major movement in contemporary Christian thought. Also, both Meister Eckhart and Jacob Boehme, two giants in the Christian mystical literature, anticipated my view on God. Actually, "evolution" is a mystical term. First used by writers in the Christian mystical tradition.

Extraneous · Apr 6, 2016

Hoghead1 said:
Wrong, Extraneous. Historians and biblical scholars are well aware that the biblical world viewed the earth is flat. There at least 70 biblical passages that provide a flat earth with the sun going around it. Now, maybe you want to read in some hidden meaning here, but that's going way beyond the plain meaning of the text.

If thats true, then they viewed it that way only because the bible talked about it that way, would be my guess. However, the scriptures never meant to teach the world was flat. Its a spiritual language that educated pharisees cannot see, because they are blind guides of the blind.

Smidlee · Apr 6, 2016

Evolution is the product of human reasoning trying to explain away human reasoning. It's circular reasoning without any foundation. What make us human can't be explained away mechanically or it becomes self-refuting.

Smidlee · Apr 6, 2016

Hoghead1 said:
Wrong, Extraneous. Historians and biblical scholars are well aware that the biblical world viewed the earth is flat. There at least 70 biblical passages that provide a flat earth with the sun going around it. Now, maybe you want to read in some hidden meaning here, but that's going way beyond the plain meaning of the text.

That has been proven as a myth started in the 1800's. Man has known the earth was round since ancient times.

Calminian · Apr 6, 2016

Calminian said:
Eeek. I have to admit I didn't follow any of that. I read it over twice.

You'll have to clarify. Maybe you can pinpoint he exact place where you think the accounts contradict. I'm a student of Hebrew, so feel free to make arguments from the hebrew if you think they are relevant. I realize that historically men have stumbled on Genesis, but they've stumbled on a lot of things. I'm looking for an argument for the actual contradiction.

Forgive me, going back a 3rd time, I did see this.

Hence, in Gen . 1, first animals are created, the man and woman together. In Gen. 2, first man, then animals, then woman. What may or may not be apparent in English translations is that there are two very different literary styles here. Gen. 1, fr example, is sing-songy, very sing-songy. Hence, Haydn wrote a major work titled

I was expecting more, as you mentioned there were "many" contradictions, but it looks like the focus of your paper was this particular "contradict." Am I correct? I'll respond to this shorty....

Smidlee · Apr 6, 2016

<staf edit>Don't forget those who traveled by sea went by the stars which they studied heavily. They would have noticed the stars are different in the northern hemisphere vs the southern hemisphere.

Extraneous · Apr 6, 2016

BornAgainChristian1 said:
Yes I agree the pagan religion of "evolution" has no gravity nor science involved in it's foolishness.

It has no God. It scoffs at things like resurrection of the dead, and at the existence of men like Noah, Abraham, Moses and David. You can say that they dont have an opinion about those things, but they do, even if they dont know or admit it, and ToE undermines the scriptures.

Why do Christians have trouble with accepting Evolution?

Disciple of Jesus

Regular Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Veteran

Senior Veteran

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency