Why do Christians have trouble with accepting Evolution?

[PapaZoom]

Frankly, i think that it is you who is full of nonsense.
Most things you present a struth do not make sense.
You mix ideas to your liking and you end up with an inconsistent mess.

Please offer one example to examine then please.

 

[PapaZoom]

All I am giving you here, Hier, are the facts of the matter. You don't have to believe them if you don't want to, but that doesn't alert the fact they are facts. If you can't accept the plurality of Christianity, that's your p[problem. Many others of us can and rejoice in it.

If by plurality you mean different traditions and different expressions, then yes I am with you. If you mean different truth claims, and those claims turn out to be essential to Christianity, then no.

 

[Hieronymus]

Some Christians believe exactly that: That the Bible teaches a flat earth. They offer proof texts to back them up and even scientific explanations.

It seems the past flat earth hype was launched with malicious intent, to make Bible believing Christians look stupid.
I think it worked quite well.
It shows mistrust in the scientific Chruch of naturalism, and not without reason.
Especially NASA has a reputation of not exactly showing us reality.
No, i don't mean the moon landing.

But it also shows paranoia, uncertainty and insecurity among the people who buy in to it.
Meanwhile Morgan Freeman is selling us more Pyramids on National Geographic (the "God" documentary)

which Honestly I was surprised at this. I thought it was a joke but they are, apparently, serious.

I don't think so.
But maybe they are, i don't know their sources, which they may actually believe.

Are they Christians then?

There are a couple of ambiguous youtube channels that spread this stuff.
Many have God's name in their account name...

Being wrong about the shape of the earth has zero to do with being a follower of Christ.

True, but who would want to have anything to do with those 'religious retards'.

Here's a short 'debunk' video i ran into lately:

 

[Sword of the Lord]

The idea that many people once believed that the earth is flat is a myth.

http://www.creationtips.com/flatearth.html

 

[ScottA]

All I am giving you here, Hier, are the facts of the matter. You don't have to believe them if you don't want to, but that doesn't alert the fact they are facts. If you can't accept the plurality of Christianity, that's your p[problem. Many others of us can and rejoice in it.

Fixating on what a "fact" is by one definition or another, only speaks of the truth, if one is fixed on the truth in the first place...which of course, one cannot even begin to do without knowing the beginning and the end. Your little patch of road, does not tell all, nor does it speak with the authority that you attribute to yourself. You should be asking questions - not making claims.

 

[PapaZoom]

The Wycliffe Bible:
http://wesley.nnu.edu/fileadmin/imported_site/wycliffe/

Codex Sinaiticus:
http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx

1611 KJV:
http://www.bibles-online.net/1611/

Narrow Canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church:
http://www.ethiopianorthodox.org/english/canonical/books.html

This statement of yours is simply not factually accurate.

-CryptoLutheran

God's Word never changes but the Bible clearly has. Either through additions to the text, omissions, Books accepted in the Cannon, Books rejected, some words mistakenly translated, and the list goes on.

But, we have enough data to deal with any and all apparent conflicts. Of course, like any group, we won't find complete unity when it comes to the Bible and seeing it as flawless. It is inerrant but then one has to carefully define what is meant by that.

 

[Hieronymus]

Fixating on what a "fact" is by one definition or another, only speaks of the truth, if one is fixed on the truth in the first place...which of course, one cannot even begin to do without knowing the beginning and the end. Your little patch of road, does not tell all, nor does it speak with the authority that you attribute to yourself. You should be asking questions - not making claims.

Indeed, there is a lot of relevant stuff to get acquainted with...
Ancient languages, cosmology, hermeneutics, archaeology, palaeontology, biology, philosophy, information science, chemistry....
Your head could explode...

But meanwhile, an increasingly detailed big picture becomes visible, and the clouds of ignorance dissolve...
For a part, of course.
But it's GRAND and amazing.
And it's real.
Humbling.
Amazing God.

 

[PapaZoom]

It seems the past flat earth hype was launched with malicious intent, to make Bible believing Christians look stupid.
I think it worked quite well.
It shows mistrust in the scientific Chruch of naturalism, and not without reason.
Especially NASA has a reputation of not exactly showing us reality.
No, i don't mean the moon landing.

But it also shows paranoia, uncertainty and insecurity among the people who buy in to it.
Meanwhile Morgan Freeman is selling us more Pyramids on National Geographic (the "God" documentary)I don't think so.
But maybe they are, i don't know their sources, which they may actually believe.
There are a couple of ambiguous youtube channels that spread this stuff.
Many have God's name in their account name...
True, but who would want to have anything to do with those 'religious retards'.

Here's a short 'debunk' video i ran into lately:

Thanks for the link. It's amazing the number of "out there" beliefs that exist. At least the flat-earth idea seems out there to me. And by out there I mean like in the Twilight Zone.

 

[PapaZoom]

Fixating on what a "fact" is by one definition or another, only speaks of the truth, if one is fixed on the truth in the first place...which of course, one cannot even begin to do without knowing the beginning and the end. Your little patch of road, does not tell all, nor does it speak with the authority that you attribute to yourself. You should be asking questions - not making claims.

Very well said! As the Bible says, we see though a glass dimly and sometimes I fell like the dimmest bulb in the pack.

 

[PapaZoom]

Indeed, there is a lot of relevant stuff to get acquainted with...
Ancient languages, cosmology, hermeneutics, archaeology, palaeontology, biology, philosophy, information science, chemistry....
Your head could explode...

But meanwhile, an increasingly detailed big picture becomes visible, and the clouds of ignorance dissolve...
For a part, of course.
But it's GRAND and amazing.
And it's real.
Humbling.
Amazing God.

Mine often does! I would not think God that great if we puny humans could know all and understand all about God and his creation. I hope that doesn't come across as disrespectful. Fortunately, the Bible tells us God is unfathomable and I like it that way. Keeps us searching for him and seeking His Truth.

 

[Extraneous]

So your ok with genocide? Killing people who gay sex? Stoning adulters? Killing people who work on the sabbath? Treating women inferior to men? Enslaving foreigners for life? There is truth to be taken from the OT, but those various books do show the human/culture/violent and sexist time that influenced the bible.

Forgive me, i mean no offence, but your question is not wise. Its contentious, and misrepresents what i was saying.

 

[Hieronymus]

Mine often does!

Mine too...

I would not think God that great if we puny humans could know all and understand all about God and his creation. I hope that doesn't come across as disrespectful.

No, not at all.
I think it's arrogant to assume we could understand everything God has made, and who He is.

Fortunately, the Bible tells us God is unfathomable and I like it that way. Keeps us searching for him and seeking His Truth.

This is how i prefer to learn about many relevant topics:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzXkVr_R6Kg30l25sDsjipQRpUMQXVi9W
It's a growing playlist of lectures and documentaries...

 

[SteveB28]

Well, i have seen too many arguments based on nothing but argument itself. Consider examples of Christians disagreeing with the idea that man evolved from prehistoric apes. ToE posters then come in and say "well man is an ape, duh" as if that invalidates the disagreement.

First off, man is only classified as an ape, its just a classification, also that classification itself doesn't mean that man evolved from a prehistoric ape necessarily. I have seen way too many arguments based on nonsense, which serves only to argue.

Please explain the location of endogenous retroviral insertions across the primate species.

 

[SteveB28]

You'll have your evidence soon enough...

Promises, promises......

 

[SteveB28]

Science actually disproves evolution.

The Miller-Urey experiment showed that even under perfectly controlled conditions which never existed in the earth, by controlled manipulation, scientists could make a single protein. The problem, of course, is that in their great discovery they demonstrated that the odds against 200 left handed proteins assembling themselves in the proper sequence to create the simplest of living things made abiogenesis a statistical impossibility.

Radiating fruit flies for tens of thousands of generations was supposed to force evolution via mutation. It demonstrated that mutations are almost always deleterious or neutral. After 30 years, the fruit flies remained fruit flies. When the radiation was removed, subsequent generations returned to normal.

Bacteria; the garbage eating simple life form, is said to have evolved because it became able to eat a different form of garbage. However, they are still bacteria doing what they were designed to do; eat garbage.
Breeders have been able to breed certain characteristics into or out of species, but they never change significantly. Dogs still have the same features, but in different proportions. You can cross a horse with a donkey and make a mule, but sterility is a result of any such breeding.

Adaptation is observed in the real world, but it is a conservative process where traits are enhanced or extinguished but never created. Repeated subtraction never equals addition. Adaptation is the opposite of evolution.

The theory of evolution says nothing about abiogenesis.

 

[Hieronymus]

God wins in the end...

Yes, but it is not the end yet.
As far as i can estimate based on (my limited understanding of) end times Bible exegesis, i think i can safely die of old age before the ship really hits the fan.
But meanwhile (i expect) only less people will believe in Genesis 1 to Genesis 8 in western culture.
We'll see..

There will be a revival but it will be falsely led and will again persecute God's people.... think tribulation, time of trouble.

I realy don't know how long the evolution idea will keep on standing in people's minds.
The universe seems to be fine tuned, scientists say..
It could develop in several directions...

 

[AmericanChristian91]

Forgive me, i mean no offence, but your question is not wise. Its contentious, and misrepresents what i was saying.

Sorry, I realized afterwords I shouldn't have posted that. Sometimes I deal with the issue f saying or posting while being unkind in the process while realizing my failures after the act.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I understand the ways of the world pretty well. I understand politics, and i understand also that science is not holy like you are preaching it to be. You are deluded to think its holy. Its not separate from mans folly, but is very much a part of it. As a human i can say this is true, but as a Christian i must say it even more. To say that science is above mans folly, and above his politics, deception and false doctrines, this is to put science where God alone sits. Science is anti Christ in that way.

Scientists don't think their science is holy, that is projection on your part. Scientists do think the truth is holy and try their best to find it out by checking and rechecking the evidence. This leads, of course, only to material truth, but it works in the arena in which it works, which is why we know the earth is billions of years old and all life is of common descent. The only opposition to this truth is on religious grounds, brought to us by those who assert scripture statements trump all other evidence.

That is, of course, not a logical stance to take. For one can only find out that scripture is a valid source of evidence about things by . . . . examining and comparing its consistency with the other evidence we have.

The veracity of scripture depends on evidence outside of scripture. If we were so foolish as to attempt to prove it only based on scripture, that would be circular reasoning, no more logical than for me to assure you that this post here is inerrant because it says it is inerrant right here in this sentence.

So the evidence by which we conclude to give weight to the spiritual teachings of scripture must include the findings of science; they are part of the evidence we should consider.

People who claim we must consider scripture and science to be incompatible are therefore voting against the serious consideration of scripture, whether they realize it or not. We may interpret scripture to be consistent with science if we so choose, and no one has a right to deny us our interpretation.

 

[Extraneous]

The theory of evolution says nothing about abiogenesis.

Please, explain it to me. Make a fleshy show of mans wisdom. Its really nothing more than that. You lack discernment as far as God is concerned, you deny his existence because that is foolishness to you, and you would rather glory in fleshy wisdom. Sure, it makes you sound wise, but in the end the bible has another word for those who deny Gods existence. The worst part is that you come to a Christian website, and argue all day, wasting your life in a meaningless debate, although you believe this life is all there is. Such a waste. I'll give you your moment of glory. Please answer your question and educate this layman.

 

[Geralt]

no trouble accepting it, as false. no pressure here.
theory and probability are totally in a different class than being truth (true) and false.
the problem with evolutionists is they conclude the theory & probability (of evolution) = truth.

I think i know some key ideas. Its because it undermines the creation story and that people will become irreligious?

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

What i mean is that science explains our physicial world. The main point i am making is that Creation Story had two interpretations in medieval ages. Allegory" basically a deeper meaning than it is. Or "Literally" like just like it is written.

So basically allegory seems to be the key point then. Since that can be used. Since God is outside our understanding. Science is a method just to understand the world we live in more or less.

So i dont see the problem with evolution, because it doesnt undermine the scripture in the sense of it not being true?

Although i do believe its a shame that more people who lack understanding go away because of ignorance and just dont bother trying to understand why Christianity is a religion to help your life.

But i am curious to what you think?