Why do some Christian's dismiss evolution?

[stumpjumper]

I don't believe you could have gotten any more vague.

Now come on what do you expect from a liberal

I believe that the Gospels are accurate accounts of true events in history. I believe that the authors were Divinely inspired (although not plenary verbal inspiration) and that they truly believed what they were putting onto scrolls. So the Gospels are records of historical events. Genesis is a completely different matter.

Hardly considering how many religions never claim to have the only true God. Most have many gods and others leave room for other gods to be true as well, but with the jewish faith and christianity there is no room for any other God. Now if this was just fables and myths and folk lore, I would have no reason to believe it over any of the other fables and myths other than the fact that its lasted so long. You say my version of christianity is a strawman but your version consists of mostly lies and folk tales. You can say they aren't lies but anything not truth trying to be passed off as truth is a lie. Gensis gives no hint at it being a story of folk lore, its obviously stating it matter of factly. If its not that way and the author knew it, he certainly didnt give any hints to that.

We worship and believe in the God of Abraham. I am not a Biblical minimalist in that I deny the patriarchal period but you must realize that Abraham arose in a culture that was polytheistic in which there were gods of the mountains and gods of the valley and if you wanted safe passage you were to pay homage to all these different gods. Abraham recognized that these were all the same God; the one true God. He did not think there was not a god of the mountain and a god of the valley but that those gods were One.

Therefore the one true God encompasses all those other gods and misconceptions about God. Abraham was blessed instrumentally not exclusively though and it is how I view Christians. Abraham was blessed but he was blessed to be a blessing and was used to share that blessing with the whole world. He was not blessed exclusively which Calvinism claims for the elect but he was blessed to share grace with others.

My version only consists of a myth about our biological and very ancient historical origin. The rest is true and wonderful to realize.

Well off for now

 

[QuantumFlux]

My version only consists of a myth about our biological and very ancient historical origin. The rest is true and wonderful to realize.

That is the strangest justification I believe I have ever heard. Those things in the far far past that sound too weird to be true are false, but the rest I can believe. It's almost like you get to choose what is true and what isnt.

I mean the consequences of that is probably beyond what you think they are. Basically you are saying that Paul really didn't know what he was talking about all through Romans when he talking about the fall and how we were redeemed. Because if the creation is a myth then so is the fall. You may say you have still sined and need forgiveness, but you are still saying Paul totally didn't know what he was talking about and that now from our scientific evidences we know there was no true fall and its all myth.

Even Jesus makes references to job and the fall, but I suppose you could say they misquoted him. Still, that leaves the bible wide open and you can really believe and not believe in whatever you want, all you have to say is "well that part was misrepresented from their biases" or even "that part was myth".

 

[Smidlee]

Abraham recognized that these were all the same God; the one true God. He did not think there was not a god of the mountain and a god of the valley but that those gods were One.

Are you talking about Abraham Lincoln? Surely not Abraham of scriptures.
You do know what it means when it says "God is Holy" right?

 

[gluadys]

The hebrew scribes went through an enourmous amount of pains to keep the writings exactly the same way they were first written. I'd go through all of the proceedures but it would be pointless, I will merely demonstrate their results.

I am familiar with the procedures. My question is, by whom and when were the procedures established?

 

[gluadys]

What? Lets make this alittle more of an accurate statement. Would a novelist be deceptive for writing a novel and passing it off as the word of God?

Not if it was the word of God. Is it your contention that God would never will to convey his word through a novel? or poem or drama?

 

[stumpjumper]

I mean the consequences of that is probably beyond what you think they are. Basically you are saying that Paul really didn't know what he was talking about all through Romans when he talking about the fall and how we were redeemed. Because if the creation is a myth then so is the fall. You may say you have still sined and need forgiveness, but you are still saying Paul totally didn't know what he was talking about and that now from our scientific evidences we know there was no true fall and its all myth.

Even Jesus makes references to job and the fall, but I suppose you could say they misquoted him. Still, that leaves the bible wide open and you can really believe and not believe in whatever you want, all you have to say is "well that part was misrepresented from their biases" or even "that part was myth".

Notice I accept Abraham as an actual historical figure as I do Moses. I have read many of the Biblical minimalists who write them off as fable but I believe that the history goes back to Abraham from oral traditions. It is just not a literal history faxed down from heaven as the literal word of God. Biblical literalism is a recent addition to Christianity and has caused YEC and John Nelson Darby and his pre-millenial dispensationalism. Viewing Genesis as allegorical was the pharisaical approach and was used by Origen and also St. Jerome.

When the New Testament authors quoted scripture (and Paul used the Greek septuagint) they did so according to the spirit of the passage not the letter. Paul reworded many of his 89 quotes. Also, the Greek version had many differences than the original Hebrew. St Jerome went back to the original Hebrew to retranslate and rework the Old Testament scripture.

So if you think that we must interpret literally the Old Testament that Paul used to make sense of the Christian message than you should start hunting around for a very old and error ridden Greek version. I think we are all looking at the "fall" from a Hellenistic philosophical perspective. The early Christians had a choice to stay isolated or to engage Greek philosophy. They were sent out into the world to evangelize so when they encountered Greek philosophy they integrated it into their views (Origen was famous for this.)

The problem is that ancient Hebrew philosophy (The Book of Job) and Greek philosophy view the world completely differently. To the Greeks there was an ideal (perfect) world and a material (imperfect) world. To the ancient Jews there was only one world and it was good not Perfect. The Jews felt that this was a world in which we could experience God in the garden and in our life. Remember where the term Israel came from "God wrestler". You are looking at the fall from a Greek perspective. Original sin is our estrangement from God. I made a post to Critias about it about a month ago in this tread Here

ETA: We are estranged from God in the sense that we are temporal and God is non-temporal. We can still experience God in our world however. Look up Psalm 139

 

[stumpjumper]

Are you talking about Abraham Lincoln? Surely not Abraham of scriptures.
You do know what it means when it says "God is Holy" right?

I do. Do you?

If you believe there is only one true God than you should recognize as Abraham did (I believe he recognized this because of personal revelation) that the one true God encompasses every contingency in the universe.

 

[CaptainMercy]

There's no biblical evidence for penguins or the Americas either. Does that mean we should refuse to believe in the Americas and in penguins? No. What you are using is an argument from silence.
[/font][/color]

Where are you getting your training from? It sure doesn't appear to be biblical. There is no biblical evidence of the doo doo bird and science tells us that they existed but I have not seen one. Do I believe they existed? Yes, there is evidence enough to suggest to me that they existed. Why, just because I choose to. Does that mean I am not a YEC, not on your life. I have never seen a laviathon, have you? Has anyone been able to prove he exists? Yet the scriptures talk of him (see God's answer to Job). Do scientist refute his existance? Maybe, doesn't matter. What really matters is that we give total sovereignty to the Lord. He is God and there is none other. Let His word measure the validity of any of mans ideas or thoughts.

 

[QuantumFlux]

Wow....just wow... I had no idea people with such philosophies claiming to be christian still existed. Anyway, the point of the threat was to give why I dont believe in evolution. I've thoroughly explained my view, so I'll be moving on to a new thread.

You know, you can say the genesis story was a poem or myth or fiction, but once you put it in that category you have to insert the entire old testament into that category. Once you say Genesis is fiction, you can't say the first 3 chapters are but the rest arent because thats completely taking it out of context. If it should have been taken that way then there would be a separation in ideas and there isn't, there would be a seperation in the way it was written as opposed to the rest of the book but there isn't. There is absolutely no reason to take the first 3 chapters as fiction other than your "science" says otherwise.

You can make up your excuses because of other cultures having myths and whatever else you decide to justify it to yourself, but the answer is simpler than your making it. Context is the most damaging evidence against your excuses, nothing in context says that the first chapters are written any differently than the rest of Genesis. So you've gotta ask yourself if Genesis is the word of God or not. If it is, and he said he created it in 7 days, not giving us any reason to believe that statement was anything but literal, then the word of God is lieing or its the truth. Once you start saying things were made up and fiction was added without telling anyone it was fiction, you have not only created a very deceptive book, but you leave the door wide open for a belief that resembles gnosticism where you can just believe anything you want.

However you decide to still have faith in Jesus who clearly believed the creation story is your own business, I'm glad for ya. But personally, if Genesis is fiction and no one has known it was fiction for millenium on end and God never decided to correct the issue, that either tells me that God was deceiving his people for a long time or that the God of the bible is myth as well.

Your evidence for a fictional Genesis is nothing but speculation with the assumption that its not true based on your faith in evolution. If one doesnt believe in evolution its simple to accept the Genesis story as truth as it says it is. I don't understand why God wouldn't just create a mature earth for us instead of wasting billions of years by "getting the ball rolling" and not having mankind's love for for that long. In such a scenario, we are but a speck in God's creation. Instead of creating a universe for us, it's more like we are an anomoly that will pass away as fast as we came. If evolution is true then I am reluctant to see God's love for mankind over anything else.

Your evidence for evolution is based on stacks and stacks of assumptions and if any of those assumptions are wrong it would crumble the entire theory. Not that it already hasnt been utterly murdered by its severe lack of transitional fossils from one species to the other and its inability to explain the cambrian explosion.

Thus is why I dismiss evolution.

 

[Numenor]

Your evidence for a fictional Genesis is nothing but speculation...

No Theistic Evolutionist regards Genesis or the OT as fiction. Perhaps you should try to find out what we actually believe before indulging in speculation yourself.

I don't understand why God wouldn't just create a mature earth for us instead of wasting billions of years by "getting the ball rolling" and not having mankind's love for for that long. In such a scenario, we are but a speck in God's creation. Instead of creating a universe for us, it's more like we are an anomoly that will pass away as fast as we came. If evolution is true then I am reluctant to see God's love for mankind over anything else.

Methodological naturalism is not the same thing as Philosophical Naturalism. You do realise the difference don't you.

Your evidence for evolution is based on stacks and stacks of assumptions and if any of those assumptions are wrong it would crumble the entire theory. Not that it already hasnt been utterly murdered by its severe lack of transitional fossils from one species to the other and its inability to explain the cambrian explosion.

The only assumptions are that the scientific method actually works (which has proved to be the case through the centuries) and our God is not a trickster God who plants evidence in His Creation for a history which didn't happen. How do you know the earth wasn't created 5 days ago with the appearence of age?

 

[QuantumFlux]

No Theistic Evolutionist regards Genesis or the OT as fiction. Perhaps you should try to find out what we actually believe before indulging in speculation yourself.

*sigh* and this is why I'm working my way out of this thread. I have learned what you believe, that it is poetic and mythical or symbolic. None of which pan out when put in context. Besides, mythical or symbolic equals fiction. You can say the first 3 chapters are symbolic and the rest is historic without evidence, and nothing in the context of genesis separates the first 3 chapters from the rest of the book

The only assumptions are that the scientific method actually works (which has proved to be the case through the centuries) and our God is not a trickster God who plants evidence in His Creation for a history which didn't happen. How do you know the earth wasn't created 5 days ago with the appearence of age?

Yet somehow God isnt a trickster in telling the hebrews he created it in 6 days and for millenium on end they believed just that and gave no hint that anyone took it as symbolic.

If God created the earth with age and TOLD US i dont see any sort of deception in that, however if God created the universe billions of years ago and TOLD US he did it in 6 days, that seems alot more deceptive to me.

And evolution isnt based on the scientific method because in order for it to be based on the scientific method it would have had to have been observed, which in never has despite millions spent on try to do so. Micro evolution, yes, Macro evolution, no. Since that is a part of the scientific method is observation that in itself disproves the theory.

Methodological naturalism is not the same thing as Philosophical Naturalism. You do realise the difference don't you.

Saddly, yes. Apparently you weren't paying attention to what I said. According to christian philosophy, mankind is the most important creation however through evolution thats extremely hard to see considering that along the timeline mankind has only existed for a blink of an eye. If we were so imporant and God created the universe for us, why waste billions of years with no mankind in sight. It would seem like God's love is more for his universe that he created as opposed to loving us above his other creations. We are but a speck in the evolutionary timeline and we are the beings that have the ability to love God the most yet instead of creating a universe for us we were formed from the universe.

Your philosophy makes the least sense.

 

[Numenor]

*sigh* and this is why I'm working my way out of this thread. I have learned what you believe, that it is poetic and mythical or symbolic. None of which pan out when put in context. Besides, mythical or symbolic equals fiction. You can say the first 3 chapters are symbolic and the rest is historic without evidence, and nothing in the context of genesis separates the first 3 chapters from the rest of the book

Yet somehow God isnt a trickster in telling the hebrews he created it in 6 days and for millenium on end they believed just that and gave no hint that anyone took it as symbolic.

*sigh* Browse this forum and the TE subforum and you will find answers to your objections. Forgive me if I don't have the inclination to repeat them here.

If God created the earth with age and TOLD US i dont see any sort of deception in that, however if God created the universe billions of years ago and TOLD US he did it in 6 days, that seems alot more deceptive to me.

Deception is deception, a little white lie is still a lie. The Framework interpretation has some god pointers for you.

And evolution isnt based on the scientific method because in order for it to be based on the scientific method it would have had to have been observed, which in never has despite millions spent on try to do so. Micro evolution, yes, Macro evolution, no. Since that is a part of the scientific method is observation that in itself disproves the theory.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901_2.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901_3.html
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted_sites/paleonet/paleo21/mevolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

 

[Numenor]

why waste billions of years with no mankind in sight.

Why waste 5 days? Do you think God is constrained by time?

It would seem like God's love is more for his universe that he created as opposed to loving us above his other creations.

Even though we were made in God's image? Your assumptions about what Theistic Evolutionists believe are incorrect.

We are but a speck in the evolutionary timeline and we are the beings that have the ability to love God the most yet instead of creating a universe for us we were formed from the universe.

Another misconception I'm afraid. Were you directly created by God or did you mother and father have no say in the matter? Just because I believe God used natural mechanism to bring forth the diversity of life on earth doesn't mean I don't think God is sovereign.

 

[gluadys]

Wow....just wow... I had no idea people with such philosophies claiming to be christian still existed. Anyway, the point of the threat was to give why I dont believe in evolution. I've thoroughly explained my view, so I'll be moving on to a new thread.

Most of the Christians I know are surprised to find literalist creationists still exist.

You know, you can say the genesis story was a poem or myth or fiction, but once you put it in that category you have to insert the entire old testament into that category.

No you don't. The bible contains many different kinds of literature.

Context is the most damaging evidence against your excuses, nothing in context says that the first chapters are written any differently than the rest of Genesis.

Context says exactly that. It shows that there were at least three different writers working on Genesis, unknown to each other, at different times and locations. And, of course, an editor who brought their writings together to make Genesis as we know it.

I don't understand why God wouldn't just create a mature earth for us instead of wasting billions of years by "getting the ball rolling" and not having mankind's love for for that long.

Human perspectives on what is a waste of time are probably very different from God's perspective.

In such a scenario, we are but a speck in God's creation.

We are anyway, even without evolution. Read Pascal. (Don't worry, he was a devout Christian.)

Instead of creating a universe for us, it's more like we are an anomoly that will pass away as fast as we came. If evolution is true then I am reluctant to see God's love for mankind over anything else.

According to Jesus, God cares for the grass that grows today and is tossed into the oven tomorrow. If we do run ourselves into extinction in the near future, why would that mean that God does not love us? No matter how long or how short our time as a species on earth lasts, God still sent his Son to die for us. I think that is sufficient evidence that God loves us.

Your evidence for evolution is based on stacks and stacks of assumptions and if any of those assumptions are wrong it would crumble the entire theory. Not that it already hasnt been utterly murdered by its severe lack of transitional fossils from one species to the other and its inability to explain the cambrian explosion.

Evolution is not based on any assumptions that are not common to all of science, including the science you agree with. I suppose you are referring to the hundreds of transitional fossils whose existence you refuse to acknowledge. And what is there about the cambrian explosion that needs a special explanation? It was a time of rapid species radiation. Such radiations also occurred at other times. The Cambrian one seems remarkable because it was the first to be well-preserved in the fossil record.

Thus is why I dismiss evolution.

You have too poor a grasp on science to dismiss it on scientific grounds, so I assume you mean you dismiss it because it does not agree with how you think scripture ought to be read.

 

[Scholar in training]

No you don't. The bible contains many different kinds of literature.

Indeed, it includes Wisdom literature, proverbial literature, myth, parable, biography, a treaty, epistles, and prophecy, to name a few. The genre of any particular part of the Bible is one of the first ways you can tell what is literal and what is not, and sometimes, genres are embedded in other genres: like parables within biographies (the Gospels!), or myth within historical record (Genesis!).

Context says exactly that. It shows that there were at least three different writers working on Genesis, unknown to each other, at different times and locations. And, of course, an editor who brought their writings together to make Genesis as we know it.

Context does not necessarily indicate multiple authors. That is one interpretation common among certain liberal Christian scholars.

 

[QuantumFlux]

Why waste 5 days? Do you think God is constrained by time?

I'm sorry, I'm really containing my laughter on this one. This question coming from someone who believes God had to have created the universe in billions of years. Talk about being contrained by time.

5 days shows that he took time to create if for us, yet the blink of the eye in the timeline in this case is creation, the blink of an eye in the evolution timeline is mankind's existance.

Even though we were made in God's image? Your assumptions about what Theistic Evolutionists believe are incorrect.

And what kind of image of God is a caveman? I dont think they are as incorrect as you would like to believe.

Another misconception I'm afraid. Were you directly created by God or did you mother and father have no say in the matter? Just because I believe God used natural mechanism to bring forth the diversity of life on earth doesn't mean I don't think God is sovereign.

That is complete backwards thinking. Evolution says that we evolved into humans based on the evironment around us. The Genesis story shows how he developed the earth for us instead of vice versa. It just doesnt make any sense to have the majority of the timeline of the universe exist without love. Mankind is the only being in the universe that can love, so why only have love exist in the universe for a geological blink of an eye?

It just doesn't make sense. God is love and he made us to love him. this shows that God not only is love but he wants to be loved. Love is the most important thing to God, however through evolution that philosophy is utterly destroyed considering that love has only existed for the past few thousand years of a 5 billion year timeline.

 

[Scholar in training]

It just doesnt make any sense to have the majority of the timeline of the universe exist without love. Mankind is the only being in the universe that can love, so why only have love exist in the universe for a geological blink of an eye?

This is not exactly true. While it is a little presumptuous to apply human characteristics to animals, scientists have observed that some animals take care of the weak members in the group; others do not. It differs depending on the animal. So animals can express love in some manner, just like people.

 

[QuantumFlux]

This is not exactly true. While it is a little presumptuous to apply human characteristics to animals, scientists have observed that some animals take care of the weak members in the group; others do not. It differs depending on the animal. So animals can express love in some manner, just like people.

They protect out of instinct, not out of choice. That is love. Without choice there is no love. Animals are confined by instinct, they have little choice but to follow them. Without choice they are what Paul talks about in 1 Corinthians 13. They can give all of their money to the poor and surrender their bodies to the flame and not have love. They are merely going through the motions.

but for arguements sake, lets say I accept that theory, consider how long it was before there was any life at all. there are still billions of years without life at all, much less love.

 

[stumpjumper]

Wow....just wow... I had no idea people with such philosophies claiming to be christian still existed. Anyway, the point of the threat was to give why I dont believe in evolution. I've thoroughly explained my view, so I'll be moving on to a new thread.

You know, you can say the genesis story was a poem or myth or fiction, but once you put it in that category you have to insert the entire old testament into that category. Once you say Genesis is fiction, you can't say the first 3 chapters are but the rest arent because thats completely taking it out of context.

Yes all of us TE's just "claim to be Christian" because it keeps our mothers off our back. You should look up some of the writings of St. Jerome of some 1500 years ago and his view of Genesis. Your view of The Bible is equivalent to reading every portion of the newspaper in the same way. The funnies certainly are not as true as the front page headlines.

You should also look up how many of the some 3 Billion Christians in the world actually believe in a literal Genesis. I hazard to say it might burst your bubble.

Thus is why I dismiss evolution.

And you would be wrong.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

So, we "claim to be Christian", do we, QuantumFlux?

Now watch the creationist shuffle. It's blatently obvious to anyone that QF is essentially saying that we are not really Christians at all. If a cricket captain turns to a player and says "you claim to be a bowler?", the implication is clear. The man bowling is no good. And this, friends, is what the creationists really think, but will deny, constrained as they are by the forum rules. Consequently, QF will probably deny that that is what he means and swear undying Christian fraternity now.

We are second class Christians at best, completely unregenerate would-be Christians at worse. We're the scoffers of Peter's epistle; we are those who won't listen to sound doctrine, but rather whatever teaching our itching ears want to hear. We are the tares in the wheatfield, the inedible stonefish in the fishing net. Make no mistake.

And that's why I'm out of here. I have got sick to the back teeth of YECs constantly heaping abuse and ridicule on the faith of the rest of us, and then denying that they see us as anything than equally valid brothers in Christ. Well, I suppose you have to get behind someone before you can stab them in the back.

You'll find me on the open fora. Not here on the "Attack a TE" forum.

Cue the Tu quoque accusations from the YECs. Talk to the hand, boys.