Why is Evolution feared by many Christians?

[KeithB]

This textbook I have in front of me presents it like he created life in a closed system at the lab, which I find is obviously not true the more I research the subject. I'm sorry that I didn't find a second source, thanks for setting me staight.

I was just being a smart-butt.

I appreciate your forwardness. I'm also learning new things each day. Learning is a good thing... and although I'm a YEC, I'm still willing to learn. To tell you the truth, I've got some research to do on that geological column.

Cheers!

 

[Vastavus]

I appreciate your forwardness. I'm also learning new things each day. Learning is a good thing... and although I'm a YEC, I'm stilling willing to learn. To tell you the truth, I've got some research to do on that geological column.

Cheers!

I am always willing to learn, I wish you luck with your research. Thanks again.

 

[Asimov]

Check your experiment out -- all he created were some amino acids and they were both right and left handed which would have combined and been useless. No RNA or DNA were created. -- to put it kindly, he created some tar -- far from life.

He created protocells.

http://www.christianforums.com/t155621

here's an thread by lucaspa on it.

The system doesn't allow the "d" word -- I replaced with "non-alive"
Give Miller a bunch of squished non-alive fly material and he still wouldn't have been able to create life.

That's not what any theory about abiogenesis states....what you've set up is a straw-man.

 

[KeithB]

He created protocells.

http://www.christianforums.com/t155621

here's an thread by lucaspa on it.

Good try. I just went through a bunch of the site and I couldn't find anywhere it says Dr Miller created protocells. He created very simple amino acids.

However, it was quite a valiant attempt to distance evolution from abiogenesis and try to make it a faith versus non-faith effort with abiogenesis falling totally under chemistry.

That's not what any theory about abiogenesis states....what you've set up is a straw-man.

How do you they always jump straight from a hypothesis to a theory without a shred of evidence. The simple fact is that non-life doesn't just produce life over time (oh, maybe we have to add a few billion years to make it appear practical).

 

[gluadys]

He created protocells.

http://www.christianforums.com/t155621

here's an thread by lucaspa on it.

That wasn't Miller. It was Sidney Fox.

 

[gluadys]

No, but I do think you could have multiple masses of trees get deposited during a catrosphic event such as a global flood.

Masses of trees deposited during a catastrophic event would not appear as forests rooted in paleosols. Especially not one above another.

Speciation is not forming new critters.

Yes, it is.

You're just loosing genetic material.

No you are not>

...and even if you do happen upon a "good" mutation, it doesn't mean all of life came about that way. Too many complex interdependencies (male/female, bee/flowers, internal cell mechanisms, internal body system, etc).

Argument from incredulity. Just because something is complex doesn't mean its impossible.

I'm only going by what the evolutionists are saying right here on this sight. Some are willing to accept a God as long as He didn't do anything - let it all happen naturally.

So are you saying that if something happens naturally it means God is sitting on his hands not doing anything?

If so, why do you say that? (Note: I am not asking what other people say. Why do you as a Christian, say that?)

If you're accepting evolution, how does your god fit into it? What part did he play?

Hey, God is the Creator. God does not "fit into" anything. It is evolution that fits into God's act of creating.

I'm not sure what natural causes your talking about.

Physical, chemical and biological processes, such as atoms forming molecules to make DNA and other substances used in life processes, chemicals interacting to make amino acids, proteins, etc. and reproduction to pass genes from one generation to another.

If it's origins (i.e., we came from a pile of sludge), then I'm not sure. The Word of God I trust in doesn't say I came from a pile of sludge.

So dirt is ok, but not sludge? Sounds like a distinction without a difference.

 

[Vastavus]

If it's origins (i.e., we came from a pile of sludge), then I'm not sure. The Word of God I trust in doesn't say I came from a pile of sludge.

Dust, sludge, whats the difference? Can't we all just get along?

 

[gluadys]

What if 10, 20, or 50 years from now the origin of life has been solved? Where will God retreat to next?

Indeed, that is exactly what is wrong with creationism. When one denies God a role in natural processes and restricts God to miraculous action, God must be seen as in retreat every time science discovers a natural cause for events not previously explained scientifically.

This is a ridiculous position for a Christian to take. Scripture does not say God is restricted to supernatural means. Mainstream Christianity has always held that God ordinarily works through natural means to accomplish his purposes. Miracles are special signs of God's presence, but they are by no means the only events in which God is active.

When I first learned how evolution actually works, it never occurred to me to say God is in retreat. Instead, my first reaction was "So that's how God did it! Cool!" And if/when science ferrets out a natural origin of life, that is exactly what I will say again.

 

[Dirtydeak]

I think most of the more scientificly minded people tend to not under stand fully what they do see yet alone that wich cannot be observed. The how things became is almost tabbo in the scientific relm, leaving to many unsolved riddles for me.

What exactly is your problem? Why do you think they don't understand do you have a problem with their methodology or just a problem with the fact that they don't mix theology in irrelevant scientific papers?

And for the record the how things became is the goal of science. Ultimate questions though are not able to be answered yet and maybe they never will be. What we do know though is that if you try to find the answer to the universe, life and everything through logic and science what you get is 42.

.

Ok.... fair enough. How did the very laws and goverenances that that make up our known exsitance become? Where did the matter of our existance come from? Scientificly speaking of course.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Both sides have the same "data" to look at -- dirt, bones, fossils, nature.

But only one side takes into account all of the data: science, not creationism.

And you demonstrated that quite well in the very same post.

Take dirt layers for example. Both see a set of layers.

And the difference is that:

1. Scientists, in this case geologists, see more than a set of layers. We see layers of distinctly different compositions and orientations; we see layers with distinctly different sedimentary structures within them; we see layers with fossils of specific and distinct environments.

2. Creationists just see "dirt layers" which is the most superificial observation that can be made here.

Therefore, scientists use ALL the data. Creationists do not use that same data, they use a markedly smaller data set.

One side assumes uniformitarianism and establishes the geologic column from which they derive all kinds of evidence and formulas.

Uniformitarianism is not simply an assumption; it is a conclusion from observations. There is zero data that contradicts using it as the basis of geological studies.

The other side examines how water sifts dirt and can also create the layered effect (as demonstrated from Mt Saint Helen's eruption). From this a different set of evidence is accumulated.

Using the Mt. St. Helens example illustrates exactly what I'm talking about: creationists use only the most superficial analysis they can.

When someone compares Mt. St. Helens lahar deposits to the Grand Canyon or other sets of sedimentary strata, it only indicates one thing: that the person doesn't know what they're talking about.

The deposits around Mt. St. Helens are largely pyroclastic ash, some dirt and debris from the dome breaking up. This is not in any way comparable to the vast majority of the sedimentary rock record.

There aren't fossils there. There isn't large scale cross bedding like we see in the Wingate Formation. There isn't any limestone like the Redwall Formation. There aren't remnant features like karst topography or abandoned river channels. There aren't any angular unconformities.

The creationist argument involving "dirt layers" is nothing beyond the most superficial claim that "since there are layers here, other places where there are layers can form rapidly."

That's a preposterous notion because the layers "here" aren't at all like layers in "other places."

It doesn't take into account all available data. Creationists just ignore the details, and it's the details they don't like because it proves them wrong. This has been realized in the geological community for almost two centuries now.

Furthermore, when a creationist uses that argument, it illustrates that they don't know what uniformitarianism is because lahars are not incompatible with uniformitarianism. Uniformitarianism does not equate to gradualism. It equates to the notion that the processes today--catastrophic or not--are the same processes that form the same features we see preserved in the sedimentary rock record.

And until creationists start dealing with all available data and stop making such laughably superficial comparisons, it should be no surprise that they are not only not convincing anyone but are dismissed so easily.

 

[random_guy]

Christians fear evolution? Why would a christian fear evolution?
Evolution is not real. God created the universe, this Earth and Us.
A man saw many of the same type of birds, he saw that they all had a different thype of beek and thus made the 'Theory' of Evolution.
LOL i mean evolution is not even Science. it is a Religion. Science is study based on Facts. Evolution has no Facts. No-one was there when the "Big Bang" happened. No-one was there when Man "evolved" from apes. LOL
I mean ya i Belive in the "Big Bang". I just think they have it happening at the wrong point in time. Revelations/Last Days there wil be a "Big Bang". And as we all know it will not create anything. ? how in the world? if i take some Nails, some 2x4 pieces of wood and 'Blow' them up. I will not get a Fence in my yard. LOL. People! have u ever heard of Entropy

God told man that he created the Universe and man wrote it down.(Genesis)
No on saw it. It is not science. it is a Religion. U have the choice. u must decide. And as for me? well God gave me Comon...or well UnComon sense.
I choose God!

My goodness, there's so many things wrong with this.

Let's say I'm a detective, and I'm at a murder scene. I find the murder weapon at the scene, and it has finger prints of the suspect on it. I also find the blood and hair of the suspect underneath the victim's fingernails. According to you, it would be unscientific to try to charge the suspect with murder. There was no one there to witness it.

Now, if you think that's scientific, then why is Big Bang not scientific. We see evidence of the event all around us, such as red-shift and cosmic microwave background radiation. Seriously, if you plan to mock science, learn about it first. You might be surprised about how wrong your misconceptions are.[font=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica]
[/font]

 

[GoSeminoles!]

Bipolar behavior?

"I love God. He's so deliciously evil." -- Stewart Griffin.

Yes, bipolar disorder. It's a psychological condition in which the person operates only at the extreme ends of the emotional spectrum. Jehovah fits this description well. One minute he is telling the Israelites to slaughter every many, woman, and child in the neighboring village (Dt 3:3-7) and the next he's telling us to love one another as we love ourselves. On Tuesday he's telling us to turn the other cheek and then on Wednesday he kills 42 small children because they made fun of a bald man (2 Kings 2:23-24).

I wish more people read the Bible.

 

[gluadys]

"I love God. He's so deliciously evil." -- Stewart Griffin.

Yes, bipolar disorder. It's a psychological condition in which the person operates only at the extreme ends of the emotional spectrum. Jehovah fits this description well. One minute he is telling the Israelites to slaughter every many, woman, and child in the neighboring village (Dt 3:3-7) and the next he's telling us to love one another as we love ourselves. On Tuesday he's telling us to turn the other cheek and then on Wednesday he kills 42 small children because they made fun of a bald man (2 Kings 2:23-24).

I wish more people read the Bible.

Feminist theologians have noted how well the profile of God in the bible matches that of an abusive husband.

 

[Risen from the Dust]

...and then on Wednesday he kills 42 small children because they made fun of a bald man (2 Kings 2:23-24).

From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. "Go on up, you baldhead!" they said. "Go on up, you baldhead!" He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.
​

They weren't small children. They were most likely elder teens -- much like the young foul-mouthed punks that one sees on the streets calling out insults to passerbyers.

The Hebrew word rendered “children” derives from na’ar – used 235 times in the Hebrew Scriptures. Na’ar is a very broad root word, and can have reference to anyone from a newborn child to an adult.

Furthermore, the Hebrew word rendered “little” comes from qatan, and generally means young or small.

In commenting on this term in 2 Kings 2:23, the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament remarks:

“Elisha being taunted (cf. qalas, qarah) by young lads (perhaps teen-age ruffians) (II Kgs 2:23) who as members of covenant families ought to have been taught God’s law whereby cursing his servant was tantamount to cursing him and rightly punishable by death (cf. qalal)” (Harris, et al., 1980, 2:795).​

Obviously, therefore, the immediate context in which na’ar is used will determine the maturity of the subject so designated.

Likewise, they weren't killed by God. They were mauled and roughed up quite a bit by bears -- but left alive enough to learn not to be so stupid as to wish a prophet of God dead. If the bears had actually killed them in the process of mauling them, they would have said something the the effect of mauled them and killed them.


An example of this can be found in I Kings 13:26:

When the prophet who had brought him back from his journey heard of it, he said, "It is the man of God who defied the word of the LORD . The LORD has given him over to the lion, which has mauled him and killed him, as the word of the LORD had warned him."


​

The young men of Bethel mocked Elisha. The Hebrew word qalas means to scoff at, ridicule, or scorn. The term does not suggest innocent conduct.

Note the Lord’s comment elsewhere: “...they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and scoffed at his prophets, until the wrath of Jehovah arose against his people, till there was no remedy” (2 Chron. 36:16).

What most people don't realize is that when they said, "Hey bald head! Why don't you go on up there." they were making a double reference expressing their desire for Elisha's death and making fun of Elijah's ascension at the same time.

It seems as though they didn't believe the account of Elijah going up in the whirlwind. They felt it was a fancy way of saying that he passed on and went to heaven. As such, they were saying, "Why don't you drop dead baldy!"

God apparently "allowed" the animals to correct their arrogance -- quite humorously I might add.

I wish more people read the Bible.

I pray that more people would read it and not treat it like another episode of Jerry Springer.

 

[JohnR7]

On Tuesday he's telling us to turn the other cheek and then on Wednesday he kills 42 small children because they made fun of a bald man (2 Kings 2:23-24).

I wish more people read the Bible.

I think that your the one that needs to read the Bible more. No where does it say that the children were killed. The Hebrew word is "bara" and it means to cleave or to divide. The bears came out of the woods and divided the group of "children" and sent them on their way.

Exodus 14:16
But lift thou up thy rod, and stretch out thine hand over the sea, and divide it: and the children of Israel shall go on dry ground through the midst of the sea.

 

[primate]

From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. "Go on up, you baldhead!" they said. "Go on up, you baldhead!" He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.


​

They weren't small children. They were most likely elder teens -- much like the young foul-mouthed punks that one sees on the streets calling out insults to passerbyers.

The Hebrew word rendered “children” derives from na’ar – used 235 times in the Hebrew Scriptures. Na’ar is a very broad root word, and can have reference to anyone from a newborn child to an adult.

Furthermore, the Hebrew word rendered “little” comes from qatan, and generally means young or small.

In commenting on this term in 2 Kings 2:23, the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament remarks:

“Elisha being taunted (cf. qalas, qarah) by young lads (perhaps teen-age ruffians) (II Kgs 2:23) who as members of covenant families ought to have been taught God’s law whereby cursing his servant was tantamount to cursing him and rightly punishable by death (cf. qalal)” (Harris, et al., 1980, 2:795).​

Obviously, therefore, the immediate context in which na’ar is used will determine the maturity of the subject so designated.


Likewise, they weren't killed by God. They were mauled and roughed up quite a bit by bears -- but left alive enough to learn not to be so stupid as to wish a prophet of God dead. If the bears had actually killed them in the process of mauling them, they would have said something the the effect of mauled them and killed them.




An example of this can be found in I Kings 13:26:

When the prophet who had brought him back from his journey heard of it, he said, "It is the man of God who defied the word of the LORD . The LORD has given him over to the lion, which has mauled him and killed him, as the word of the LORD had warned him."




​

The young men of Bethel mocked Elisha. The Hebrew word qalas means to scoff at, ridicule, or scorn. The term does not suggest innocent conduct.

Note the Lord’s comment elsewhere: “...they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and scoffed at his prophets, until the wrath of Jehovah arose against his people, till there was no remedy” (2 Chron. 36:16).

What most people don't realize is that when they said, "Hey bald head! Why don't you go on up there." they were making a double reference expressing their desire for Elisha's death and making fun of Elijah's ascension at the same time.

It seems as though they didn't believe the account of Elijah going up in the whirlwind. They felt it was a fancy way of saying that he passed on and went to heaven. As such, they were saying, "Why don't you drop dead baldy!"

God apparently "allowed" the animals to correct their arrogance -- quite humorously I might add.



I pray that more people would read it and not treat it like another episode of Jerry Springer.

No amount of ad hoc interpretation will ever make up for the fact that the Bible is one of the most violent books ever written. Funny how God "allowed" the animals to "correct" their verbal taunts with physical violence and bloodshed because He desired to fulfill a curse made by Elisha. Hardly and eye for an eye or turning the other cheek, is it?

Why doesn't God fulfill the curses of true believers these days?

 

[GoSeminoles!]

I think that your the one that needs to read the Bible more. No where does it say that the children were killed. The Hebrew word is "bara" and it means to cleave or to divide. The bears came out of the woods and divided the group of "children" and sent them on their way.

And did they all live happily everafter?

Here's what my bible says:

And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

I have learned alot here today. I have learned that "small children" means teenage ruffians, not small children. And I have learned that "tare" does not mean kill or devour, it means to send someone on his way.

Is there anything at all in the Bible that actually means what it says?

 

[primate]

I think that your the one that needs to read the Bible more. No where does it say that the children were killed. The Hebrew word is "bara" and it means to cleave or to divide. The bears came out of the woods and divided the group of "children" and sent them on their way.

Exodus 14:16
But lift thou up thy rod, and stretch out thine hand over the sea, and divide it: and the children of Israel shall go on dry ground through the midst of the sea.

Risen from the dust has already stated that the bears mauled the children and provided a specious theological interpretation that the punishment could have been death.

In commenting on this term in 2 Kings 2:23, the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament remarks:

“Elisha being taunted (cf. qalas, qarah) by young lads (perhaps teen-age ruffians) (II Kgs 2:23) who as members of covenant families ought to have been taught God’s law whereby cursing his servant was tantamount to cursing him and rightly punishable by death (cf. qalal)” (Harris, et al., 1980, 2:795).​

The KJV uses the word tare which has been interpreted as meaning killed. Nearly every interpretation clearly means physical violence was done to the children (whether teen or no) up to and including death. So which interpretation is correct? Yours, John? Risen's?

 

[Nathan Poe]

I think that your the one that needs to read the Bible more. No where does it say that the children were killed. The Hebrew word is "bara" and it means to cleave or to divide. The bears came out of the woods and divided the group of "children" and sent them on their way.

I have no doubt that the children were "divided..." Heads divided from shoulders, limbs divided from torsos... It does rather fit the style of the OT...

 

[Risen from the Dust]

No amount of ad hoc interpretation will ever make up for the fact that the Bible is one of the most violent books ever written.

This is actually quite a loaded statement -- which seems to indicate that you're either simply looking for an argument or perhaps just trying to make out the Scriptures to be illogical.

First of all "ad hoc interpretation"?

Do you mean "improvised" or simply "concerned with one specific purpose"?

Either way you read it, I'm trying to give you a very likely scenario of what the text may have meant in the case of Elisha and the curse he called upon the rebellious teens -- rebellious teens that were basically telling Elisha to "eat #### and die you stupid #######."

I don't know exactly how it all works, I could be totally wrong and other explanations might be correct -- but I am fairly sure that these punks were basically cursing Elisha and ridiculing his faith. I also do not personally think it says what some people are trying to say it implies -- and I've explained why already.

Next of all "most violent books ever written"?

Yes. I'll agree with you here. There's no doubt that the Scriptures portrayal of the ancient Israelites is marked with violence -- with much violence being done by the Israelites themselves in the name of God as directed and commanded by God himself.

Very good examples of this is found over and over again in the book of Joshua:

Joshua 8:22
The men of the ambush also came out of the city against them, so that they were caught in the middle, with Israelites on both sides. Israel cut them down, leaving them neither survivors nor fugitives.

Joshua 10:28
That day Joshua took Makkedah. He put the city and its king to the sword and totally destroyed everyone in it. He left no survivors. And he did to the king of Makkedah as he had done to the king of Jericho.

Joshua 10:33
Meanwhile, Horam king of Gezer had come up to help Lachish, but Joshua defeated him and his army-until no survivors were left.

Joshua 10:37
They took the city and put it to the sword, together with its king, its villages and everyone in it. They left no survivors. Just as at Eglon, they totally destroyed it and everyone in it.

Joshua 10:39
They took the city, its king and its villages, and put them to the sword. Everyone in it they totally destroyed. They left no survivors. They did to Debir and its king as they had done to Libnah and its king and to Hebron.

Joshua 10:40
So Joshua subdued the whole region, including the hill country, the Negev, the western foothills and the mountain slopes, together with all their kings. He left no survivors. He totally destroyed all who breathed, just as the LORD , the God of Israel, had commanded.

Funny how God "allowed" the animals to "correct" their verbal taunts with physical violence and bloodshed because He desired to fulfill a curse made by Elisha. Hardly and eye for an eye or turning the other cheek, is it?

No. Actually, it's funny how you're trying to stretch the account of Elisha out of context when there's already plenty of examples where the Lord displayed a very ruthless character all throughout the book of Joshua -- where the Israelites really did slay men, women, and very innocent children (down to and including new-born babies -- in short all who breathed).

My point is that there are some who simply enjoy poking fun at the Scriptures whenever they have a chance to. They enjoy pointing out apparent contradictions whenever they have a chance. One doesn't need to read more into the account of Elisha than there actually is in order to see real examples of the senseless bloodshed you so keenly desire to point out.

The book of Joshua is quite full of them.

Why doesn't God fulfill the curses of true believers these days?

You see, it's...um....nevermind.

Since his Holiness has passed on -- right now I don't really care to explain it.

Besides that, in all honesty, you appear have no real interest in any "ad hoc explanation" that I provide anyway. I suspect that whatever explanation I give will be perceived as either "improvised" or simply "concerned with one specific purpose".

GoSeminoles, based on his post and statment "I wish more people read the Bible" seems to be claiming to have both read the Scriptures and apparently understands them with clarity. Perhaps you could ask him.

Of course, if you're really curious to understand the Scriptures, then perhaps you should simply read them for yourself while praying with an open mind to see what it says to you personally.