Why do Christians have trouble with accepting Evolution?

[Senod2]

Im not saying science isnt useful in refuting mans foolishness, because it would lead many Christians astray perhaps. However to add mans wisdom to Gods wisdom seems problematic. Its the mind of Christ that we have and speak, but that comes by hearing, not science.

How is accepting it leading them astray? I already explained that it is true in an allegorical sense. If anything it makes God greater because he is not something you can understand. And thats the beauty of it, we can know what to do from God's words but we cannot understand how he does things. If anything science proves is that it doesnt change a thing about God. I will say the bible literalists are making God smaller than the ones who interpret it allegorically in terms of creation. But thats just my view.

 

[Noxot]

well the video was nice. it speaks about how amazingly complex DNA is but I don't think it truly disproves evolution. with that much complexity I keep in mind that it does not function depending on humans inability/ability to modify itself. it is based on it's own self of which we do not fully grasp. however since dna can speak multiple things by saying one thing, I see a spiritual truth in how God speaks to us in his bible and in reality in general. thus I conclude that DNA is a type of intelligence just like my brain is. maybe atoms and particles are a kind of intelligence too. this would only prove that the universe is intelligent which most scientist and many christians don't believe as they have an conception of the universe which says that it is dead. some humans just assume that intelligence is only a biological thing but intelligence is a God thing.

the people who are literalist are really just shooting themselves in the foot. they don't know how to draw a line in between their understanding of the bible vs what God has put into it. they try to pretend that DNA is a simple thing, so to speak.

 

[Extraneous]

How is accepting it leading them astray? I already explained that it is true in an allegorical sense. If anything it makes God greater because he is not something you can understand. And thats the beauty of it, we can know what to do from God's words but we cannot understand how he does things. If anything science proves is that it doesnt change a thing about God. I will say the bible literalists are making God smaller than the ones who interpret it allegorically in terms of creation. But thats just my view.

The truth remains that God is not found under a microscope. Do we actually think the Almighty would let a mere human put him under such a thing? God has commanded that all men repent and believe in the Gospel. He says that mans wisdom is foolishness and that greeks seek wisdom while jews seek signs, and only through Christ alone can we find God. I believe its folly to try marrying mans wisdom with Gods wisdom. Surely it will only lead to folly. God demands faith.

 

[Extraneous]

well the video was nice. it speaks about how amazingly complex DNA is but I don't think it truly disproves evolution. with that much complexity I keep in mind that it does not function depending on humans inability/ability to modify itself. it is based on it's own self of which we do not fully grasp. however since dna can speak multiple things by saying one thing, I see a spiritual truth in how God speaks to us in his bible and in reality in general. thus I conclude that DNA is a type of intelligence just like my brain is. maybe atoms and particles are a kind of intelligence too. this would only prove that the universe is intelligent which most scientist and many christians don't believe as they have an conception of the universe which says that it is dead. some humans just assume that intelligence is only a biological thing but intelligence is a God thing.

the people who are literalist are really just shooting themselves in the foot. they don't know how to draw a line in between their understanding of the bible vs what God has put into it. they try to pretend that DNA is a simple thing, so to speak.

I know how to draw a line between holiness and worldliness, and between Gods wisdom and mans

 

[Noxot]

literalist are forced to see God in a very wicked and erroneous manner. this had lead humans to commit all kinds of different forms of evils.

 

[Saucy]

Blind post:

For Creation not to be true, it would fly in the face of so many factors in our faith. For example, Sabbath on the 7th day. He created the world in six days and rested on the 7th. Why would the Sabbath be important to God if He really created the world over billions of years? Also, the whole redemption story has its beginning in Genesis when Adam and Eve sinned. By them, death came into the world...not death having existed for millions of years previously. Sin brought death into the world...so the whole idea doesn't make sense if death already existed. Why do we need Christ then?

And that's the thing about evolution. It's a lie. It's another lie the enemy has created to undermine Christ and His purpose. Christ Himself spoke about creation and Adam and Eve, as did many prominent biblical figures throughout the whole bible. So anyone who says it didn't happen, or it was just a story, only say that because they're rather put their faith in evolution and science. Science which always changes and takes NO account for any supernatural events that may have occurred. Science can only try to explain the natural world...but what if a supernatural God exists?

When He created the world and everything around us in seven days, it would of course have the appearance of age, right? He didn't plant trees and waited for them to grow. No, they were already full-formed and bearing fruit. He put the moon and stars in the sky for the purpose of marking months and for travel. And then many atheists ask, "Why did God mislead humans by making everything seem older than it is?" Well, He told us how He did it, didn't He? But if you don't want to take God's word for it, then don't.

 

[Albion]

Nothing in the Bible supports the false notion of "Theistic evolution". This comes from the notion that a sinful man (Darwin) came up with this irrational idea of Evolution, now we have make the Bible submit to the authority of man (this is eisegesis). God is sovereign, not man.

To say "nothing in the Bible supports" theistic evolution is a non-starter of a point IMHO. Genesis describes God as intending to create all of this...and then doing so. The only question concerns the timing.

 

[Senod2]

To admit evolution is a fact, and yet say that God is true because Allegory just undermines science. So i find it hard that so many are stuck on a literalist view or that it undermines god?. Its to challenge atheists that they are wrong either way. This lifts god up not down. I am sad so many thinks it isnt the case, its infact the opposite

 

[Extraneous]

literalist are forced to see God in a very wicked and erroneous manner. this had lead humans to commit all kinds of different forms of evils.

Im starting to think the opposite is true.

 

[Noxot]

Im starting to think the opposite is true.

hey if the Lord gives you that then who am I to oppose you but if it is the devil then watch out, he wishes to swallow us all up.

 

[Extraneous]

hey if the Lord gives you that then who am I to oppose you but if it is the devil then watch out, he wishes to swallow us all up.

People who have done evil things in the past were not actually following the bible. All the war and other stuff, thats not what the Lord and His apostles taught us. Even before i started seeing things more spiritually, i never would have been lead to do those things. IT was actually false teachers who kept me in ignorance though, because i did support war, but not because of scripture. I should have been taught by preachers to stay away from politics, buts thats not what they did, so i had to learn that on my own.

 

[Extraneous]

Perhaps this is when i must be beaten and tested, to see if my message of "not killing our enemies" is from God or the enemy?

 

[Noxot]

I don't wanna be tested, i just wanna be innocent and good. the sufferings of Jesus was one of the hardest things that i can think of going through. I get so mad at injustices that it makes me crazy and I start to turn evil over my hatred of errors.

 

[Extraneous]

I don't wanna be tested, i just wanna be innocent and good. the sufferings of Jesus was one of the hardest things that i can think of going through. I get so mad at injustices that it makes me crazy and I start to turn evil over my hatred of errors.

I dont want to either, and we shouldn't test each other either, because that's wrong.

 

[Archivist]

When He created the world and everything around us in seven days, it would of course have the appearance of age, right? He didn't plant trees and waited for them to grow. No, they were already full-formed and bearing fruit. He put the moon and stars in the sky for the purpose of marking months and for travel. And then many atheists ask, "Why did God mislead humans by making everything seem older than it is?" Well, He told us how He did it, didn't He? But if you don't want to take God's word for it, then don't.

But Scripture provides two different creation stories. he first is Genesis 1:1-2:3, and the second is Genesis 2:4-25. The first that sets out seven days of creation.

In the second creation story, things are a little different. First of all, individual days are not specified. And the sequence of creation is very different.

Which is correct?

 

[Saucy]

What makes them so different? Why can't they be the same story? Moses wrote Genesis, so why would he tell two different creation stories? Sounds more like a continuation or an adding for details to all God did during creation. I don't see where it has to be two completely different creation stories.

 

[Extraneous]

Chapter 2 seems to expound on what was already written in chapter 1.
It must be expounding on what was previously written because it says God rested from his work on the 7th day, but then goes on to talk about creating man. God didn't create man after the seventh day, so it must be expounding.

 

[Archivist]

What makes them so different? Why can't they be the same story? Moses wrote Genesis, so why would he tell two different creation stories? Sounds more like a continuation or an adding for details to all God did during creation. I don't see where it has to be two completely different creation stories.

If you read them you will see major differences. For example in the first creation story, humans are created after the other animals. In the second story, humans were created before the other animals. In the first creation story, the first man and woman were created simultaneously. In the second account, the man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib. I would say those are fairly significant.

 

[Extraneous]

If you read them you will see major differences.

Like what? I didnt see that and i just looked, although it was a quick glance i couldn't find any differences. It seems to tell two stories yes, but one simply expounds on the other, but i see no contradiction however.

 

[Saucy]

Well I just read through it. I will read it again.