Why do Christians have trouble with accepting Evolution?

No,EastCoast, that isn't worship to me. Worship rituals were brought in as ways for people to commune with God or the gods. That's not the purpose of a science lab at all. And no, there is no one in science talking about a being higher than God. What brought that up here?

Extraneous said:

Of course science cannot be wrong, they are perfect and holy.

Click to expand...

Well scientists can be "Wrong" -- and when they are not religiously convicted to 'stay wrong' as in the case of the believers in evolutionism - they will often choose to "change" -- admit to mistakes and learn from them. Sadly evolutionism is not science - it is junk-science and bad religion having a doctrine on origins that is totally opposed to the Gospel -- and acceptance of the Bible doctrine on origins, the fall of man and the Gospel.

Hoghead1 said:

I'm not sure you fully understand evolution, BibleA.

Click to expand...

It would take a lifetime to plumb the depths of the junk-science failed religion that we know as evolutionism.

Extraneous said:

Science, in all its man made glory, is actually part fact and part false doctrine. Its no different than any other religion really.

Click to expand...

That is true of blind faith evolutionism - pure junk-science.

But I would not say that about - math, chemistry, physics, observable biology etc.

SteveB28 said:

The theory has NEVER included an explanation of how life arose. Someone has misinformed you, or you are concocting that.

Click to expand...

Atheists have a choice -- either "God did it" or it is all in the magical-powers of a big pile of dirt - to accomplish the feat -- starting with the Big Bang.

Which one do you choose?

Ahh yes - now we are back to "big pile of dirt will sure-enough turn into a rabbit over time - given a sufficiently large pile of dirt and a sufficiently long and talented length of time filled with improbable just-so-stories"

BobRyan said:

Well scientists can be "Wrong" -- and when they are not religiously convicted to 'stay wrong' as in the case of the believers in evolutionism - they will often choose to "change" -- admit to mistakes and learn from them. Sadly evolutionism is not science - it is junk-science and bad religion having a doctrine on origins that is totally opposed to the Gospel -- and acceptance of the Bible doctrine on origins, the fall of man and the Gospel.

Click to expand...

Evolutionism--whatever that is--may not be science. But evolution is science. Peer reviewed, evidence based science. The only ones who think otherwise aren't scientists, but idealogues who refuse to use peer reviewed, evidenced based science but engage only in pseudo-science and dogma.

The enemy you see is the one in the mirror.

-CryptoLutheran

EastCoastRemnant said:

Except when they are... which is often... but they have a mechanism to alleviate that. It's called, lets forget about our mistakes and focus on the truth du jour.

Click to expand...

It's called the scientific method. It's remarkably reliable in self correcting mistaken notions in science. When scientists discover that their previous theories and hypotheses don't necessarily match the data, they go back to the drawing board and use the scientific method again to account for the data.

That's not a failure of science. That's a primary feature.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis said:

Evolutionism--whatever that is--may not be science.

Click to expand...

junk-science failed-religion Evolutionism has two forms:

Blind faith atheist evolutionism says “a pile of dirt is sure enough going to turn into a rabbit over time - given a sufficiently large pile of dirt over a sufficiently talented and long period of time (4.5 billion years) - filled with just-so-stories"

T.E. says “In the beginning God scattered amoeba all over the planet then left – waiting for a sufficiently talented and long period of time (3.5 billion years) - filled with just-so-stories so He could finally have a horse on planet earth"

By contrasts to both of those false religions - The Bible says this - Exodus 20:11 - in legal code.

But evolution is science. Peer reviewed, evidence based science. The only ones who think otherwise aren't scientists,

Click to expand...

BobRyan said:

junk-science failed-religion Evolutionism has two forms:

Click to expand...

This statement alone, frankly, disqualifies you from having a valid opinion on the subject of science. The rest of your post is just icing on that cake.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis said:

This statement alone, frankly, disqualifies you from having a valid opinion

Click to expand...

ahhh yes the "ever-present" ad hominem "solution" of evolutionism -- never hidden very far in the shadows.

ViaCrucis said:

. The only ones who think otherwise aren't scientists, but idealogues

Click to expand...

just not in real life---


As we saw that again in the case of the fraudulent horse series

"I admit that an awful lot of that [imaginary stories] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum of Natural History] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable ..."
Niles Eldredge, as quoted in Luther D Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th ed. 1988, pg 78.


"The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature."—G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119.

============================

The sorts of things world class scientists were not saying about gravity and thermodynamics in the 1980's and 1950's



Here is a fact already in evidence.

After the bold equivocation between junk-science evolutionism and actual science like the law of Gravity and the laws of thermodynamics - I pointed out the blunder - showing that in real life you don't see world class scientists saying the sorts of thing about gravity as evolutionism's own atheist scientists say about evolutionism.

============


Collin Patterson (atheist and diehard evolutionist to the day he died in 1998) - Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history speaking at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 - said:


Patterson - quotes Gillespie's arguing that Christians

"'...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'"

Patterson countered, "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact (saying):'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"


"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here...


"...,Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge , apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."

========================

Now on this thread we are being "told" to equivocate between blind faith evolutionism - and ... 'Gravity' and 'the law of thermodynamics'. AS IF our top scientists today ALSO come out saying "the law of thermodynamics conveys no knowledge.. in fact it seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge. apparent knowledge that is harmful to physics".

AS IF our top scientists today would say "Gravity --and the gravitational constant so near and dear to science text books today - NEVER HAPPENED in nature".

REALLY?? That is what you see happening???

========================================================

Thus the perfect contrast was given - exposing that sort of "equivocation" as was attempted trying to get evolutionism in the "legit box" of science - that has Gravity and Thermodynamics in it

ViaCrucis said:

The rest of your post is just icing on that cake.
-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

This post?

BobRyan said:

junk-science failed-religion Evolutionism has two forms:

Blind faith atheist evolutionism says “a pile of dirt is sure enough going to turn into a rabbit over time - given a sufficiently large pile of dirt over a sufficiently talented and long period of time (4.5 billion years) - filled with improbable just-so-stories"

T.E. says “In the beginning God scattered amoeba all over the planet then left – waiting for a sufficiently talented and long period of time (3.5 billion years) - filled with improbable just-so-stories so He could finally have a horse on planet earth"

To fair they have the same "amoeba will sure enough turn int a rabbit over time - given a sufficient amount of sunlight and a sufficiently talented and long period of time - filled with very improbable just-so-stories" as does the atheist evolutionist - for that part of their "story". They both at least have 'that' in common.

By contrasts to both of those false religions - The Bible says this - Exodus 20:11 - in legal code.

Click to expand...

IS this where you point to some "detail" that you can prove to be in error??

BobRyan said:

ahhh yes the "ever-present" ad hominem "solution" of evolutionism -- never hidden very far in the shadows.

Click to expand...

No ad hominem was made, as I didn't attack you. It's just clear to me that with the way you're speaking you don't really have an idea what it is you're talking about.

Junk science religious gravitationism, where atheist gravitationists say that giant magnets make apples fall on people's heads.

If I said the above it would be absolutely correct to conclude that I haven't the foggiest clue what I'm talking about, and my opinions on the subject of gravitation are entirely without merit.

-CryptoLutheran

Creationism grew out of religious speculation about origins and destiny. Because religion is slow to change its ways it must have reform forced upon it.

Old Testiment Judausm had no concept of God having a Son through whom the world was created. But after Jesus the Trinity emerged. That's reform forced upon religion.

BobRyan said:

IS this where you point to some "detail" that you can prove to be in error??

Click to expand...

Sure, the entire thing. It clearly demonstrates that you don't know what evolution is or what the theory of evolution says.

It's like saying "gravitationism" involves giant magnets making apples fall on people's heads.

-CryptoLutheran

BobRyan said:

Atheists have a choice -- either "God did it" or it is all in the magical-powers of a big pile of dirt - to accomplish the feat -- starting with the Big Bang.

Which one do you choose?

Ahh yes - now we are back to "big pile of dirt will sure-enough turn into a rabbit over time - given a sufficiently large pile of dirt and a sufficiently long and talented length of time filled with improbable just-so-stories"

Click to expand...

I can no longer reply here, as I have been warned off, sorry.

ViaCrucis said:

It's called the scientific method. It's remarkably reliable in self correcting mistaken notions in science. When scientists discover that their previous theories and hypotheses don't necessarily match the data, they go back to the drawing board and use the scientific method again to account for the data.

That's not a failure of science. That's a primary feature.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

Then there is hope that you will eventually come around to the absolute truth of God's ability to create.

How does the Bible describe the creation of the new earth? Is it going to take millions of years or will He awe us with His Majesty and Power by recreating as He did in the beginning.

Imo, evolutionists, whether Christian or not, have a lower view of God then is due Him.

SteveB28 said:

I can no longer reply here, as I have been warned off, sorry.

Click to expand...

No offense but as an atheist, you weren't contributing as much as you would like to think. We hear your side all the time in the world.

EastCoast, we also her your side all the time, too. What does this have to do with anything here? Also, East, just how much do you think you yourself are contributing here?

Has anyone addressed the problems of the Cambrian explosion with respect to Darwinian evolution?