Why do Christians have trouble with accepting Evolution?

[Colter]

Lets say for arguments sake that a box of rocks can tell that rocks are very old. That doesn't mean that life on earth is that old however. The earth is constantly shifting and changing. We have had volcanic activity, and flooding, all over the place, for millennia after millennia. Yet we are suppose to believe that the stratum is as it was hundreds of thousands of years ago. Its like trying to investigate a 1000 year old crime scene that's been trampled, torn down, and rebuilt multiple times. Its impossible to find any pure forensic evidence.

I agree to a point but that's why some dating techniques are better than others. If our radiometric dating techniques are so wrong then you wouldn't want to live near a nuclear reactor.

 

[Hieronymus]

I don't know why it's so difficult to see and grasp that Gods technique of Life creation for our world used the process of evolution.

Itś not a matter of "grasping".
No evidence is no evidence.

 

[Extraneous]

I agree to a point but that's why some dating techniques are better than others. If our radiometric dating techniques are so wrong then you wouldn't want to live near a nuclear reactor.

You missed my point. Even if rocks are that old, and i'm not saying they are, but for arguments sake will agree that they are, even so that doesn't mean that fossils are that old. Its like throwing old and new things together and saying that they are all old. We have new rocks created by volcanic activity, unless im mistaken, and old rocks that were created before that. Then we have flooding that occurs all over the planet, in many different times throughout history. everything gets mixed together and its impossible to date anything but the rocks themselves. ToE is way too complex, and mans understanding of things is way too limited. Its would be unwise to say that ToE is anything but fallible theory.

 

[Extraneous]

Science, in all its man made glory, is actually part fact and part false doctrine. Its no different than any other religion really. We have different religions, different denominations, different political parties and ideologies. Science is not above all this. Science is just another of mans wisdom, and is part truth and part lies. These worldly scientists, who lack enough discernment to even acknowledge God, they are not above mans folly, and science is not holy. God alone is holy. TO say that science doesn't create its own false doctrine is to place it where God alone sits. Its also to misunderstand how mankind creates his own folly.

 

[Colter]

Itś not a matter of "grasping".
No evidence is no evidence.

I see a lot of evidence of life that once lived, many forms of life in the deposits laid down over ages upon ages. Human remains come from the youngest of those deposits.

 

[Extraneous]

I see a lot of evidence of life that once lived, many forms of life in the deposits laid down over ages upon ages. Human remains come from the youngest of those deposits.

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

 

[ViaCrucis]

So you're saying that when they teach evolution in school, they don't start with the beginning of where life came from? That there are no charts that show the evolutionary charts?
Are Haeckel's phony drawings still being used in science text books today? (The answer is yes)

Look at what I found at a Berkeley resource site for elementary school kids...

Does this chart above not teach young minds that all things came from a common origin?

Common descent =/= how life first came to be. You and your cousin's common descent from your grandfather isn't the same thing as where life came from in the first place. It's the same thing, only the family tree is significantly wider and older.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Colter]

You missed my point. Even if rocks are that old, and i'm not saying they are, but for arguments sake will agree that they are, even so that doesn't mean that fossils are that old. Its like throwing old and new things together and saying that they are all old. We have new rocks created by volcanic activity, unless im mistaken, and old rocks that were created before that. Then we have flooding that occurs all over the planet, in many different times throughout history. everything gets mixed together and its impossible to date anything but the rocks themselves. ToE is way too complex, and mans understanding of things is way too limited. Its would be unwise to say that ToE is anything but fallible theory.

Fossils

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

I get your point, I battle with atheistic scientist often. Both science and religion can be too dogmatic. Science only disproves the superstitious component of religion not the spiritual truths.

 

[Extraneous]

Fossils

I get your point, I battle with atheistic scientist often. Both science and religion can be too dogmatic. Science only disproves the superstitious component of religion not the spiritual truths.

Science proves only that it glorifies itself.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Itś not a matter of "grasping".
No evidence is no evidence.

The above assertion of "no evidence" was made by a human with a coccyx.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Random mutations of data do not produce new data, even when you only multiply the 'fit'. . . .

Well, actually, they do, and we have computerized evolution examples to prove it, where the random changes were done by computer programs, selected for fitness and resulted in novel designs for useful items that no human mind would have directly created.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Science proves only that it glorifies itself.

He said, over the internet, using a computer.

 

[Hoghead1]

Again, Extraneous, you seem guilty of teh same thing. You seem to assume your dogmas are perfect and holy and shouldn't be questioned.

 

[Hoghead1]

Extraneous, don't you think you should clean up the mess in your own house before you take out after others? You appear to be doing the exact same things you fault science for doing.

 

[Hoghead1]

Look, BiblicalA, I am not going to get into one of these translation arguments here. "Crocodile" is a perfectly legitimate translation and I am stickling with it. If you think you could do a better job of translating the Bible, then you should have been on the translation committee.

 

[Hoghead1]

Extraneous, many early Christians felt the same way and so they up and left society and went to live way out in the desert. They are called the desert fathers and mothers. Is that what you want to do?

 

[Hoghead1]

I'm not sure you fully understand evolution, BibleA. You seem to assume it is claiming humans came from monkeys. Right? Well, it doesn't do that at all. It claims humans came from an ancestor common to be humans and apes. I don't know what you mean by a gap. There is definite transitional fossils. Also, I seriously question how solid your exegetical tools for Scripture are.

 

[Hoghead1]

Your statement is ridiculous, Extraneous. This isn't about worship. Also, your whole approach to Scripture is something human-made, created largely by the movers and shakers of teh Protestant Reformation. So when you look at Scripture, you are interpreting it in accord with the wisdom of men.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

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

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.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Your statement is ridiculous, Extraneous. This isn't about worship. Also, your whole approach to Scripture is something human-made, created largely by the movers and shakers of teh Protestant Reformation. So when you look at Scripture, you are interpreting it in accord with the wisdom of men.

Sure it is Hogs, their are atheists and quasi atheists that believe in science more than they do in God... that's not worship to you? I worship God because I believe in Him... if you believe in something above God that's an idol and idols are worshipped, right?