Why do Christians have trouble with accepting Evolution?

[Paul of Eugene OR]

So you as a Christian defend the religion of "evolution" rather than what God hath said. To be bluntly honest you sound more like an atheist than a Christian.

There you go again, calling the science of evolution a "religion". I just don't understand why you religious evolution deniers think that calling something a religion is an insult, since your whole objection is based on your own religion.

I defend the truth, and evolution happens to be true. That's the whole shebang.

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

It actually suns up the two sides. Jesus would say....



Without going into details like I have in my previous posts, the decision of supporting the creation account or the evolution theory, is along the lines of whether people choose to believe God, that he is the author of creation and had a direct hand in it, or that he is not the author of creation at all, or that he didn't have a direct hand in it, whereby like all created things he took a back seat and watched an uncontrolled big bang run its course.

There are Christians who believe that God rolled the dice and then took a back seat, as the dice kept on rolling on its own through trillions upon trillions of repeated uncontrolled scenarios that eventually found a spec of life from an infinite galaxy. This means that God didn't intentionally create us where we are and the way we look, rather the random throw of the dice was responsible for who we are today. It seems this notion denigrates God to an adolescent who was playing with matches and burnt the house down, not knowing the consequences of his inadvertent actions.

Are some professing Christians wanting to go that route?


It would be disheartening to the loving God who said that he did it, when he did it and had his personal image as his signature to doing it intenionally, according to the Genesis. I know many will look at bits of the Genesis account and scrutinise it to find holes in it, but the facts remain that Adam is portrayed as a created being who was made deliberately by God's hands and the action of breathing into his nostrils so that he could become a living person, highlights a personal and close relation between the creator and the creature. Again those who advocate that God did not do this on a personal level, have unwittingly denied the testimony of scripture of a personal God that who is knowable and have otherwise marred the name of God who is love (definite article). A God who is impersonal and has no direct influence on his creation is the Gnostic god of the Gnostics, an adolescent at best, where Sophia his mother nature chastises him for his childish actions, like playing with matches that started the big band.

Come on people don't you see the cult like religion of evolution.

I agree the cult of "evolution' is in fact anti-Christian. The cult of "evolution" is in fact a pseudo science based on great assumptions and much conjecture and has as of yet never, ever been observed.

 

[Berean777]

Berrean777, labeling something a "cult" simply because it does not square with your limited understanding of matters is totally inappropriate in a serious theological discussion. If you cannot be respectful with your opponents, then I am going to simply ignore your posts.

No, labelling evolution as a cult like religion is appropriate because it denigrates the God of the Bible.

Could I kindly ask why you chose as your forum name Hoghead rather than Godhead head as in the trinity?

 

[Hoghead1]

But it isn't. It is challenging your opinion as to what Christian faith should be. But many other Christians would disagree with you. Again, you need to be more respectful of others. Maybe you have some valid points to offer, but so do others. You do not have inerrant judgment and so you should be open to hearing others who maybe don't share your views. Again, all you are doing is demonizing your opponents and that is totally inappropriate in a theology discussion group. I'm surprised the Mods haven't banned you.

 

[Berean777]

There you go again, calling the science of evolution a "religion". I just don't understand why you religious evolution deniers think that calling something a religion is an insult, since your whole objection is based on your own religion.

I defend the truth, and evolution happens to be true. That's the whole shebang.

It is not meant to be an insult, rather it is an appropriate response to those claiming evolution as scientific when it is a theory accepted on faith and on the testimony of men. There is no mathematical basis for this theory and a theory without applied maths is a theory reserved for a philosophical class at best. Philosophers believe their theories, but they can't prove them mathematically in real world scenarios. Most of their presumed evidence is conjecture on their part, that is a lot of huff and puff if you know what I mean. Evolution theory should be classed as ancient Greek mysticism.

 

[Berean777]

But it isn't. It is challenging your opinion as to what Christian faith should be. But many other Christians would disagree with you. Again, you need to be more respectful of others. Maybe you have some valid points to offer, but so do others. You do not have inerrant judgment and so you should be open to hearing others who maybe don't share your views. Again, all you are doing is demonizing your opponents and that is totally inappropriate in a theology discussion group. I'm surprised the Mods haven't banned you.

Provide the listeners in this forum why you think the theory of evolution doesnt denigrate the God of the Bible. Come on now, please explain, we are all ears listening with baited breath. After all this is a Christian forum isn't it?

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

There you go again, calling the science of evolution a "religion". I just don't understand why you religious evolution deniers think that calling something a religion is an insult, since your whole objection is based on your own religion.

I defend the truth, and evolution happens to be true. That's the whole shebang.

I don't deny something that doesn't exist.

You have no empirical evidence because nobody observed something you claim occurred millions to billions of years ago

em·pir·i·cal
based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.



Again no one from the ToE ever observed something you claim happened in the past

Scientific theory - a way in which scientist or individuals seek to explain "broadly" regularities existing in objects and certain events. They are both posited and observed by the researcher. The researcher contends what he finds based upon "empirical" laws or evidence. In order to explain these events the researcher is guided by three principles, careful observation, reporting of regularities or non regularities, and finally systematic explanation (theories).

Nature is objective whether we want to believe it or not. Science is a methodology applied to nature by fallible, prejudiced humans.

 

[Berean777]

I don't deny something that doesn't exist.

You have no empirical evidence because nobody observed something you claim occurred millions to billions of years ago

em·pir·i·cal
based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.



Again no one from the ToE ever observed something you claim happened in the past

Scientific theory - a way in which scientist or individuals seek to explain "broadly" regularities existing in objects and certain events. They are both posited and observed by the researcher. The researcher contends what he finds based upon "empirical" laws or evidence. In order to explain these events the researcher is guided by three principles, careful observation, reporting of regularities or non regularities, and finally systematic explanation (theories).

Nature is objective whether we want to believe it or not. Science is a methodology applied to nature by fallible, prejudiced humans.

Apparently Mathematics does not apply to evolution theory, it is self evident and some say that it even promotes God rather than denigrate him. Hmmmmmm.........sometimes I wonder?

 

[Berean777]

Godhead trinity of The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit.

I see and experience the trinity in my life. How do people experience a theory, in particular evolution theory?

Can anyone please tell us how people experience evolution theory in their day to day lives?

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

Apparently Mathematics does not apply to evolution theory, it is self evident and some say that it even promotes God rather than denigrate him. Hmmmmmm.........sometimes I wonder?

Perhaps they should write their own bible....oh wait ;-)

 

[Hoghead1]

Berean 777, again, you are simply being disrespectful of others. It isn't a question here of God per se or the Bible per se or science per say, or anything like that. The issue here is your homespun belief system about these matters. That is what is in question. All you have done is state your opinion as a lay person. OK, fine. That's what this forum is about. However, you seem to forget that others also have the right to state theirs. They also have the right to be treated in a respectful manner. You are definitely not an educated scientist, theologian, biblical scholar, or anything of the like, and no where in the Christian tradition does it say you have the right to sit in judgment on others, including fellow Christians., and you are not an individual the Christian community chose to represent itself. You can speak only for yourself, period. So it is out of the question that you have inerrant judgment and are automatically right in any of there matters. You should listen respectfully to what your "opponents' re saying and then, if you disagree, submit a solid rational counterargument. Instead, you and some others here resort inflammatory rhetoric and attacking the character of others. That gives your posts absolutely no credibility in my book.

 

[Calminian]

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.

This is the documentary theory (hypothesis) which has been blown out of the water in modern times, thanks to archeology. It was once believed the Torah was post-mosaic, since writing was thought to not exist prior to 1000 BC. But archeologist now disagree with you. In fact, even full blow documentary hypothesizers disagree with you. By the early 1900s, thousand of clay tablets were discovered, which predated Abraham. Turns out, writing has been around as early as civilization has been around.

What you're liking doing is reading old writings about the subject, before these archeology finds were made. Since then, your colleagues, those who agree with you, have abandoned this idea, knowing it has been refuted in modern times. They're still sticking to their hypothesis. Old habits die hard, but no longer use that line of reasoning.

But I would think something like this would be an encouragement to you. It means Moses could have, and indeed did write the Torah. And it also means it's likely he wrote it from older documents, perhaps clay tablets passed down to him from his ancestors.

Indeed, there is also internal evidence in the text of Genesis which indicates who the original authors may have been. We see a reference to the "Book of the accounts of Adam" (Gen. 5:1). There is an "account of Noah" and account of Noah's sons" also mentioned. Genesis is indeed a book of antiquity! It's certainly encouraging to me!

 

[Berean777]

Perhaps they should write their own bible....oh wait ;-)

They have, but they don't call it Biblios, they call it Science, that is Evolution is Science. Maybe we should change Biblios to Bibloscientios or something along those lines. It is amazing how marketing names make a huge difference in an age of consumerism.

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

Berean 777, again, you are simply being disrespectful of others. It isn't a question here of God per se or the Bible per se or science per say, or anything like that. The issue here is your homespun belief system about these matters. That is what is in question. All you have done is state your opinion as a lay person. OK, fine. That's what this forum is about. However, you seem to forget that others also have the right to state theirs. They also have the right to be treated in a respectful manner. You are definitely not an educated scientist, theologian, biblical scholar, or anything of the like, and no where in the Christian tradition does it say you have the right to sit in judgment on others, including fellow Christians., and you are not an individual the Christian community chose to represent itself. You can speak only for yourself, period. So it is out of the question that you have inerrant judgment and are automatically right in any of there matters. You should listen respectfully to what your "opponents' re saying and then, if you disagree, submit a solid rational counterargument. Instead, you and some others here resort inflammatory rhetoric and attacking the character of others. That gives your posts absolutely no credibility in my book.

Matt 15:8. This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
9. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

 

[Hoghead1]

That isn't accurate, Cal, The DH has not been blown out of the water by anything. I don't know hat sources you re using here, but I suspect they are of questionable scholarship. For example, creation-science people started a rumor that the DH is out of vogue, but they are not the most reliable source. You know, it's interesting. I was just discussing this matter with one of my colleagues, Richard Friedman, who is a professor of Jewish studies an the University of Georgia and major authority on the DH. He emailed a list of about 150 major biblical scholars that hold with the DH, plus ten major academic journals. So the DH is till up and running. If you want, I could provide the names of several experts, form the list I have, and you could maybe email them as ask about the DH.

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

They have, but they don't call it Biblios, they call it Science, that is Evolution is Science. Maybe we should change Biblios to Bibloscientios or something along those lines. It is amazing how marketing names make a huge difference in an age of consumerism.

Or the Book of Belial.

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

That isn't accurate, Cal, The DH has not been blown out of the water by anything. I don't know hat sources you re using here, but I suspect they are of questionable scholarship. For example, creation-science people started a rumor that the DH is out of vogue, but they are not the most reliable source. You know, it's interesting. I was just discussing this matter with one of my colleagues, Richard Friedman, who is a professor of Jewish studies an the University of Georgia and major authority on the DH. He emailed a list of about 150 major biblical scholars that hold with the DH, plus ten major academic journals. So the DH is till up and running. If you want, I could provide the names of several experts, form the list I have, and you could maybe email them as ask about the DH.

1 Corinthians 2:13-14
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual things.
14 But the natural man perceiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

 

[Hoghead1]

Citing from Scripture, BornAgain, really adds nothing to your case. If anything, people should avoid citing Scripture in theological discussions, as this simply leads to a biblical-quotes war, each side firing off quotes at the other. The issue here is your interpretation of what the Bible is saying. You, too, are gong on the commandments of men. You are simply citing your human-made opinions and probably re lying on the human-made opinions of church fathers. Hnece, you should listen to what the verse is telling you. it is telling you to carefully check things out. Opinions that you cherish may not at all be near the reality of God and Scripture. It's interesting how many Christians will accuse someone of being a false prophet, without every examining themselves to see if they are not a false prophet.

 

[Berean777]

I agree the cult of "evolution' is in fact anti-Christian. The cult of "evolution" is in fact a pseudo science based on great assumptions and much conjecture and has as of yet never, ever been observed.

The Bible clearly states that God created the heavens, stars and all life, whereas evolution states that it evolved over billions of mutations owing to some leviathan of open looped systems. In essence evolution denies that we carry the image/signature of God, because God had no capacity to know or to sovereignly control the outcome of who and what we are today. It denigrates him and denies his authorship as The Creator. Should we not label a cult like religion for what it is?

We have to either proclaim a sovereign God who had a deliberate and personal hand in creation or that he played with one too many matches and burnt the house down with no idea of the end consequences. Obviously on a Christian forum we are commissioned to tell the truth, regardless of what others think, because if the evolution theory is an attack on my daddy, it attacks me and all the body of Christ equally. Cults tend to attack the character of God and what he stands for, because they invent new ways to attack his sovereign ownership and authorship as Lord by defaming him through theories that denigrate him personally.

 

[Calminian]

That isn't accurate, Cal, The DH has not been blown out of the water by anything. I don't know hat sources you re using here, but I suspect they are of questionable scholarship. For example, creation-science people started a rumor that the DH is out of vogue, but they are not the most reliable source. You know, it's interesting. I was just discussing this matter with one of my colleagues, Richard Friedman, who is a professor of Jewish studies an the University of Georgia and major authority on the DH. He emailed a list of about 150 major biblical scholars that hold with the DH, plus ten major academic journals. So the DH is till up and running. If you want, I could provide the names of several experts, form the list I have, and you could maybe email them as ask about the DH.

Right, I realize you don't think the DH has been debunked, nor do your DHer colleagues. But they no longer are using the 1000 BC argument. The proofs you're relying on are out of date, and no longer used. They've moved to other arguments. The ancient writing problem has been solved by secular archeologists, mind you, not Christian ones.