Why do Christians have trouble with accepting Evolution?

[BornAgainChristian1]

Thanks for all the scripture, i read each and every one. Don't worry about causing confusion, you cant do any damage here in that area. I'll keep meditating and praying about it. As long as i find hope and comfort in the scripture, it doesn't matter if i fully comprehend it, although it would be nice to understand certain things better, only because its written. God wrote it for some reason.

I've collected many of these biblical proofs because these hard questions keep coming up and I do my best to have a answer as the Lord commands us to do. And just because I can give scripture to prove some points doesn't mean I comprehend them fully e.g. the Trinity.

 

[Jonathan Lankford]

If you were a shepherd in Israel 3450 years ago, when Moses read the first five books of the Bible every seven eyars to all of the people in their hearing, would you have understood the Genesis story to be one of Creation or one of evolution? That's the key to understanding what the text says - language, history, and context. The shepherds and farmers didn't have a copy of the Bible for themselves, they may not have been able to all read, and they didn't need anyone telling them the meaning of words from a software program because they knew it already. What message would they have understood?

Taking things outside of the Bible, let's just look at one point that falsifies the theory of evolution: That is the coexistence of man with dinosaurs. Any evidence that falsifies the theory of a 70 million year gap between dinosaurs and humans also poses problems for the theory as a whole. And the fact that man saw dinosaurs regularly in the past is throughout history. One reading my students have to read in Ancient Civilizations is Herodotus' Histories, in which he records a legged snake that preys on elephants and a flying snake. As a student and teacher of history, I can tell you that evolution with a 70 million year gap between dinosaurs and humans is illogical and those who reject the historical evidence to propagate a lie are committing the fallacy of automatic rejection.

The presence of dinosaurs in history alone is enough to falsify the theory. But then there is soft tissue in every dinosaur bone, regardless of its location in the supposed "geologic column" and regardless of its mineral content:

Then there are multiple preserved footprints in stone of giant humans with dinosaurs:

.
While I am not a student of science, I find this compelling. But most people holding to biological evolution commit the fallacy of automatic rejection or bias against change, and never attempt to deal with these things.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Most people will disagree,, And I don't say this often,, but,, By textbook definition.. yes, God is extraterrestrial..
People want to think of tin foil hats and ufos when people say alien.. however. By definition of the word. that is what he is.. He is still our creator, And our father, But, To deny what the true definition of extraterrestrial is.. would be in error..

Well, I would not describe the creator and sustainer of this world as alien to it. Also, God, being infinite; being omnipresent; being omniscient; being omnipotent; this puts Him in a whole other category than those we call "alien" or "resident".

 

[AmericanChristian91]

I had a tail once......


present for around 4 weeks while I was developing in the womb


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality#Coccyx

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I had a tail once......


present for around 4 weeks while I was developing in the womb

Yes, and then tail cells died so that you would sport the new, more lately evolved tailless physique.

 

[AmericanChristian91]

I wonder what life would be like if humans kept an actual tail beyond the womb.

Though even if we did have one, I could still see some saying that is not proof of evolution. Similar to how even in our world of tailess humans, some ignore the similarities we have with the other Apes as evidence for evolution.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I wonder what life would be like if humans kept an actual tail beyond the womb.

Though even if we did have one, I could still see some saying that is not prove of evolution. Similar to how even in our world of tailess humans, some ignore the similarities we have with the other Apes as evidence for evolution.

Its a matter of time, that's all. Should our Lord tarry, after a few more generations, those who accept evolution among the Christians will be so common as to be the norm. Only a few holdouts will join the flat earthers among us and continue to deny the findings of science. We are in the transition time.

 

[Hoghead1]

No, that isn't accurate about God's names, BornAgain. Gen. 1 has Elohim. Gen. 2 has YHWH, meaning I am he who is.

 

[Hoghead1]

As I pointed out before, Kings does snot provide a comparable example. You have to remember that in Gen. 2, God creates Adam, then sees it isn't good from him to be alone, and then creates animals. The Hebrew here is simply that which is used to express cause-and-effect (before and after)relationships.

 

[Hoghead1]

Butch 5, incredible claims require incredible evidence. Where's yours here?

 

[stephen583]

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"

Albert Einstein.

 

[Hoghead1]

The Bible, Extraneous, represents a prescientific culture, not idiots. Yes, the prophets and everyone else in the Bible viewed the earth as flat. That was customary at the time. If this is a new idea for you, then I suggest you take Bible studies 101 or ancient history 101.
Also, where did you get the idea I turned the prophets into fictional characters? I definitely did not do so.
What does Christ have to do with anything here? OK, he spoke about Genesis. So what? Christ was not here as a science teacher,neither was Moses. Moses did not come down off the mountain with an additional tablet stating F=MA or E=MC2 or anything of the like. Christ never said anything scientific either. That was not his role. He knew that to communicate well you have to speak in the common language of the people. As Calvin once said, God did not intend Scripture to give us an astronomy lesson. He accommodates himself to our understanding and speaks in images we are familiar with.

 

[Hoghead1]

From my graduate work in biblical studies. Why do you ask?

 

[Hoghead1]

You are way, way off base, KWCrazy. The Bible is not in question here nor is God in question here. What is being attacked happen to be certain human-made theories on how God is related to Scripture. What you seem to be assuming is that your belief system is absolutely correct and beyond question when it isn't and has been seriously questioned by modern biblical and theological scholarship.

 

[keltoi]

From my graduate work in biblical studies. Why do you ask?

You have so many posts either not addressed to anyone or not quoting anyone it is difficult to know who you are talking to. I asked because I'm interested in it and I'd like to know where you got it from. Saying "from my graduate work in biblical studies" doesn't really tell me much.

 

[Hoghead1]

Very different literary style, different usage of words, and very different content.

 

[Hoghead1]

The dome, the circle of the earth, is the sky. <staff edit>

 

[keltoi]

Very different literary style, different usage of words, and very different content.

Is that in reply to me?

 

[Hoghead1]

What is it you want to know, Keltoi? Specific books? What? Modern biblical studies centers on what is sometimes called the Higher Criticism. A major dimension here is the DH, the Documentary Hypothesis. This states that the Pentateuch came from at least four major sources combined by a later redactor into their present form. The reason for this has to do with very careful study of the literary styles and language used. The P source (Gen. 1), for example, likes lists. Gen/. 1 looks like something intended as a kind of chant. It is very sing-songy, musical. It was probably used for worship services. The J source, (Gen. 2( is in a very different style, narrative style. It is probably older since the narrative style came before the liturgical.

 

[keltoi]

What is it you want to know, Keltoi? Specific books?

I'd appreciate that thanks, I'm interested in anything that helps me to understand.

With regards to various original authors do you think that it could be because much of the early OT wasn't initially written down to remember it but rather rote learned and orally recounted to each generation?