Why I do not accept evolution part one

[VirOptimus]

I'll address this as a Christian, primarily directed to Christians.
The theory of evolution is in direct opposition to what the Bible has to say about where life came from. I've heard different arguments from those who accept evolution as true. I understand this to be the official position of the Roman Catholic organisation.
From a Christian perspective, I am perplexed. How is it possible for a believer to reject God's word when it is so clear?

There is nothing in the Genesis account to suggest that life evolved. The opposite. I'll not quote scripture - most readers know where to find the account. Suffice to say that the Bible states that God created everything.

The Christian who rejects the Genesis account does not call God a liar. He/she makes it out to be a myth, a parable or a metaphor. Lord Jesus did not think so. In Matthew 19:4, He declares that God created man male and female. Since Lord Jesus is the Creator, it makes sense to accept His declaration.

Another problem I have is that of sin. If God dropped a blob of protoplasm into the primordial soup, which was already alive, then it is going to develop according to whatever genetic coding was introduced at the time.

How does that work? Did God just drop the blob and wander off to listen to the angel choirs and ignore the blob? Then, "Oh look. A man has evolved. Look at that! There is a female version!" How did this being gain a soul? How did he get a spirit? How did both male and female gain these attributes? Why did other animals not get them?

At what point did a man sin? How can he even be accused of sin? Since he has no knowledge of God (that's a problem with a bunch of cells that somehow form a highly complex life form), how does he know what the rules are?

Some say that God took this one being aside and inserted a soul and a spirit. Did God do this for every human being? It still does not answer the issue of sin. If one of these evolved beings sins, why should that effect every other human being who has ever lived? If this being evolved, how can the Bible say that man was created in God's image?

No, I do not buy theistic evolution. I do not claim to understand everything in God's word. I will say that if the world argues against the Bible, I stand by God's word every time.

Denying physical reality because of religious beliefs is a losing proposition.

 

[NxNW]

if you want to grumble about "random life forming" that's a good complaint. Life doesn't just FORM out of chemicals, naturally. It never has. People have tried it.

What does that have to do with evolution?

 

[NxNW]

I am ok with adaptation within a species. It fits entirely with the Bible's narrative. I am not ok with macro evolution.

Neither is science, because science makes no claims regarding it.

 

[SkyWriting]

What does that have to do with evolution?

Check with educators.

From Soup to Cells - the Origin of Life - Evolution 101
evolution.berkeley.edu › evo101
Because these molecules are widespread and are critically important to all life, they are thought to have arisen very early in the history of life and have been ...

A timescale for the origin and evolution of all of life on Earth


The Origins of Life | Harvard Magazine
harvardmagazine.com › 2013/09 › life-s-beginnings
Dimitar Sasselov, director of the Origins of Life Initiative, searches for planets ... Observatory and Harvard College Observatory, the University of Geneva, and ... The planetary conditions on Earth shaped the life that evolved, and life in turn

Theory of evolution on Earth
On Earth life began at least 4 billion years ago and it has been evolving every year. In the beginning all living things on earth were single celled organism, after several years multicellular organism evolved after that diversity in life on earth increased day by day.Dec 12, 2015
Biology and evolution of life science - NCBI

 

[SkyWriting]

Neither is science, because science makes no claims regarding it.

Except for, when it does.
Adaptation - Understanding Evolution
evolution.berkeley.edu › evolibrary › article › evo_31
An adaptation is a feature that is common in a population because it provides ... Fish species that live in completely dark caves have vestigial, non-functional ...


adaptation | Definition, Examples, & Facts | Britannica
www.britannica.com › science › adaptation-biology-and-physiology
Adaptation, in biology, the process by which a species becomes fitted to its environment; it is the result of natural selection's acting upon heritable variation over several generations.


Testing hypotheses in macroevolution - ScienceDirect
www.sciencedirect.com › science › article › pii
by L Bromham - ‎2016 - ‎Cited by 12 - ‎Related articles
But many evolutionary processes occur on scales that are not amenable to experimental manipulation. Indeed, one of the reasons that macroevolution (changes ...

 

[pitabread]

Denying physical reality because of religious beliefs is a losing proposition.

Hence why creationists always seem to paint themselves into a corner in these discussions.

 

[NxNW]

Check with educators.

From Soup to Cells - the Origin of Life - Evolution 101
evolution.berkeley.edu › evo101

The origin of life is separate from evolution.

 

[SkyWriting]

I have to disagree with you. The scientific evidence against the Genesis stories is so strong and so clear that for anyone that understands the basics of science and looks for an answer instead of looking for excuses will see that their is no way that they can be true unless God planted false evidence.

You can't show evidence against stories.
Can can only support scientific claims, or not.

 

[SkyWriting]

The origin of life is separate from evolution.

And all those sources say not. So...........NxNW.edu seems alone in that conclusion.
Which is ok. I don't mind. I have a couple issues with no scholarly support as well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You can't show evidence against stories.
Can can only support scientific claims, or not.

Actually you can. If the story can be used to make predictions then one can have evidence against that story.

The scientifically illiterate do not understand how to make predictions from stories.

 

[SkyWriting]

Actually you can. If the story can be used to make predictions then one can have evidence against that story.

History is entirely faith based.
You can't reproduce history in a lab.

 

[Speedwell]

And all those sources say not. So...........NxNW.edu seems alone in that conclusion.
Which is ok. I don't mind. I have a couple issues with no scholarly support as well.

I looked through those sources and none of them suggested that abiogenesis took place by random genetic variation followed by natural selection. Instead, some other process took place which formed the original genomes.

 

[SkyWriting]

I looked through those sources and none of them suggested that abiogenesis took place by random genetic variation followed by natural selection. Instead, some other process took place which formed the original genomes.

Nor do they say the issues are separated as people imagineate.
In fact, I can only find the claim they are separate in this forum.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Check with educators.

From Soup to Cells - the Origin of Life - Evolution 101
evolution.berkeley.edu › evo101
Because these molecules are widespread and are critically important to all life, they are thought to have arisen very early in the history of life and have been ...

A timescale for the origin and evolution of all of life on Earth


The Origins of Life | Harvard Magazine
harvardmagazine.com › 2013/09 › life-s-beginnings
Dimitar Sasselov, director of the Origins of Life Initiative, searches for planets ... Observatory and Harvard College Observatory, the University of Geneva, and ... The planetary conditions on Earth shaped the life that evolved, and life in turn

Theory of evolution on Earth
On Earth life began at least 4 billion years ago and it has been evolving every year. In the beginning all living things on earth were single celled organism, after several years multicellular organism evolved after that diversity in life on earth increased day by day.Dec 12, 2015
Biology and evolution of life science - NCBI

I can understand your confusion. Abiogenesis is a separate but related topic to evolution. They treat abiogenesis as a fact in those articles because it is the only concept that is supported by evidence. Like any other rational person they ignore stories that have no support at all. The claim was the evolution relies on abiogenesis. At the most one can only claim that evolution relies on some form of abiogenesis. Whether natural abiogenesis (the most likely and only concept supported by evidence), was planted by aliens (highly speculative and without evidentiary support), or magically poofed into existence (a concept not supported by any evidence nor is there even any evidence that it is remotely possible), the theory deals with life once it exists. Note how the article talking about abiogenesis still have a slight separation from evolution. That is because scientists are cautious in their claims.

And please note your last quote only deals with life after it appears. Or in other words, evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nor do they say the issues are separated as people imagineate.

Do you think that they need to?

 

[Speedwell]

Nor do they say the issues are separated as people imagineate.

How do some people imagineate that the issues are different? All I ever hear is that the processes are different.

 

[Tanj]

I for one look forward to part 2.

 

[Tanj]

Hmm, should we let "Aussie" Pete know that the only way to make an effective COVID19 vaccine is by using our knowledge of evolution? Perhaps he could show the courage of his convictions and refuse the vaccination when it's ready.

 

[pitabread]

Hmm, should we let "Aussie" Pete know that the only way to make an effective COVID19 vaccine is by using our knowledge of evolution? Perhaps he could show the courage of his convictions and refuse the vaccination when it's ready.

He keeps outright denying that evolution has any real world applications.

I suspect the cognitive dissonance resulting from "evolution is false" and "evolution is useful" is too difficult to deal with.

 

[Ophiolite]

Neither is science, because science makes no claims regarding it.

Science makes no claims regarding macroevolution? Would you expand on what you mean by that please?