Why do Christians have trouble with accepting Evolution?

[Hoghead1]

Yes, the stories probably were initially handed down orally. Also, there may have been more than one tradition handed down. Hence, Genesis yields two conflicting creation myths. @am. 21:19 says that Elhanan killed Goliath. Probably the earliest texts were written about 1000BC. During the actual time of Moses, it is unlikely anything was written down, as tribal societies generally don't bother with written accounts.

 

[Hieronymus]

The above denial of change from one kind to another was written by a human with a coccyx, clear evidence of descent (in the physical sense, not the spiritual sense) from a previous species that sported a tail.

So they lost their tail?
Great example bro...

 

[Hieronymus]

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

It's the spine, so we do keep it.

 

[Hieronymus]

Yes, the stories probably were initially handed down orally.

Assuming man couldn't write before the flood?

 

[Hieronymus]

I believe in a literal six (more or less) days of creation because of the seventh day being declared as holy by God with a requirement of a 24 hr (more or less) observance by the chosen Hebrews. That doesn't mean that the world is not very old because there is no scriptural information concerning how long the earth was in a state of "null and void".

Creation week starts at Genesis 1:1
It begins in the beginning.
Problem solved.

Evolution is a theory that is backed with much evidence in the form of fossils and other archaeological findings to support random mutation as the explanation for the variety of life forms that exist on earth. It has some validity IMO.

You are mistaking.
numerous debunkings have been posted here.

 

[Berean777]

Evolution is a theory, based on the testimony of man. The original poster states.....

Why do Christians have trouble with accepting Evolution?

Christians walk by faith and faith does not require adapting to scientific trends or theories, rather Christianity transcends the natural thoughts associated from the natural man, in that, its claim is that Jesus was crucified and was raised from the dead and ascended into heaven. The natural course of theories are bound by natural laws that cannot prove anything beyond their theoretical boundaries. Proven theories are based on the modelling of something observable and Evolution can not be observed and relies heavily on testimonies of men. Christians believe in the testimonies of apostles who have stood the test of time,dating back to the Old Testament times and the fulfillment of prophecies that are above and beyond any scope of understanding of natural laws.

In reality most times what you see is not what you get and science models what is not, by assuming the reality. Take for example modelling of gravity and light, whereby natural modelling of the phenomena are based on what is not, is it particles or is it wave or what is it. The best that natural laws can come up with are linear equations that approximate observable trends. Since evolution is not an observable phenomena like light or gravity, it cannot be linearly be modeled to guarantee a certain percentage of repeatable accuracy or prediction and therefore the theory has no scientific modelling attached to it and therefore it becomes an unproven theory.

Fossils on their own are not proof of evolution theory as do the dots on a page do not prove what the linear function of these dots represent, unless there is enough dots plotted in the course of the observable and repeatable facts in order to accurately model the theory mathematically. Evolution cannot be modeled mathematically and therefore has taken fossil evidence out of context to try and make it fit their bias. If you roll the die enough times, then you can decide to only consider the number your looking for and ignore the other numbers that don't fit the theory. Evolution theory ignores many facts in order to selectively choose what is supportive to its theory. Evolution theory at best is a selective based information gathering which overrides the laws of thermodynamics and discounts anomalies that are unsupportive.

Christians do not accept the new age religion of Evolution.

 

[Ariel Anguish Dove]

I have not read it all cause its too long but we do not accept that everything came about because it just happened and things mutated and evolved to be how it is today. Sorry if I have repeated anything I should not repeat did not read it all.

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

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

Yes I understand why God's different names confuse <staff edit>.

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

I have not read it all cause its too long but we do not accept that everything came about because it just happened and things mutated and evolved to be how it is today. Sorry if I have repeated anything I should not repeat did not read it all.

"Evolution" is just a <staff edit> theory based on assumption and conjecture and has never been observed.

 

[Armoured]

If genetic mutation supposedly produces an advancement of our species, name me one that would be beneficial to us... I provided a link to all human genetic mutations known.

Sickle cell anaemia.

 

[Armoured]

"Evolution" is just a <staff edit>theory based on assumption and conjecture and has never been observed.

Actually, it's been observed repeatedly.

 

[Extraneous]

God has two names in Genesis because the creation accounts were written by two different authors at two different times. The original language is Hebrew.

IF that's true, then why does chapter 3 use both names? Is chapter 3 and 4 written by different authors as well?


Chapter one uses only the name "God"

Chapter 2 uses "God" until the end of the creation story. But when it begins again (garden story) it changes to "Lord God"

Then in chapter 3 we see Eve calling Him "Lord God" but Satan calling Him "God"

Then in Chapter 4 we see only "Lord" used

 

[prodromos]

The sun is close
'

<staff edit> The guy's experiment in his hallway would be what would be seen if the balloon was suddenly blasted 1000's of kilometres sideways then back again. If instead he held the camera in the same spot and simply rotated the camera slightly, that would have been simulating what was happening with the dog cam, in which case the hall light's reflection would not have moved, just as the sun's reflection off the clouds didn't.

 

[Truthfrees]

MOD HAT ON

Speak to each other and about each other respectfully.

Speak about the Bible, Science, Creation, Evolution respectfully.

If your post is missing it's for these reasons.

MOD HAT OFF

 

[Phred]

A few things... Evolution is not a religion. It is not a belief. It is a scientific theory. That is not a guess. It is hypothesis supported by the data. And the data is massive. From all different areas of science. We know far more about evolution than we do about gravity. Evolution is a fact. That isn't taken on faith, it's not a belief. Life on earth evolved and it has been observed. Why don't Christians accept this? Many... most of them do. Only those that do not understand evolution deny it. But, then again, only those that do not understand science deny it. It comes down to wanting the Bible to be an infallible resource on the answers of the world. There's no evidence to suggest that it is.

 

[BiblicalAstronomy]

Evolution is something that I just haven't been convinced as being valid. I 100% agree with micro evolution but not macro evolution. As for what the bible says; the Bible is not a science book, it never tells us how God created and made things, just that He did do it. However, I do believe the Bible gives us hints at a sort of timeline, all-be-it in a very general way. I have rejected the traditional 6,000 year creation story that most christians have been taught and believed for centuries. I believe in the "gap theory" of Genesis 1.

There are many more holes in the Theory of Evolution than there are in the Creation record, like the [gaps in the fossil record which Evolution has never fully explained or accounted for]. In fact even though the Bible is not a scientific document, where it refers to scientific things it is accurate, and in many cases more accurate than Science, which is just a materialistic human religion. In many places in Isaiah [40:22, 42:5, 45:12] the Bible talks about "God stretching out the heavens," but Science never realized this until Edwin Hubble discovered the "Expanding Universe" with his red-shifted galaxies in the 1930's. This is only one example of where the Bible has been centuries ahead of scientific theory, and science has only recently "caught up" to the truth of Scripture. Job is one of the oldest books in the Bible, yet in [26:7] it refers to the earth suspended in space, another concept related to gravity that was not discovered until thousands of years later by Isaac Newton! God invented science along with all the laws of His Creation, which men are still discovering, and many of these concepts lie beyond scientific realms [Scientists can only speculate about what happened before their precious "Big Bang"]. Some of the strongest evidence for the Creator are the hundreds of "Anthropic Constants" that explain life on earth better than anything evolution has ever come up with-check them out...

God Bless

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

There are many more holes in the Theory of Evolution than there are in the Creation record,

Well, if the creation record is taken to be the Bible, there are many many more holes in the bible considered as a record of creation. For example, the bible says NOTHING about ice ages, NOTHING about dinosaurs, NOTHING about the rings of Saturn, NOTHING about radioactive decay, NOTHING about the orbit of the earth around the sun, NOTHING about the tilt of the earth's axis, . . . . you know this list could go on and on.

So that statement is inaccurate.

like the [gaps in the fossil record which Evolution has never fully explained or accounted for].

Well, we can't have every creature that ever lived as a fossil. There, the gaps are accounted for. So THAT statement is inaccurate.

In fact even though the Bible is not a scientific document, where it refers to scientific things it is accurate, and in many cases more accurate than Science, which is just a materialistic human religion.

The Bible says, for example, that the circular sea of bronze was 10 cubits wide and a cord of 30 cubits would encompass it. But it would actually require 31.414 cubits of a cord to encompass such a circular bath, so that's less accurate than modern science. Moreover, science is NOT a religion, no matter how many times you try to insult it by claiming it is . . . . you are not really in charge of defining what is a religion. So there is another inaccurate statement.

In many places in Isaiah [40:22, 42:5, 45:12] the Bible talks about "God stretching out the heavens," but Science never realized this until Edwin Hubble discovered the "Expanding Universe" with his red-shifted galaxies in the 1930's. This is only one example of where the Bible has been centuries ahead of scientific theory, and science has only recently "caught up" to the truth of Scripture.

Most interpreters of Isaiah understood the "stretching out of the heavens" to be at the time of creation, not an ongoing process. There's another inaccurate statement.

Job

is one of the oldest books in the Bible, yet in [26:7] it refers to the earth suspended in space, another concept related to gravity that was not discovered until thousands of years later by Isaac Newton!

You are confusing the age of the book with the age the story talks about. Clearly the book of Job was written among the later books of the old testament, because it talks about Satan and that is a later development in the Hebrew literature. It's subject, Job, is of course of a far earlier age. But the earth was always suspended in the creation narrative, in . . . . the waters above the earth and the waters below the earth . . . in nothing that is SOLID.

So there's another inaccurate statement.

God invented science along with all the laws of His Creation, which men are still discovering, and many of these concepts lie beyond scientific realms [Scientists can only speculate about what happened before their precious "Big Bang"]. Some of the strongest evidence for the Creator are the hundreds of "Anthropic Constants" that explain life on earth better than anything evolution has ever come up with-check them out...
God Bless

Nothing wrong with this last bit except you should better have phrased "anthropic constants" as "anthropic principle interpretations". May God bless you as well.

 

[1213]

...I usually consider language about the 4 corners of the world to be symbolic language. ...

It may be symbolic, but there is really possibility that earth (dry land) was stretched on surface of this planet that was in the beginning covered with water. It could have had four corners really. And because earth was stretched over water, it makes great flood event possible, because when the dry land (or continent) was broken, it sank and actually it was not really the water that rose, but the land that sunk.

http://www.kolumbus.fi/r.berg/geology.html

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

It may be symbolic, but there is really possibility that earth (dry land) was stretched on surface of this planet that was in the beginning covered with water. It could have had four corners really. And because earth was stretched over water, it makes great flood event possible, because when the dry land (or continent) was broken, it sank and actually it was not really the water that rose, but the land that sunk.

http://www.kolumbus.fi/r.berg/geology.html

No, that isn't possible. its . . . nonsense.

 

[BiblicalAstronomy]

Well, if the creation record is taken to be the Bible, there are many many more holes in the bible considered as a record of creation. For example, the bible says NOTHING about ice ages, NOTHING about dinosaurs, NOTHING about the rings of Saturn, NOTHING about radioactive decay, NOTHING about the orbit of the earth around the sun, NOTHING about the tilt of the earth's axis, . . . . you know this list could go on and on.

So that statement is inaccurate.



Well, we can't have every creature that ever lived as a fossil. There, the gaps are accounted for. So THAT statement is inaccurate.



The Bible says, for example, that the circular sea of bronze was 10 cubits wide and a cord of 30 cubits would encompass it. But it would actually require 31.414 cubits of a cord to encompass such a circular bath, so that's less accurate than modern science. Moreover, science is NOT a religion, no matter how many times you try to insult it by claiming it is . . . . you are not really in charge of defining what is a religion. So there is another inaccurate statement.


Most interpreters of Isaiah understood the "stretching out of the heavens" to be at the time of creation, not an ongoing process. There's another inaccurate statement.



You are confusing the age of the book with the age the story talks about. Clearly the book of Job was written among the later books of the old testament, because it talks about Satan and that is a later development in the Hebrew literature. It's subject, Job, is of course of a far earlier age. But the earth was always suspended in the creation narrative, in . . . . the waters above the earth and the waters below the earth . . . in nothing that is SOLID.

So there's another inaccurate statement.



Nothing wrong with this last bit except you should better have phrased "anthropic constants" as "anthropic principle interpretations". May God bless you as well.

Not wasting my time with you Junior...