Why do many Christians find it hard to accept evolution?

[Knollds]

As title says. What is it about some people's take on the Bible that makes this hard to accept? Is a specific interpretation of the scripture enough to make some reject the evidence?

 

[Fish Catcher Jim]

As title says. What is it about some people's take on the Bible that makes this hard to accept? Is a specific interpretation of the scripture enough to make some reject the evidence?

For one there are no scriptures in the Bible that back evolution.
That would be the reason.
Blessings

 

[Nickybobby]

I'd say it's more to do with the way evolution is portrayed. If you're referring to micro evolution, I think many Christians wouldn't have much of an argument. Natural selection is supported by scientific evidence. As for macro evolution, I'm still waiting for someone to show me anything close to actual evidence of it having occurred. I imagine I'll be waiting until I die, since there's been so much effort put into finding it but it's yet to be done.

 

[St_Worm2]

As title says. What is it about some people's take on the Bible that makes this hard to accept? Is a specific interpretation of the scripture enough to make some reject the evidence?

Evidence? If you have Netflix, you can watch the recent (2016) and extremely well done documentary called, Is Genesis History? for free. If not, you can buy the blu ray or stream it from Amazon, or from here.

Here's the movie's cast. If scientific evidence is what you're looking for, these scientists certainly provide it for you in Is Genesis History?

Enjoy!

• Kevin Anderson, PhD – Microbiologist
• Steve Austin, PhD – Geologist
• Steven Boyd, PhD – Hebraist
• Robert Carter, PhD – Marine Biologist
• Arthur Chadwick, PhD – Taphonomist
• Danny Faulkner, PhD – Astronomer
• George Grant, PhD – Pastor
• Paul Nelson, PhD – Philosopher of Science
• Douglas Petrovich, PhD – Archeologist

• Marcus Ross, PhD – Paleontologist
• Andrew Snelling, PhD – Geologist
• Kurt Wise, PhD – Paleontologist
• Todd Wood, PhD – Biologist
• Stuart Burgess, PhD – Mechanical Engineer (Bonus Features)
• Douglas Kelly, PhD – Theologian (Bonus Features)
• Larry Vardiman, PhD – Atmospheric Physicist (Bonus Features)

 

[Nickybobby]

Evidence? If you have Netflix, you can watch the recent (2016) and extremely well done documentary called, Is Genesis History? for free. If not, you can buy the blu ray or stream it from Amazon, or from here.

Here's the movie's cast. If scientific evidence is what you're looking for, these scientists can certainly provide it for you

Enjoy!

• Kevin Anderson, PhD – Microbiologist
• Steve Austin, PhD – Geologist
• Steven Boyd, PhD – Hebraist
• Robert Carter, PhD – Marine Biologist
• Arthur Chadwick, PhD – Taphonomist
• Danny Faulkner, PhD – Astronomer
• George Grant, PhD – Pastor
• Paul Nelson, PhD – Philosopher of Science
• Douglas Petrovich, PhD – Archeologist

• Marcus Ross, PhD – Paleontologist
• Andrew Snelling, PhD – Geologist
• Kurt Wise, PhD – Paleontologist
• Todd Wood, PhD – Biologist
• Stuart Burgess, PhD – Mechanical Engineer (Bonus Features)
• Douglas Kelly, PhD – Theologian (Bonus Features)
• Larry Vardiman, PhD – Atmospheric Physicist (Bonus Features)

So, still no actual evidence of macro evolution. Cool.

 

[salt-n-light]

As title says. What is it about some people's take on the Bible that makes this hard to accept? Is a specific interpretation of the scripture enough to make some reject the evidence?

Bible said that we started off from the dust of the Earth and the breathe of life made us living soul, while ( the most popular theory on) evolution said we evolved from apes. Nothing about soul and spirit. Evolution always come up with theories about the body part, while neglecting the part involving soul and spirit.

 

[St_Worm2]

So, still no actual evidence of macro evolution. Cool.

So it seems

/////////////////////////////////////////////////

The Bible tells us it was the chicken
.
.​

 

[SeventyOne]

As title says. What is it about some people's take on the Bible that makes this hard to accept? Is a specific interpretation of the scripture enough to make some reject the evidence?

Don't get confused, creationists don't reject the evidence. We just reject the fables attached to the evidence through the fictional evolutionary narrative.

 

[Strathos]

For one there are no scriptures in the Bible that back evolution.
That would be the reason.
Blessings

There are no scriptures in the Bible that back the theory of relativity, atomic theory, quantum physics, or the germ theory of disease either.

Maybe that's because the Bible was never meant to be a science book?

 

[Another Lazarus]

If mankind is created by evolution, we shall be a bunch of tumor.

 

[Catherineanne]

As title says. What is it about some people's take on the Bible that makes this hard to accept? Is a specific interpretation of the scripture enough to make some reject the evidence?

I would say because of a distinct failure of their education.

 

[Catherineanne]

For one there are no scriptures in the Bible that back evolution.
That would be the reason.
Blessings

Good grief.

And QED.

 

[St_Worm2]

I would say because of a distinct failure of their education.

I'm fairly certain that each one of these scientists would disagree with your assessment Catherineanne.

• Kevin Anderson, PhD – Microbiologist
• Steve Austin, PhD – Geologist
• Steven Boyd, PhD – Hebraist
• Robert Carter, PhD – Marine Biologist
• Arthur Chadwick, PhD – Taphonomist
• Danny Faulkner, PhD – Astronomer
• George Grant, PhD – Pastor
• Paul Nelson, PhD – Philosopher of Science
• Douglas Petrovich, PhD – Archeologist

• Marcus Ross, PhD – Paleontologist
• Andrew Snelling, PhD – Geologist
• Kurt Wise, PhD – Paleontologist
• Todd Wood, PhD – Biologist
• Stuart Burgess, PhD – Mechanical Engineer (Bonus Features)
• Douglas Kelly, PhD – Theologian (Bonus Features)
• Larry Vardiman, PhD – Atmospheric Physicist (Bonus Features)

These men are both the cast and the scientists who made the 2016 movie/documentary Is Genesis History? If you have Netflix, you can watch this captivating documentary of theirs for free right now. If not, you can also buy the Blu Ray or Stream it from Amazon, or do either from here.

I believe you will find that Genesis is a little bit more "historical" than you think it is

Yours and His,
David

 

[Catherineanne]

I'm fairly certain that each one of these scientists would disagree with your assessment Catherineanne.

• Kevin Anderson, PhD – Microbiologist
• Steve Austin, PhD – Geologist
• Steven Boyd, PhD – Hebraist
• Robert Carter, PhD – Marine Biologist
• Arthur Chadwick, PhD – Taphonomist
• Danny Faulkner, PhD – Astronomer
• George Grant, PhD – Pastor
• Paul Nelson, PhD – Philosopher of Science
• Douglas Petrovich, PhD – Archeologist

• Marcus Ross, PhD – Paleontologist
• Andrew Snelling, PhD – Geologist
• Kurt Wise, PhD – Paleontologist
• Todd Wood, PhD – Biologist
• Stuart Burgess, PhD – Mechanical Engineer (Bonus Features)
• Douglas Kelly, PhD – Theologian (Bonus Features)
• Larry Vardiman, PhD – Atmospheric Physicist (Bonus Features)

These men are both the cast and the scientists who made the 2016 movie/documentary Is Genesis History? If you have Netflix, you can watch this captivating documentary of theirs for free right now. If not, you can also buy the Blu Ray or Stream it from Amazon, or do either from here.

I believe you will find that Genesis is a little bit more "historical" than you think it is

Yours and His,
David

Thank you kindly, but no. I am at least in part the product of the UK education system, and therefore totally immune to such nonsense. There is no conflict between science and faith, as long as we understand what each of these is, and what it is not.

The God of a literal Genesis is quite simply too small, too fragile and too deceitful. Who would want such a God?

 

[St_Worm2]

The God of a literal Genesis is quite simply too small, too fragile and too deceitful. Who would want such a God?

If that's who the "God of the literal Genesis" really is, few, if any, I suppose. Fortunately, the God of the literal Genesis, better known as the God of the Bible, is none of those things.

An open mind is normally a beneficial thing to have, but if the UK education system immunized you, I understand where the problem lies. What field of science is your PhD in anyway?

 

[Divide]

Because evolution can't be true?

We've been round and round about this on other boards, and I always ask the same question and it can never be answered by the pro-evo's.

"Where does the new information come from that would be required in the DNA to make the change?"

It can't just spring up out of nowhere.
Example: I decide that I need to build me an RV so that I can be mobile and have a place to lay my head at night on my journeys. I've never made a vehicle before so I will need some instructions or blueprints to scope the parameters.

Evolution, to me is absolutely absurd. I don't mean to offend anyone, but it just is. More is needed than a need to adapt. and from where does this come from?

 

[Catherineanne]

If that's who the "God of the literal Genesis" really is, few, if any, I suppose. Fortunately, the God of the literal Genesis, better known as the God of the Bible, is none of those things.ring at other Chrsitianbs

An open mind is normally a beneficial thing to have, but if the UK education system immunized you, I understand where the problem lies. What field of science is your PhD in anyway?

Nice attitude.

No PhD required to know that God is not a deceiver; the Bible itself attests that all lies are from stan, the Father of all lies. God has not built deception into his creation; if the universe attests to billions of years since it was created by God then that is the truth.

Creationists have a deceitful god who embeds fossils in rocks to fool people; a deceitful god is quite frankly not worth having.

I don't need to have an open mind to God being a liar; that one is not going to happen. The Genesis creation myths are written to the understanding level of those hearing the story, much as we tell fairy stories to children. It is a complete nonsense to say we have to stay with those myths when science tells us that God is in fact far bigger, far more ineffable, far more beautiful in his creation than Genesis is able to tell us.

 

[Catherineanne]

Because evolution can't be true?

We've been round and round about this on other boards, and I always ask the same question and it can never be answered by the pro-evo's.

"Where does the new information come from that would be required in the DNA to make the change?"

It can't just spring up out of nowhere.
Example: I decide that I need to build me an RV so that I can be mobile and have a place to lay my head at night on my journeys. I've never made a vehicle before so I will need some instructions or blueprints to scope the parameters.

Evolution, to me is absolutely absurd. I don't mean to offend anyone, but it just is. More is needed than a need to adapt. and from where does this come from?

So in effect, if you can't understand it then it can't be true?

I blame the education system 100% for that one.

 

[dysert]

As title says. What is it about some people's take on the Bible that makes this hard to accept? Is a specific interpretation of the scripture enough to make some reject the evidence?

It's not a specific interpretation of the Scripture, but rather taking Scripture at face value...

1. After creating things, God said that things should procreate "after their own kind".
2. The Bible teaches that Adam and Eve were the parents of all who are living. So no "common ancestor" of all living things.
3. Macro evolution does not exist.
4. The evidence that does exist shows God in much of His glory (Rom. 1:18-20).
5. Evolution fails the inductive reasoning test. If you keep going back in time, you come to the first living thing. What was the thing before that? Life does not come from non-life.
6. The biblical creation account tells us that we are different from the animal life and have been since creation.
7. (I'd like to quit on 7, but it's still early.)

 

[Sea Horse]

As title says. What is it about some people's take on the Bible that makes this hard to accept? Is a specific interpretation of the scripture enough to make some reject the evidence?

Very simple
God does not change Malachi 3:6
He preserve his words Psalms 12:6-7
If animals could come from water or from plants after thier kind Genesis 1:11 , then God would not need to create animals in Genesis 1:21 so they can produce after thier kind .

Since we know God does only perfect things , if plants could create animals then he did mistake by creating them on another day , which contradict with God being perfect Psalms 18:30