Why do some Christian's dismiss evolution?

[KerrMetric]

John 3:3
"Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.""

What I said. I just wonder which author of John wrote this though? I also was told born from above is a better translation anyway.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Jesus Christ is in the very nature God Himself. Yet, it is stated that Jesus is the image of God. (Col 1:15) 1 Corinthians 11:7 man, normal man, is the image of God.

So, if Jesus Christ is God, how is He the image of God if it has nothing to do with the physical when He is already God?

The answer is more complex then I think many realize. The 'in His image' is more than just spirit, mind, emotion, etc. It also has to do with the physical.

Philippians 2:5a-7
Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Evolution is an abstract idea of human kind to try to explain existance without attributing soveriegnty to God!

I would like to point out another serious problems with your statement:
There was a rather foolish person who put a large number of bug bombs into their house and did $150,000 of damage to their house and their neighbor's house.*

From this we can learn that bug bombs are horrible things that should never be used.
Or not.

There are anti-Christians who make use of evolution, physics, meteorology etc. to ignore God, from this we can learn that trying to understand our world is an evil thing.
Or not.

"Gravity is an abstract idea of human kind to try to explain existance without attributing soveriegnty to God!"
"Meteorology is an abstract idea of ..."

This is an example of those erroneous assumptions about evolution. Here are three errors embedded in this single sentence.

Evolution is not an abstract idea. It is an observed natural process.

The theory of evolution does not try to explain existence. It tries to explain how new species appear and how species are related to each other. Trying to explain existence is a quest of philosophy and theology, not biological science.

The theory of evolution does not challenge the sovereignty of God as any scientist who is a believer can affirm as well as all theistic evolutionists who affirm the sovereignty of God over evolution as over all natural processes.

Well said.

*http://www.snopes.com/humor/follies/bugbomb.asp
The concentration of the insecticide reached the flamable level and was ignited by a pilot lght.

 

[Critias]

Philippians 2:5a-7
Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.

Can you elaborate on what you think this means conerning what I wrote?

 

[QuantumFlux]

Hey guys,

I havent posted on this thread in a while, but Discover.com put out an article today that cracked me up. For all of those trying to make the Archaeopteryx into some kind of missing link for birds, prepare yourself for the latest news.

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20051010/birddino.html

If you dont feel like visiting the link, I'll give you the jist. Basically it negates any evolution from dinosaurs to birds. guess it is still a mistery where they came from. Sorry guys, next theory please.

Just a few key quotes:

"The ancestor to birds therefore could have been some arboreal archosaur, but we just don't know. The question as to where birds came from is now left open."

"Ruben, like Feduccia, believes the evidence as it stands now does not support the existence of feathered dinosaurs or the theory that birds evolved from carnivorous theropods."

The only theory they could offer was completely unstudied and utter speculation. In light of this dramatic change in the evolutionary theories, I honestly again cant find any reason to have faith in such an ever changing theory.

All this shows even more now is that Evolution is nothing more than speculation and guess work with a mirage of educated guesses. Yesterday you believed whole heartedly that birds came from dinosaurs and could even name the ancestors to link them. Now in a day that theory is shattered beyond recognition and the origins of birds has never been more open or unknown.

 

[Remus]

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20051010/birddino.html

"He and his colleagues believe Velociraptor and other very bird-like microraptors that had feathers and are categorized as dinosaurs actually were flightless birds."

Now that's an interesting idea. Something to look into I think.

I honestly again cant find any reason to have faith in such an ever changing theory.

Agreed

 

[Smidlee]

Flight must have evolved from the trees down and not from the ground up," she said. "The ancestor to birds therefore could have been some arboreal archosaur, but we just don't know. The question as to where birds came from is now left open."

So maybe if man keeps jumping out of trees, off buildings, out of planes, hang glided, etc. then one day we grow wings just like "Lucy" walk up-right to smoke some grass... I meant, to see over the grass. What an imagination.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Hey guys,

I havent posted on this thread in a while, but Discover.com put out an article today that cracked me up. For all of those trying to make the Archaeopteryx into some kind of missing link for birds, prepare yourself for the latest news.

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20051010/birddino.html

I'm curious, did you do any further exploration of the issue?
Did you google the lead scientist's name?

All this shows even more now is that Evolution is nothing more than speculation and guess work with a mirage of educated guesses. Yesterday you believed whole heartedly that birds came from dinosaurs and could even name the ancestors to link them. Now in a day that theory is shattered beyond recognition and the origins of birds has never been more open or unknown.

Even if you take the article at face value as the last word on the subject that is a false statement.

 

[QuantumFlux]

So maybe if man keeps jumping out of trees, off buildings, out of planes, hang glided, etc. then one day we grow wings just like "Lucy" walk up-right to smoke some grass... I meant, to see over the grass. What an imagination.

LOL, *enters sarcastic evolutionist mode* No, gosh, you obviously have no idea how evolution works.

 

[QuantumFlux]

I'm curious, did you do any further exploration of the issue?
Did you google the lead scientist's name?

Did you? Last I checked Discovery is a respected source. Either way, these are respected evolutionists saying there is a major confict in the current theory.

 

[QuantumFlux]

Third post in a row, I'm on a roll.

You keep comparing the evolutionary theory to that of gravity and meteorology. It is in no way like gravity because gravity can be measured and the theory has not been changed in who knows how long.

Meteorology however is a good analogy. Any meteorologist will tell you how unpredictable the weather is, they can only give you a rough estimate of what the weather will be like that day, much less predict the weather 5 years from now. If they could they could have warned New Orleans a year ahead of Katrina. Also notice that meteorologists mainly focus on the impact of future weather, not what the weather was 50 million years ago. Some do but even they will tell you that its next to impossible to be certain about such things.

Gravity is pretty concrete, we feel it hold us to the earth and it can be measured. Meteorology, even they will tell you, is little more than educated guesses.

Evolution is alot like meteorology, its pretty good at predicting microevolution or adaptation, but once it gets into what things will evolve into, or what things evolved from millions of years ago, its highly inaccurate to what the fossil record shows and complete guess work. We aren't missing one or two missing links between the species, we are missing tons of them. This has been addapted into the evolutionary theory by spontaneous evolution because in some cases the fossil records shows very little time between transitions.

If evolution is proven like meteorology is proven, then its not proven at all because meteorology is wrong in alot of cases.

new page, dont want to forget the link the harsh evidence of the no evidence.

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/brief...0/birddino.html

Here is a link to a evolutionistary view of the cambrian explostion

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_02.html

The things to notice here is that the scientists have very little speculation as to how these creatures evolved so fast. You all of a sudden have creatures with heads and bodies, arms and legs all fully functional. This spontaneous evolutionary explosion completely throws off the evolutionary theories about how fast things evolved. Not only that, they have no fossils to show any way that these creatures could have evolved from anything previous to them. In fact, the most likely explaination is that they simply poped into existance. Many of you get onto creationist scientists for having too complicated of processes, but that is exactly what you offer for the explaination of how these creatures evolved from the plankton and bacteria that is found prior to them.

 

[stumpjumper]

All this shows even more now is that Evolution is nothing more than speculation and guess work with a mirage of educated guesses. Yesterday you believed whole heartedly that birds came from dinosaurs and could even name the ancestors to link them. Now in a day that theory is shattered beyond recognition and the origins of birds has never been more open or unknown.

Interesting article but you are still missing the big picture. Evolution is a theory and a fact. The theory part does change when new information is acquired. That is how science works. It is self correcting unlike certain forms of theology especially the one that you seem to follow. The fact of evolution is that it has occured, is occuring, and will occur in the future. You can read AIG and read about all the "holes" in the evolutionary theory all you want and pull up articles where scientists are saying that they were wrong in regards to some of the theories about our past, but you cannot get past reality.

Reality is that the earth is very, very old (not 6000 years), there is absolutely no evidence for a Global flood nor it is even scientifically possible for a flood of that magnitude to have occurred; nor is it possible for all of the animals, their food, and their resultant waste to fit on the ark, nor is it possible for Penguins to walk to Mesopotamia. You also cannot explain any of the extinct hominids that are fossilized and have been found. You also cannot explain why Humans and Chimpanzees share a chromosome with a break in the exact same place which was inherited from a common ancestor.

Just for kicks how does young earth creation explain this: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1027_041027_homo_floresiensis.htmlhttp://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1027_041027_homo_floresiensis.html

In regards to evolution and flight you seem to forget that those who you are debating against believe that God was behind evolution in one way or another. I don't know all the answers and you should not act like you do either.

 

[QuantumFlux]

Just for kicks how does young earth creation explain this: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...oresiensis.html

How very interesting that you bring this up. I found the same info on the hobbit today as well and was discussing it humorously over lunch earlier.

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20051010/hobbit.html?source=msn_cml_news

this is where I laugh at evolutionary theories. The picture in your link shows this tiny person with the elongated arms but in reality, the skeleton they found had no arms. They did find an arm later but who knows if it really belongs to a regular human or this hobbit creature because it wasn't found anywhere near the skeleton. When they say it was found at the same site, a site can be 3 miles in diameter or more.

The reality as you put it, is that we really dont even know if this skeleton is little more than a small person or if it really is another species. This is why i laugh, because you don't seem to have a problem with repeating your mistakes over and over. You make assumptions that these bones are a different species without really knowing, and when your assumptions bite you in the rear you don't learn your lessons.

The reality is that you will NEVER know. Researching this only leads to little answers and many wrong and benefits no one. Reality is that microevolution has happened and is happening, reality is that macroevolution is a faith because it has never been witnessed nor do you have the fossils to prove it has ever happened.

there is absolutely no evidence for a Global flood

tell me, how do you know Jesus Christ ever existed? It is only through historical evidence that we know he ever did what he did. It isn't just biblical history, multiple secular historians mention Jesus and other biblical characters. Through this we know they were real people and this book wasnt just made up (well thats not the only reason but its the strong case).

There are several cultures with records of a world wide flood. Native american cultures, chinese cultures, african tribes and multiple other cultures all have this very similar tale of a world wide flood. If this were to be judged as any other historical evidence with so much cooberating evidence, the world wide flood is historical fact. Perhaps the evidence is there, but you choose not to look at it.

 

[Smidlee]

Interesting article but you are still missing the big picture.

plus he needs a big imagination.

Evolution is a theory and a fact.

and also dogma called Darwinism

The theory part does change when new information is acquired.

The theory evolves a lot more than any animal does. Even bacteria doesn't change that fast.

That is how science works.

Actually that's how science doesn't work which it the main problem. This is how science fiction works

It is self correcting unlike certain forms of theology especially the one that you seem to follow.

Water is still H2O the last time I check so science itself doesn't need that much correction ; it's the scientist who need correction because their theory doesn't match reality. If you build a house on sand you got to continue leveling it. Build a house on a rock you don't have to keep leveling it.

The fact of evolution is that it has occured, is occuring, and will occur in the future.

and the fact that bacteria is program to evolve and the fact you can change DNA all you want to doesn't seems to change the forms programed in the eggs.

You can read AIG and read about all the "holes" in the evolutionary theory all you want and pull up articles where scientists are saying that they were wrong in regards to some of the theories about our past, but you cannot get past reality.

Forget AIG ; just read science articles to see the emperor has no cloths. IMO The only reason scientist hold on to Darwinism is because of creationists. They would hate to admitted that creationist was right all along since they tried to claim they were fools.

Reality is that the earth is very, very old (not 6000 years), there is absolutely no evidence for a Global flood nor it is even scientifically possible for a flood of that magnitude to have occurred; nor is it possible for all of the animals, their food, and their resultant waste to fit on the ark, nor is it possible for Penguins to walk to Mesopotamia.

Reality is that the uninformitarian geology is just as awfull if not more that YEC flood models. Especially in recent years when we discover just how much the level of erosion. Of course Scientist can't let creationist get a foot in the door so they have no choice but to stay with the UG no matter how bad it is.

You also cannot explain any of the extinct hominids that are fossilized and have been found. You also cannot explain why Humans and Chimpanzees share a chromosome with a break in the exact same place which was inherited from a common ancestor.

All I need to do with this statement is change one word ;"ancestor" to "designer". It make just as much sense. We also know that a single DNA can creat two different forms; both a caterpillar and a butterfly for example.

Just for kicks how does young earth creation explain this: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1027_041027_homo_floresiensis.html

In regards to evolution and flight you seem to forget that those who you are debating against believe that God was behind evolution in one way or another. I don't know all the answers and you should not act like you do either.

I don't how my computer could evolved either. How long will darwinsm use ignorance as an excuse why there is no evidence birds evolved from a reptile. If someone even accepts the fossil at face value is clearly show that birds didn't evolve from anything but a bird.
To believe evolutionist you must assume "similarities" = "ancestor". But in reality similarities usually equal design.

 

[stumpjumper]

How very interesting that you bring this up. I found the same info on the hobbit today as well and was discussing it humorously over lunch earlier.

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20051010/hobbit.html?source=msn_cml_news
this is where I laugh at evolutionary theories.

Do you not realize how ridiculous this is? You could point out flaws in our current understanding of the world all day long. Before Einstein we followed Newtonian physics. Before Galileo, we thought the Sun revolved around the earth. Before, quantum mechanics we did not have a good picture of our quantum world. You point out some flaws in our current understanding of the one topic that is incredibly difficult to elucidate because we were not there. We cannot test the past because it is past.

From your above link:

Causing a Stir
At first, Brown thought H. floresiensis evolved from Homo erectus, but now he believes the hobbits were more closely linked to Australopithecus, a more apish-looking human ancestor that walked upright but had long arms.

This is causing a stir only because scientists actually search for answers and the truth. I could not say the same about YEC's.

The reality as you put it, is that we really dont even know if this skeleton is little more than a small person or if it really is another species. This is why i laugh, because you don't seem to have a problem with repeating your mistakes over and over. You make assumptions that these bones are a different species without really knowing, and when your assumptions bite you in the rear you don't learn your lessons.

You are truly unbelievable. Before I came to this subforum, I had no idea how self-righteous and close-minded some people could be. I have stated many times that certain factors about our view of the world could be wrong. However, there are some things that have been proven completely wrong and without merit: a 6000 year old earth, unique special creation, and a literal reading of Genesis is untrue. You cannot get around it by saying some arms are not as long as other arms. The strawmen you build up can be burned down again and again yet reality will still bite you in the rear end. So you say.

The reality is that you will NEVER know.

There are plenty of fossils that show change within a species. Reality is that every fossil creates a new link. Reality is that YEC could never even predict minor change within a species. If you were honest with yourself you would realize that if you accept microevolution and an old earth then you accept macroevolution despite the length of the arms on extinct hominids.

But, you are right we will never know the whole story. What we do know is what is totally wrong not what is totally right.

Unfortunately, a literal reading of Genesis which leads you to accept a very young earth with unique special creation is totally wrong. No matter how you spin the facts it is just not true. And you know it

tell me, how do you know Jesus Christ ever existed?

Through prayer and meditation I know Jesus Christ was a historical figure and the unique savior of mankind. The entire New Testament is devoted to the life of this unique person in history and He has no equal. Noah has one chapter of one book in a collection that began as oral history over many centuries. Jesus Christ was written about within two decades of his death and resurrection.

Are you going to pick up a book on a historical-critical history of the Torah and a good theology of evolution? Or, am I going to have to keep burning your strawmen?

 

[stumpjumper]

I don't how my computer could evolved either. How long will darwinsm use ignorance as an excuse why there is no evidence birds evolved from a reptile. If someone even accepts the fossil at face value is clearly show that birds didn't evolve from anything but a bird.
To believe evolutionist you must assume "similarities" = "ancestor". But in reality similarities usually equal design.

I am not really a Darwinist but Darwinists do not simply rely on similarities equaling ancestors. Many would admit that homology does not equal ontology. You also need genetics as well as other factors to make a connection.

Again though Smidlee, you are making the same error in pointing out flaws in evolution. Even if people were to show that macroevolution was completely and utterly untrue (which I think is probably impossible), you would not show Creationism to be true.

Thats a fact.

 

[Smidlee]

.

Again though Smidlee, you are making the same error in pointing out flaws in evolution.

If I go to buy a car and look under the hood and found no engine I would be quick to point out that flaw no matter how the car look. Also if I was going to look for a house, a missing roof would be very noticeable flaw.

Even if people were to show that macroevolution was completely and utterly untrue (which I think is probably impossible),

So atleast you realizes macroevolution can not be falsified.

you would not show Creationism to be true.

There is only two options ; either something is created (made) or it evolved by laws of physics. Ex: Since there no known law of physics to explain how a computer got here it would be evidence of creation.(human creation) So any evidence againest something evolving is evidence toward creation. Also As a christian I do consider the Bible as evidence even though it's not by science.
Again if we found a strange device on Mars such as a Stargate we could easily tell if it's design or not but rule out the laws of physics for it's existance. Of course someone could still claim they believe nature did it but haven't figure out how yet. Still the one who claim this structure is designed has the stronger case by default but when it comes to biology the opposide is true. It seems only in biology is this backwards logic used.

 

[gluadys]

Hey guys,

I havent posted on this thread in a while, but Discover.com put out an article today that cracked me up. For all of those trying to make the Archaeopteryx into some kind of missing link for birds, prepare yourself for the latest news.

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20051010/birddino.html

If you dont feel like visiting the link, I'll give you the jist. Basically it negates any evolution from dinosaurs to birds. guess it is still a mistery where they came from. Sorry guys, next theory please.

First, this is just one scientist's opinion. Just because a paper gets published doesn't mean it is going to make big waves in the scientific community.

Fedduccia is a bit of a loner who has never accepted a bird-dinosaur relation. The press (including the scientific press) always turn to him for an "alternate opinion" because he is practically the only guy out there with one.

Doesn't make him wrong, but he gets too much of a hearing because the press is trying to be "balanced".

Just a few key quotes:

"The ancestor to birds therefore could have been some arboreal archosaur, but we just don't know. The question as to where birds came from is now left open."

To some extent it was open anyway. No one claimed the feathered dinosaurs discovered were the ancestors of birds, because they are too young--Cretaceous, not Jurassic. What the findings showed is that a group of dinosaurs was a lot more bird-like that previously suspected. This leads to the conclusion that feathered dinosaurs and birds are related to each other through a common ancestor----not to the conclusion that the feathered dinosaurs so far discovered are the ancestors.

Most scientists believe the common ancestor of birds and feathered dinosaurs was a dinosaur of the theropod type, an early one for which no fossil has been found yet. Feduccia wants to place the common ancestor further back in time--previous to dinosaurs altogether.

The only theory they could offer was completely unstudied and utter speculation. In light of this dramatic change in the evolutionary theories, I honestly again cant find any reason to have faith in such an ever changing theory.

The theory is not changing. Fedducia as much as his fellow scientists, agrees with evolution, and even an evolutionary relationship between birds and dinosaurs. They are just disagreeing on the finer points of what the relationship is. To call the difference a dramatic change is sheer exaggeration.

And remember, Fedducia's theory has not been accepted yet. He has published some interesting evidence in support of it, but it will still be examined and critiqued by other scientists who will agree or disagree and offer other interpretations of the evidence and even new evidence.

All this shows even more now is that Evolution is nothing more than speculation and guess work with a mirage of educated guesses. Yesterday you believed whole heartedly that birds came from dinosaurs and could even name the ancestors to link them. Now in a day that theory is shattered beyond recognition and the origins of birds has never been more open or unknown.

A tempest in a teapot about the details of bird-dinosaur relations does not show the whole theory of evolution to be speculation. Nor has the feathered dinosaur thesis been shattered. It has only be challenged by a known maverick. If his evidence is good enough (and I am no judge of that) it may persuade other scientists to adopt his thesis. But most likely the controversy will remain until there is new evidence which settles the matter.

 

[gluadys]

tell me, how do you know Jesus Christ ever existed? It is only through historical evidence that we know he ever did what he did.

Actually we don't know that Jesus Christ ever existed. There is no historical evidence that confirms his existence. What most historical evidence shows is that a community of Christians existed who claimed to be followers of Jesus. But there is no evidence that these Christians had any first-hand knowledge of his existence.

It isn't just biblical history, multiple secular historians mention Jesus and other biblical characters.

A mention is not evidence. A mention can be nothing more than hearsay or rumour.

There are several cultures with records of a world wide flood.

There are no cultures with records of a world wide flood. (If the flood really was world-wide, there would be no one but Noah and his family to make a record.)

There are several cultures whose mythological lore includes a flood story, and also several that do not.

And there are cultures whose actual historical records go right through the time of the flood while making no mention of how it disrupted their civilization. From these records it appears that harvests were gathered and taxes collected and marriages and births and deaths and all the other minutiae of daily life continued as normal in spite of a world-wide flood that was too trivial to mention.

 

[stumpjumper]

If I go to buy a car and look under the hood and found no engine I would be quick to point out that flaw no matter how the car look. Also if I was going to look for a house, a missing roof would be very noticeable flaw.

Bad analogy. The house and the car would still be there despite the flaws in their current operation. Same with evolution.

So atleast you realizes macroevolution can not be falsified.

No. I said probably not definitely. Macroevolution could be falsified although I do not see how.

There is only two options ; either something is created (made) or it evolved by laws of physics.

No Smidlee. There is more than two options. Natural laws could have been created in such a way that evolution of life was inevitable. Under that scenario was life created or did it evolve or was it both?

There are plenty more but my fingers are starting to hurt