Why do Christians have trouble with accepting Evolution?

[Breckmin]

That's right, EastCoast, God gave us a brain. And on account of that, we have highly educated scientists who well know how to interpret bones.

Ever read "Bones of Contention?" One mistake by Marvin regarding an extinct species prediction
(of something very subjective with the hypothesis) doesn't invalidate the whole rest of the book, btw.

 

[Breckmin]

Let me ask the anti-evolution posters a question.

What if....you were proven without a doubt that evolution is true....and this earth is really really......old. How would that affect your christian faith? Would you retain it? Or would evolution being true destroy the belief in the Christian God in your mind?

Not at all.

As a theologian who studies textual criticism I soundly reject biblical inerrancy.

If the universal common descent hypothesis were true... I would go back to embracing it.
When I was a liberal Christian I was briefly T.E. for a second time in my life. My reasons
for rejecting universal common descent hypothesis and transitional species are strictly
scientific...

I never ever choose the "bible" over science... because falsifiable science is God's natural
(or general) revelation. I will always allow science to correct my biblical interpretation UNLESS
we are talking about a miracle (which is not a question of falsifiability).

science rules! but what "looks like science" (universal common descent hypothesis) is
not always true falsifiable science....especially when talking about origins. Question everything.

Question the nonsense of "originating more complex information (for more complex
function) from random processes."

 

[IamNazarene]

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?

The real reason why real Christian will not accept evolution is the same reason you accept it.
You accept it because you believe its authors are truth.
We reject it because we believe its authors are liars.

That is blunt but that is the core truth.

We Christians also acknowledge that the theory is of satanic origin.
We literally believe and evil angel created the theory through men.

Satan is a liar and the king of it.

Evolution denies the six day creation of God which is something satan wants the world to do. Did he do it?
Almost, he did a brilliant job in convincing the entire world almost....

How ever, the sons of God are not fooled.

 

[Breckmin]

....and this earth is really really......old. How would that affect your christian faith?

You don't have to be YEC to reject universal common descent and transitional species.

There are plenty of OEC and AAOTEC (agnostic age of the earth creationists) who reject transitional species.

If the earth or universe are millions of years old... or if the galaxies are 15 billion years or more old...
(I tenaciously hold that the universe (3 dimensional existence) is infinite and never itself created)
it will not affect my faith at all. I highly doubt the 15 billion year model... I argue that it is impossible
to know.

 

[AmericanChristian91]

The real reason why real Christian will not accept evolution is the same reason you accept it.

What is wrong with you people?

Calling evolutionary creationists false Christians by implying you and people who are anti-evolution creationists are "real Christians" is not allowed on this forum. It also shows an immaturity. When one wants to have an argument that deals with differences between Christians, one does not call the other side "false Christians". It is against this forum and unchrist like.

Treat others as how you want to be treated. Please show some respect. Realize the people you are insulting are brothers of the faith.

 

[Breckmin]

Meet tiktaalik,

Meet footprints found in Poland almost 6 years ago.

http://creation.com/polish-tetrapod-footprints-trample-tiktaalik

Meet microraptor,

Re: "dinosaurs gave way to modern birds"

Meet John Ruben's findings in 2010:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100209183335.htm

 

[Breckmin]

The only reason I reject universal common descent hypothesis is all of the scientific objections TO it (nucleotide replacements to thymine, intergenic regulatory sequences and gene regulation hierarchies determining complexity, the deleterious nature of mutations and the mechanics of mutation, the inability for synergistic epistasis or soft selection to account for the contamination in the genome, the number of mutations needed to evolve from land animals to whales and the time frame allowed, the misalignment of nucleotide sequences for telomeric fusion in human chromosome 2, the class of sequences first expressed from the zygote to the 2 celled embryo being endogenous retroviruses and if you block their expression you stop embryogenesis at the 4 cell stage (functional "junk" DNA), retroviral like sequences 181,000 gene switches/promoters and expressions taking place in "non-coding" DNA, etc. etc.)

Christians, if they are able, really should learn the specific scientific controversies.

But it is unfortunate that scientific infrastructures censor the controversy from you

and wrongfully tell you that "there IS NO controversy."

Peer review can bury its head in the sand... but they can not hide from God on judgment day for their CENSORSHIP!

 

[Breckmin]

They suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

Question everything!

 

[Breckmin]

The biggest problem with the question (I believe) is actually with the English word "evolution."

The word "evolution" contains too much equivocation to be useful in these discussions. You must take
the double or triple meaning out of the word and specify when you are talking about mutation... or
natural selection or adaptation which is observable verses when you are talking about universal common
descent or transitional species... or any mutation which would result specifically in more complex function.

Just using "micro" and "macro" evolution does NOT cut it.

There is already an academic issue with defining "evolution" as a change in allele frequency.
That's just variation. Defining evolution as variation is very deceptive and misleading... but
this is what our kids are taught at university.

There is also deceptive (pathetic) attempt to define macro evolution as micro evolution over
a long time period. This also fails to address any area of dispute regarding information which
results in MORE COMPLEX FUNCTION (often left out due to brevity).

The English word "evolution" should have been eliminated from the polemics decades ago.
Specify specifically what you mean when you talk about adaptation, or beneficial mutations,
or natural selection acting on a population, etc and show how it is distinct from the error
of universal common descent hypothesis and transitional species hypothesis...

and perhaps we will begin to discuss the scientific objections (rather than the 10's of
thousands of inductions which can be corrected by current observation and deduction).

I accept observable science (natural selection, adaptation, OBSERVED common descent
with modification, beneficial/advantageous mutations,) which is sometimes WRONGFULLY
labeled as "evolution."

What I reject is universal common descent. Commonalities do not necessarily equal
relatedness. Question why the more mutations you get... the less information!

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

? why should I have to show "life created itself"? Life certainly appeared, somehow, we can't deny that, and once life appeared, evolution started happening.

No we don't know that and as we can see you are doing nothing but bloviating about it. Its just that simple.

Matt 15:14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

Species never observed coming into existence? What, in your eyes, would actually constitute observation of species coming into existence? I realize you can continue to deny, deny, deny in spite of the evidence. I merely need to point that out for our readers.

I denied nothing and you haven't proven anything you claimed. Your opinons are noted and still unproven.

Interpreters fall into two categories: those who seek to interpret the passage objectively with respect for the original meaning of the authors, and those who have an agenda. You have an agenda

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Nothing on this link happened naturally but in fact was defects caused by mans intervention.

Matt 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

 

[Extraneous]

Dude....just stop. You and other anti-evolution posters are going against the rules of this forum by attacking the person's character and their Christian faith of those that disagree with you.

Im sure you would not want someone telling you that you no nothing of the mind of Christ.

I only said he didnt understand it, i never questioned his salvation, thats not for man to decide.

 

[Extraneous]

So when we go to church, we don't spend a lot of time discussing evolution, I'll grant you that. But if we are interested in God's world, we might choose to read up on what scientists have found out, and there's nothing wrong with doing that. It is wrong, however, mischaracterize their work, say nonsense about what scientists claim and refuse correction on that nonsense, and to declare their solid findings to be false.

Its wrong to allow worldly things to divide us, that's what i'm saying. Anything worldly should be crucified. Do we act one way in Church and another outside Church?

 

[Extraneous]

There is only one way to have the mind of Christ, and that is to have one mind, as Paul teaches us. Light and darkness have no agreement. Its either Christ or the world. There is no in between. This sounds like some childish understanding to you i'm sure, but its not. I'm talking about putting away division and speaking the same thing. Im talking about putting on the mind of Christ. This is to be a daily practice, not just on Sunday. Paul gave up all things for Christ, Christ gave up all things for us, and we must give up all things as well. WE give up anything that divides us. There is only one thing that gathers together instead of dividing, and that is Christ and his command.

 

[Extraneous]

Dudes, its not "cool" in the eyes of the world maybe, but its the way.

 

[Hieronymus]

It's definitely uncool in the eyes of the world...

 

[Hieronymus]

NO, Extraneous, this transitional fossils are not nonsense.

They're non existent.

 

[Armoured]

You sound like one of those pharmaceutical ads on TV where they list one marginal benefit for their product and then disclose the potential life threatening side effects....lol

Seriously, the best you can come up with for a beneficial chromosomal defect is one that has a marginal effect on malaria?

Here's from the CDC



Here's the supposed benefit for being blessed by this defect...



You're not making a good case for your theory...

More handwaving and goal post shifting.

You missed the part about Sickle Cell being a recessive that is purely beneficial to carriers of a single copy. But Whatever. Believe what you like. Just make sure to ask your doctor for pre-MRSA penicillin next time you get an infection.

 

[Armoured]

They're non existent.

You've been directly linked to hundreds. At this point you can claim that subjectively you don't believe they aren't transitional fossils, but to suggest in any way that they don't exist objectively is, frankly, dishonest.

 

[Hieronymus]

You've been directly linked to hundreds. At this point you can claim that subjectively you don't believe they aren't transitional fossils, but to suggest in any way that they don't exist objectively is, frankly, dishonest.

Extinction.

 

[Armoured]

Please share some evidence, any evidence, that show us one domain, one kingdom, one phylum, one class, on order, one family, one genus that transformed into another.

It's all there at the website I linked you to earlier. Thank you for confirming you didn't read it, as I was sure you wouldn't.