Why do Christians have trouble with accepting Evolution?

[Luke17:37]

No, you just don't get it. I said the Son of God incarnate miraculously as the child conceived by Joseph and Mary. The virgin birth story as well as the December 25 come from Pagan beliefs in the Roman world.

No, Jesus is not a son of Joseph in any way. He was the son of a virgin, Mary. There's no redefinition and obfuscation of Jesus as "Son of God" by virgin birth.

Luke 1:35
35 The angel replied to her:
“The Holy Spirit will come upon you,
and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.
Therefore, the holy One to be born
will be called the Son of God.

Let's get back to evolution.

No.

 

[Faith77]

I did qualify my statement with the term "most evolutionists"...

Are you saying that these people you mentioned were evolutionists?

Lewis was neither pro nor anti evolution early in his Christian life but by the 1950's, he had developed a more anti mindset. Here is one of his quotes in a letter to Captain Acworth.. ‘What inclines me now to think you may be right in regarding [evolution] as the central and radical lie in the whole web of falsehood that now governs our lives is not so much your arguments against it as the fanatical and twisted attitudes of its defenders.’

Why make that statement that about "most evolutionists" unless you are implying that one has to abandon one's faith to accept the propositions of evolution, something that is not true? Most car mechanics or pharmacists or gas station owners may be atheists as well - that doesn't make them bad company to keep, and that doesn't say anything about the validity of the theories undergirding the nature of their occupations.

I think there are many quotes of C.S. Lewis that show he had no problem with evolution, rather with evolutionism, which includes grand narratives beyond the realm of science. His quotes are too long to paste here, but the BioLogos website may have some. In any case, C.S. Lewis did not hold to a young earth model, so he had no problems with a non-literal interpretation of Genesis.

The original poster asked the question why Christians couldn't accept evolution, and suggested "Its [sic] because it undermines the creation story and that people will become irreligious?" No, it doesn't undermine Genesis 1-3 because Genesis 1-3 is not a scientific account, and no, people do not become irreligious as many passionate, God-loving, Christians accept it. In fact, if truth matters, then one dare not dismiss it, based on evidence to date. It is unfortunate that many don't understand that evidence, and many seem to misinterpret Gen 1 - 3.

 

[Colter]

No, Jesus is not a son of Joseph in any way. He was the son of a virgin, Mary. There's no redefinition and obfuscation of Jesus as "Son of God" by virgin birth.

Luke 1:35
35 The angel replied to her:
“The Holy Spirit will come upon you,
and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.
Therefore, the holy One to be born
will be called the Son of God.



No.

Right, Gabriel isn't calling Mary a virgin, you are seeing things that aren't there.

 

[Colter]

I dont deny that, but even Christians can reject Jesus with there actions. Like God said, people honor me with their lips but their heart is far from me. Jesus also said do not store treasure on earth but in heaven, because where our treasure is, so is our heart. He also said why do you call me Lord and not do the things i say?

THe commands given by the apostles, even Paul, are the Lords commands. Paul says to put away division and have no divisions among us. This doesn't mean to agree to disagree because he also says to speak the same thing. That means we only speak what is agreed in Christ. We can honor God with our lips and we can call Jesus Lord, but if we would rather argue over a fallible scientific theory, politics, or a denomination, then we are not speaking the same thing and are not undivided. We are only paying lip service to God, but not honoring him with with our actions. This is because our heart is divided between God and carnal things. Our heart is far from him.

I guess im done with this debate. Im tired of incessant division, contention and worldly things. If people want to believe in evolution that's their business, but they should keep it to themselves and speak only the words of Christ and His apostles, because that's what paul commanded, that we all speak the same thing, and that we let the word of Christ dwell in us richly.

Thanks

 

[Extraneous]

Why make that statement that about "most evolutionists" unless you are implying that one has to abandon one's faith to accept the propositions of evolution, something that is not true? Most car mechanics or pharmacists or gas station owners may be atheists as well - that doesn't make them bad company to keep, and that doesn't say anything about the validity of the theories undergirding the nature of their occupations.

I think there are many quotes of C.S. Lewis that show he had no problem with evolution, rather with evolutionism, which includes grand narratives beyond the realm of science. His quotes are too long to paste here, but the BioLogos website may have some. In any case, C.S. Lewis did not hold to a young earth model, so he had no problems with a non-literal interpretation of Genesis.

The original poster asked the question why Christians couldn't accept evolution, and suggested "Its [sic] because it undermines the creation story and that people will become irreligious?" No, it doesn't undermine Genesis 1-3 because Genesis 1-3 is not a scientific account, and no, people do not become irreligious as many passionate, God-loving, Christians accept it. In fact, if truth matters, then one dare not dismiss it, based on evidence to date. It is unfortunate that many don't understand that evidence, and many seem to misinterpret Gen 1 - 3.

C.S Lewis was not an apostle. Paul teaches us to speak the same thing, and to mind spiritual things. WE are not speaking the same thing here. Why is that? Because we are minding worldly things instead of spiritual things. Have a good night.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

In science, EastCoast, it doesn't matter what the religious beliefs of the scientists are. The work is valid on the basis of hard evidence, not on the basis of one's religion beliefs or lack thereof. Also, you have not taken a survey, so how do you know who the majority are or what they believe?

Hard evidence? That would indicate you can show that one kind has evolved into another. That would be 'hard evidence'.
Evolution is speculation and conjecture and merely mans hypotheses of what he observes... it is not evidence. Evidence is observable...

Here's some observable evidence that support a young earth creation....

Coalification of wood can occur in a few months not millions of years.

Oil creation has been observed in the Pacific Ocean coming from the thermal steam vents in active volcanic areas. Russians scientists have also observed this phenomenon with some dry oil wells producing again after a period of being fallow.

Polonium halo's in the granites of the earth show that it cooled within minutes of being formed.

There are fossilized trees trunks that protrude vertically through layers of strata that science says are millions of years old. How does a tree stand for millions of years while sediment slowly entombs it without decay? Not possible.

A WW2 plane that went down on a glacier and was found 50 years later under 260 feet of ice! According to conventional scientific theory, the method of calculating ice layers for time records would have the layers of ice above the plane to have been millions of years old.

The eruption of Mount St. Helens produced layers of sedimentary deposit of 600 feet deep with limbed fossilized trees layered in... most vertically (see point above)

Mathematically, it is impossible for the evolution of all the species we have been on the planet to have happened in the time evolutionists say, if these grand mutations are as rare as they say. If they are not that rare, there should be evidence of it happening?

Prior to the 1960's, science held that the layer of dust on the moon would be very deep, according to their calculations. Only after having this notion refuted by evidence, did they rejig their data to corroborate their age of the universe theory.

The Taylor trail shows that humans and dino's existed together.... for the soft mud to have preserved these tracks shows that a sedimentary layer would have to have been deposited over them within a short period, otherwise they would have been lost to natural erosion or base layer infill. Sounds like creatures and man running from an encroaching flood, imo.

T Rex bones found with soft collagen intact... then upon further examinations, over half of the fossil specimens had soft tissue. Their explanation? Iron within the tissue preserved it from normal decay.... great hypothesis but there is no evidence of this being possible in real life. Maybe there was still evidence of soft tissue because the specimens were only a few thousand years old.

All the above facts are "observable". Let's now hear from evolutionists about their observable evidence...

 

[Luke17:37]

The original poster asked the question why Christians couldn't accept evolution, and suggested "Its [sic] because it undermines the creation story and that people will become irreligious?" No, it doesn't undermine Genesis 1-3 because Genesis 1-3 is not a scientific account, and no, people do not become irreligious as many passionate, God-loving, Christians accept it. In fact, if truth matters, then one dare not dismiss it, based on evidence to date. It is unfortunate that many don't understand that evidence, and many seem to misinterpret Gen 1 - 3.

Evolution does undermine Christianity. See my earlier post:

Evolution does undermine Christianity.

Exodus 20:11 says that in six days God made the heavens, the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and on the seventh day He rested, therefore they were to keep the Sabbath day holy. Therefore, it's impossible to put millions of years in Genesis 1.

God created everything, not random chance over millions of years of death.

The foundation of the gospel is from Genesis 1-3 - rip it out, and you are left with nothing.

God's creation was very good (Genesis 1:31), and death had no part in it. Originally man and animals were vegetarians (see Genesis 1:29-30). Death is what God told Adam would happen if he ate the fruit God commanded him not to eat (Genesis 2:17). Adam ate, and death came to all men, both spiritual death and physical death (Romans 5:12).

But God did two remarkable things on that sad day. Number one, He promised a Savior from the Seed of the woman (who we know now as Jesus) (Genesis 3:15). Number two, He instituted the first blood sacrifice for sin (Genesis 3:21). It doesn't say what animals died, but animals don't give up their skins without being killed. God used the skins to make clothes for Adam and Eve, to cover their shame and nakedness. Recall that they made fig leaf coverings themselves, but they still hid from the presence of God (Genesis 3:7-10). Only the sacrifice God provides can cover the shame of our sin - not our own human effort (Romans 3:20). Through the rest of the Old Testament, God drove home the point that the shedding of blood was required to pray for sin (Leviticus 17:11, Hebrews 9:22). This is because the life of a creature is in the blood (shedding blood - causing its death). God Himself said death would be the penalty for sin before it happened (Genesis 2:17, Romans 6:23a).

So, why is it significant to the gospel? Because in order to satisfy the justice of God, there has to be a blood sacrifice to pay for sin. God can't just forgive. Since the blood of bulls and goats can't take away human sin (Hebrews 10:4), we needed a perfect man to die in our place. But all men descend from Adam and inherit a sin nature. The only way God could offer us grace and forgiveness was by Himself being clothed in flesh and becoming a sinless sacrifice. Jesus' death on the cross and all that led to it was unimaginably brutal. Jesus wouldn't have done it if there was any other way for men to be forgiven. He asked His father to let this cup pass from Him, if it were possible. I still don't understand why He loves us so much.

The main reasons people believe in millions of years is because of the fossil record, which is full of death (even sickness and animals eating other animals). It's supposed to represent the time before man evolved. However, the Bible says the entire world was flooded, so that gives us a good idea of how many of the fossils and rock layers came into place. Further, since God says death is the penalty for sin, there shouldn't have been death prior to man. Some people say, "Well, man didn't die prior to Adam's sin, but that doesn't preclude animals from dying for millions of years." God wouldn't have called His creation "very good." People don't realize the curse affected everything in creation - not just the serpent's legs, the woman's childbearing, the thorns and death to mankind (Romans 8:20-22). For example, man (Genesis 9:3) and some animals are carnivorous. Animals (many) are afraid of man (Genesis 9:2). When Jesus comes back and reigns on the earth for a thousand years, the animals will return to their Edenic diets and dispositions (see Isaiah 11 and Isaiah 65). Since this is part of the removal of the curse, it also follows that it was not part of creation prior to the curse. Death is an enemy, not a means of creating.

I hope this helps you. God bless.

 

[Luke17:37]

Right, Gabriel isn't calling Mary a virgin, you are seeing things that aren't there.

On the contrary, you are. You are reading another Bible, or you have cut out pieces to make it unrecognizable.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Sorry, I thought you meant apes. If you mean common ancestry, yes, that's what the theory of evolution suggests. And so, yes, that's what many Christians, notwithstanding the majority of pentecostal, contemporary, evangelical, fundamentalist-leaning churchgoers, don't have a problem with.

How does having a common ancestor not mean evolving from them? If everything evolved from the same source then we are all the same. Is it a wonder to you why many people just regard life as meaningless, because we are just another animal?

Do you have a problem with a lion killing a gazelle? What about a human killing a gazelle? What about a human killing another human? If God said "do not kill" was He just referring to the modern evolution of ourselves or that we shouldn't kill others creatures that we may have a common ancestor with?

 

[Hieronymus]

No, you just don't get it. I said the Son of God incarnate miraculously as the child conceived by Joseph and Mary. The virgin birth story as well as the December 25 come from Pagan beliefs in the Roman world.

This is baloney, it's form Zeitgeist or something.
Again, where do you get all this wisdom?

Let's get back to evolution.

Yeah, let's just deny Christ is the Son of God as a sidenote, and back on topic again.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Speak for yourself, Extraneous. It maybe makes you unfruitful, but that's because you do not know how to profit from it.

I've pointed this out before Hog, but if you're as intelligent as you say, then could you figure out how to quote what it is you're replying to so it has context... thanx.

 

[Luke17:37]

I think there are many quotes of C.S. Lewis that show he had no problem with evolution, rather with evolutionism, which includes grand narratives beyond the realm of science. His quotes are too long to paste here, but the BioLogos website may have some. In any case, C.S. Lewis did not hold to a young earth model, so he had no problems with a non-literal interpretation of Genesis.

If C.S. Lewis were alive and on this forum, I'd be exhorting him to embrace sound doctrine. Worldly intelligence does not equal Biblical wisdom. (The praise of Christians doesn't necessarily indicate the pleasure of God either. Sometimes it's the other way around.)

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Look, EastCoast, personal attacks, such as you just sent me in 1853 are totally inappropriate in a theological discussion.

It was post #1852 but you don't seem to be much about details... you present yourself as superior to everyone else's knowledge on here and when I call your hubris, you claim personal attack. You are condemned by your own words sir.

Is a proudly proclaimed, educational resumé appropriate in a theological discussion? How do you know any of our backgrounds? What makes your knowledge superior to all others?

 

[BobRyan]

Blind faith is trusting the writings of holy men. We have real evidence.

Many atheists do make that claim as they cling to the blind-faith argument that a "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 period of time filled with just-so stories".

By contrast - we prefer "actual science" and "observations in nature" over the junk-science religion of evolutionism. "observations in nature" most atheist evolutionists posting on this board will not even "allow themselves" to - "look" at. (As in the following example)

Never, the Bible was written by men who didn't even claim to be writing by inspiration. I would only be making, as ou say, a liar, out of the control freaks in religion that promote their writings as Gods. The people who killed Jesus knew the truth but they were moral cowards.

It was done to you and so you do it to others.

This attack on the Bible in defense of the "all praise evolutionism" model - is much predicted.

While Christians may reject this logical conclusion based on its premise of faith in evolutionism - you have to at least admit that it is a logical conclusion once one takes the misguided step away from the Word of God and towards the atheists-doctrine on origins.

Here is one good reason why we do not choose the "attack the Bible" option and blind-faith-evolutionism.

"biology is the study of complicated things that appear to have been designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1.

Dawkins illustrates the point that a sufficiently talented “story teller” can spin a story to convince himself to ignore the observations in nature where we can see complicated biological systems that appear to have been designed for a purpose.


"biology is the study of complicated things that appear to have been designed for a purpose.”[/QUOTE]


junk-science failed-religion Evolutionism has two forms:

A. 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"

B. 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

God did indeed create the life that evolved.

Just not in real life.

(BTW is this the part where you argue for intelligent design seen in our observations in nature?)

As already noted in that video - you have no explanation at all for the horse or a single eukaryote cell IN the horse.

Only the Bible has that.

Hmmmm. How can we judge the premises? I suggest we use evidence.

Evidence supports the Bible -- not blind faith evolutionism's "pile of just-so and improbable stories"

 

[BobRyan]

Colter said: ↑
Never, the Bible was written by men who didn't even claim to be writing by inspiration. I would only be making, as ou say, a liar, out of the control freaks in religion that promote their writings as Gods. The people who killed Jesus knew the truth but they were moral cowards.

It was done to you and so you do it to others.

Read the actual Bible before attacking it.

1 Thess 2
13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

2 Peter 1
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Mark 7:6-13
7 ‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’
8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.
10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

In the actual Bible - Christ contrasts the WORD of God - with the "doctrines of and traditions" of men.

in what you have "made up" out of thin air - you re-imagine for us that all the Bible is nothing more than the "doctrines of men".

That sort of "attack the Bible" as the solution for blind-faith evolutionism - is the much-expected yet hollow solution.

Its only an attack on the men of church government who derived their authority and wealth from the claim that their writing is Gods writing.

God doesn't write books, Jesus didn't leave ANY writing behind and for this very reason!!!

Attack on the Bible ... noted.

As for what the Bible says - even atheists themselves have admitted to some pretty obvious "details".

====================================================================
One of the keys to promoting "belief in" evolutionism is - alternate reality - while "avoiding inconvenient details" .

For example -- what is the "reality" when it comes to what the Bible says about creation -- and the doctrine on origins?

Wake up call -- Those who argue that only mean ol "Bible believing Christians" would think Genesis is talking about a 7 day creation week... think again.

consider what happens when you look at "the kind of literature that it is" when it comes to the Genesis account

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

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

That is the opinion of professors not at all inclined to accept the 7 day creation week that we find in Gen 1:2-2:3 yet they can still 'read' and point to the author's intent - whether they agree with the author or not.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
now what if we could gloss over all that "reality" and spin a 'story' of the form -- "That is just the way BobRyan reads the Bible"

See - how easy that was to "suggest" alternate reality - then pretend that merely suggesting it - turns it INTO documented fact -- "real life"??

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

This is baloney, it's form Zeitgeist or something.
Again, where do you get all this wisdom?Yeah, let's just deny Christ is the Son of God as a sidenote, and back on topic again.

He subscribes to a quasi form of Mormonism.... he considers the Book or Urantus to be profitable for doctrine.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Why make that statement that about "most evolutionists" unless you are implying that one has to abandon one's faith to accept the propositions of evolution, something that is not true?

If you have faith in evolution then your faith in God is not absolute.... can you be a Buddhist Christian? Or a Hindu Christian? If not, then why? Is it because the teachings of Buddhists or Hindus are contrary to Christianity? Even though you don't see it, so are the teachings of evolution contrary to the teachings of Christ.

 

[Hoghead1]

Well, EastCoast, since you asked. I have an M.S. in clinical psychology and a doctorate in theology from the conjoint program between a major seminary and university. So why should I not post here? That makes no sense. Do I think I'm better at it? Yes, honestly, I don't think that, I know that. Most members here are laity. OK, fine. Nothing wrong with that. However, the world of biblical and theological scholarship is a long way from the world of the laity. It isn't that the laity are dumb. Many are quite intelligent. It is however, a matter of education. Also it is a matter or expectation. Many laity expect the world of biblical and theological studies is some sort of extension of what they learned in church and Sunday-school class. Forget it. The world of biblical studies is a wholly different ballgame, with different, rules, goals, and often reaches conclusions much different from what the laity. I don't care how smart you are. If you haven't done much formal study in theology, science, and biblical studies, you are at a real disadvantage in dealing with complex, sensitive matters such as we are addressing.

 

[Hoghead1]

Well, Like, since you are a person of the world, sharing his opinion here, how can you be sure your worldly wisdom is right on with Scripture?

 

[Hoghead1]

I don't follow you, EastCoast. Computers are not my forte.