Why is Evolution feared by many Christians?

[Matthew777]

It is time for Christians to think realistically. Given that evolution is unproved and unprovable, one should consider what view of origins is befitting of God.
Would an omniscient and omnipotent God create the species and mankind in an instant or would He just set the natural law in motions and wait billions of years?
The fossil record itself is a falsification of macroevolution, given that each species appears fully formed according to its kind, with only variation within kinds. There is not even a ture "sequential" order in the fossil record to reasonably infer evolution from unless one has a preconceived philosophical presumption.
Evolutionary theory is nothing more than the ptolemy of this age. The text of Genesis and the clear meaning as passed down by the fathers of the Church is the only knowledge we can attain as to the origin of the universe, the species and mankind.
Genesis is the foundation of who were are while Darwinism strives to reduce us to a mere animal nature.
Would God create through a process of death (natural selection) and destruction (mutation)?
Those who worship the God of the Bible would never have conceived such a dastardly system of thought!
Keep sound dogmas in your heart and leave alone the foolishness of this world.

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

 

[KeithB]

Let's try this one more time:

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

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

Response by KeithB:
Did you actually see them form? Did anyone actually see them form? We both see the same thing already accomplished. I'm willing to accept a massive, turbulent global flood set them down in that matter. You're willing to accept a uniformitarianism explanation of events (even some of it rapidly deposited). Both sides can look at the evidences involved, but neither side can prove how it was actually accomplished. In the end, both sides are going to require a level of faith/belief in the assumptions, evidences, hypotheses, and final conclusions.

-----------------------------------

Posted by: KeithB:
Speciation is not forming new critters.

Reply by Gluadys:
Yes, it is.

Posted by: KeithB:
You're just loosing genetic material.

Reply by Gluadys:
No you are not>

Response by KeithB:
This discussion is going nowhere. Let's review basic genetics and selective breeding and you can inform me of what new critters have been formed.

------------------------------------------

Posted by: KeithB:
...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).

Reply by Gluadys:
Argument from incredulity. Just because something is complex doesn't mean its impossible.

Response by KeithB:
...and just because you add in a million/billion years doesn't mean it is possible. Why is it OK to accept one side of the logic train, but not the other?

----------------------------------------

Posted by: KeithB:
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.


Reply by Gluadys:
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?)

Response by KeithB:
Let me see...if something happens naturally, what is God doing? I guess unless you assume god is nature, logically he isn't doing what is being done naturally. I believe God created nature, not being nature Himself. ...and from what I get from reading the Bible (and yes, for those others reading...I've read the Bible through cover to cover about 4 times...not including the separate Bible studies and single readings)...He had a plan through His creation and it wasn't based on a bunch of life evolving by itself from a pile of sludge. I accept Genesis literally and believe man caused dieing because of sin, not God using dieing and suffering to create man...and therefore, thank you God for Jesus!

---------------------------------------

Posted by: KeithB:
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.

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

Response by KeithB:
It's not the actual material, but the manner in which it was accomplished. I'm going to glorify and worship God rather than the nature He created.

 

[Risen from the Dust]

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.

But, do please note that, in my opinion, I do not think the punks were actually killed -- just mauled.

I did explain that.

The source material provided was of the opinion that punishment by death would have been justifiable -- but I also gave my inference that the teens were most likely not executed.

The KJV uses the word tare which has been interpreted as meaning killed.

My apologies. I do not prefer the King James Version. I actually usually employ the New International Version. Incidently, the The New King James Version uses the better translation of “youths” -- which agrees with the NIV. It appears that these young men were old enough to be accountable for their actions.

Nearly every interpretation clearly means physical violence was done to the children (whether teen or no)

Certainly violence is implied -- although it seems to me that those throwing insults and curses at Elisha were almost surely not children.

...up to and including death.

I don't think so -- for reasons I already explained previously.

So which interpretation is correct? Yours, John? Risen's?

primate, it is possible that none of our interpretations are correct. I'm certainly not claiming 100% accuracy with my own. However, each one of us have attempted to search the Scriptures with an honest heart and ask God for answers concerning this.

I'm not joking when I say to read it for yourself, research it, and honestly draw your own conclusion. You may come up with an answer that is similar to one of ours -- or you might come up with an answer that is radically diffferent from all of our interpretations.

Either way, when you are finished searching for an answer, you will have honestly formulated your own honest opinion. Even if your answer disagrees sharply with my own, or others here, I would personally never deride it or scorn it -- because at least then I would know that you're being honest when you say what you say.

I would pray that the Holy Spirit guide you in your search -- and mine as well.

 

[gluadys]

It is time for Christians to think realistically. Given that evolution is unproved and unprovable, one should consider what view of origins is befitting of God.

This statement indicates that you have not absorbed yet what a scientific theory is or why science works through falsification rather than proof.

There is a great deal of evidence for evolution and there is no falsifying evidence. Evolution is the single best explanation we have today for why species are what they are.

That is something which Christians concerned about honesty need to consider seriously. It is especially something they need to consider if they believe God is a God of truth and order, not a God of deceit and confusion.

Would an omniscient and omnipotent God create the species and mankind in an instant or would He just set the natural law in motions and wait billions of years?

God would exercise his omniscience and omnipotence in any way he chose to do so. You have also set up a false dichotomy here, as God could chose from many more options than those two.

We can speculate about how God chose to create species. Or we can look for evidence of how God chose to create species. When we look for evidence, it points to God choosing evolution. Choosing evolution, however, does not mean God just set the natural law in motion and waited. Unless you wish to espouse Deism. You are implying that when natural processes occur, God is absent from the process. Why do you suggest that? What is it about "natural" that excludes God?

The fossil record itself is a falsification of macroevolution, given that each species appears fully formed according to its kind, with only variation within kinds.

If species were not "fully formed" and not a "variation" of their ancestral species, that would falsify evolution. To demand a falsification of evolution as evidence for evolution is rather perverse.

There is not even a ture "sequential" order in the fossil record to reasonably infer evolution from unless one has a preconceived philosophical presumption.

Indeed there is not a sequential order. This fact falsified the version of evolution known as orthogenesis which was popular in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. There is, however, a cladistic order.

Evolutionary theory is nothing more than the ptolemy of this age. The text of Genesis and the clear meaning as passed down by the fathers of the Church is the only knowledge we can attain as to the origin of the universe, the species and mankind.

Actually, it is the other way around. Creationism is the Ptolemy of this age. And just as Ptolemy ceded to Copernicus, creationism is ceding to evolution.

Genesis is the foundation of who were are while Darwinism strives to reduce us to a mere animal nature.

False. Both the bible and evolution recognize that we are animals. The bible tells us we are more than "mere animals". Evolution also tells us that we are unique animals in that we have greater intelligence, self-awareness, and highly complex social and cultural behaviours not seen in any other species. The science of evolution does not strive to reduce us to a "mere animal".

Would God create through a process of death (natural selection) and destruction (mutation)?

Mutation is not destruction, since natural selection acts against any destructive capacity it may have. Most mutations are not destructive, but neutral, either having no impact or merely adding variety to a species' gene pool.

Those who worship the God of the Bible would never have conceived such a dastardly system of thought!

Maybe not. That doesn't mean God didn't. However, I expect God, does not think evolution is a dastardly system of thought. That is only your prejudice speaking.

Tell me, if you were convinced to your satisfaction, that species did originate by evolution, would you turn your back on God for using such a dastardly means of creation?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Deja vu, Matthew...

It is time for Christians to think realistically. Given that evolution is unproved and unprovable, one should consider what view of origins is befitting of God.

Because God wouldn't be caught dead doing something that wasn't grandiose and impressive, right? One need only look at the Fiddler Crab to see the total beauty and majesty of his creation.

Would an omniscient and omnipotent God create the species and mankind in an instant or would He just set the natural law in motions and wait billions of years?

God would do whatever He felt like doing. I don't recall Him under any obligation to impress you.

The fossil record itself is a falsification of macroevolution, given that each species appears fully formed according to its kind, with only variation within kinds. There is not even a ture "sequential" order in the fossil record to reasonably infer evolution from unless one has a preconceived philosophical presumption.

This is a pack of flat-out lies.

Evolutionary theory is nothing more than the ptolemy of this age. The text of Genesis and the clear meaning as passed down by the fathers of the Church is the only knowledge we can attain as to the origin of the universe, the species and mankind.

So who are we supposed to worship as infallible here?
The Church fathers for their wisdom, or you for passing their wisdom onto us?

Genesis is the foundation of who were are while Darwinism strives to reduce us to a mere animal nature.

I'm sorry if Darwinism offends your ego -- No, wait, I correct myself -- I honestly couldn't care less.

Would God create through a process of death (natural selection) and destruction (mutation)?

Of course He would. Who are you to tell Him otherwise?

Those who worship the God of the Bible would never have conceived such a dastardly system of thought!

You mean those who worship the Bible would never... well, you get the idea.

Keep sound dogmas in your heart and leave alone the foolishness of this world.

"Sound dogmas" is a contradiction.

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

Probably the most sincere thing said here.

 

[gluadys]

Let's try this one more time:

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

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

Response by KeithB:
Did you actually see them form? Did anyone actually see them form?

The present is what it is because the past was what it was. You operate on that principle every day of your life. If you come out to your car one morning to find your windshield shattered you don't have to have seen it happen to know something caused the breakage. So you will look for evidence of the cause. And you will conclude different causes from different evidence:

a) there is additional damage to the car, paint of a different colour on the car in the damaged areas. Conclusion: impact by another vehicle

b) there is little additional damage to the car, but some valuables are missing from the vehicle. Conclusion: theft

c) there was a bad storm during the night, there are broken tree branches, and hailstones on the sidewalk. Conclusion: hail damage

Did you need to be there to make those conclusions? Do you have to conclude that God used super-natural means to shatter your windshield because you did not actually see a vehicle/thief/hail hitting your windshield?

We both see the same thing already accomplished.

No we don't. You are assuming something for which we have no evidence. You are assuming a catastrophic event which would uproot trees, carry them to new locations, and dump them helter-skelter in all sorts of different orientations relative to sediment accumulation.

What we actually see is a paleosoil with traces of roots in it, indicating a stable growing forest, some fossilized trunks surrounded by accumulated sediment, then another paleosoil above those sediments with more traces of roots in it and more fossilized trunks surrounded by accumulated sediments.

In short, evidence of one intact forest, slowly buried in accumulating sediments, with another intact forest above those sediments and buried in its accumulation of sediments.

See the second picture on this page for what I am talking about. Note the two levels of underclay with roots. This is not the consequence of a catastrophic event. A catastrophic event does not set one mature forest on top of another.

Posted by: KeithB:
Speciation is not forming new critters.

Reply by Gluadys:
Yes, it is.

Posted by: KeithB:
You're just loosing genetic material.

Reply by Gluadys:
No you are not>

Response by KeithB:
This discussion is going nowhere. Let's review basic genetics and selective breeding and you can inform me of what new critters have been formed.

I suggest we begin by defining "critters" and "information"

You might like to read this first.

Reply by Gluadys:
Argument from incredulity. Just because something is complex doesn't mean its impossible.

Response by KeithB:
...and just because you add in a million/billion years doesn't mean it is possible. Why is it OK to accept one side of the logic train, but not the other?

It is not a matter of accepting the logic train in either or both directions, but of following where the evidence leads. Complexity doesn't make evolution impossible. Time doesn't make it possible. So how be we look at different evidence altogether?

Reply by Gluadys:
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?)

Response by KeithB:
Let me see...if something happens naturally, what is God doing? I guess unless you assume god is nature, logically he isn't doing what is being done naturally. I believe God created nature, not being nature Himself.

I am neither a pantheist nor a Deist. I too believe that God created nature, and is not nature itself. Tell me how you know that God is not essential to a natural process. How do you exclude God from a natural process?

Let me give you an example. Do you teach your children that God created them? If God is excluded from natural processes, you are teaching them a lie. Because you know very well that conception is a natural biological process. So if God is not doing what is being done naturally, God did not make your children. Nature did, all on her own, without God.

Do you, as a Christian, really believe that?

Posted by: KeithB:
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.

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

Response by KeithB:
It's not the actual material, but the manner in which it was accomplished. I'm going to glorify and worship God rather than the nature He created.

Right. Now are you prepared to stop worshipping God if you disapprove of how he created?

 

[gluadys]

Let's try this one more time:

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

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

Response by KeithB:
Did you actually see them form? Did anyone actually see them form?

The present is what it is because the past was what it was. You operate on that principle every day of your life. If you come out to your car one morning to find your windshield shattered you don't have to have seen it happen to know something caused the breakage. So you will look for evidence of the cause. And you will conclude different causes from different evidence:

a) there is additional damage to the car, paint of a different colour on the car in the damaged areas. Conclusion: impact by another vehicle

b) there is little additional damage to the car, but some valuables are missing from the vehicle. Conclusion: theft

c) there was a bad storm during the night, there are broken tree branches, and hailstones on the sidewalk. Conclusion: hail damage

Did you need to be there to make those conclusions? Do you have to conclude that God used super-natural means to shatter your windshield because you did not actually see a vehicle/thief/hail hitting your windshield?

We both see the same thing already accomplished.

No we don't. You are assuming something for which we have no evidence. You are assuming a catastrophic event which would uproot trees, carry them to new locations, and dump them helter-skelter in all sorts of different orientations relative to sediment accumulation.

What we actually see is a paleosoil with traces of roots in it, indicating a stable growing forest, some fossilized trunks surrounded by accumulated sediment, then another paleosoil above those sediments with more traces of roots in it and more fossilized trunks surrounded by accumulated sediments.

In short, evidence of one intact forest, slowly buried in accumulating sediments, with another intact forest above those sediments and buried in its accumulation of sediments.

See the second picture on this page for what I am talking about. Note the two levels of underclay with roots. This is not the consequence of a catastrophic event. A catastrophic event does not set one mature forest on top of another.

Posted by: KeithB:
Speciation is not forming new critters.

Reply by Gluadys:
Yes, it is.

Posted by: KeithB:
You're just loosing genetic material.

Reply by Gluadys:
No you are not>

Response by KeithB:
This discussion is going nowhere. Let's review basic genetics and selective breeding and you can inform me of what new critters have been formed.

I suggest we begin by defining "critters" and "information"

You might like to read this first.

Reply by Gluadys:
Argument from incredulity. Just because something is complex doesn't mean its impossible.

Response by KeithB:
...and just because you add in a million/billion years doesn't mean it is possible. Why is it OK to accept one side of the logic train, but not the other?

It is not a matter of accepting the logic train in either or both directions, but of following where the evidence leads. Complexity doesn't make evolution impossible. Time doesn't make it possible. So how be we look at different evidence altogether?

Reply by Gluadys:
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?)

Response by KeithB:
Let me see...if something happens naturally, what is God doing? I guess unless you assume god is nature, logically he isn't doing what is being done naturally. I believe God created nature, not being nature Himself.

I am neither a pantheist nor a Deist. I too believe that God created nature, and is not nature itself. Tell me how you know that God is not essential to a natural process. How do you exclude God from a natural process?

Let me give you an example. Do you teach your children that God created them? If God is excluded from natural processes, you are teaching them a lie. Because you know very well that conception is a natural biological process. So if God is not doing what is being done naturally, God did not make your children. Nature did, all on her own, without God.

Do you, as a Christian, really believe that?

Posted by: KeithB:
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.

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

Response by KeithB:
It's not the actual material, but the manner in which it was accomplished. I'm going to glorify and worship God rather than the nature He created.

Right. Now are you prepared to stop worshipping God if you disapprove of how he created?

 

[Edx]

But, do please note that, in my opinion, I do not think the punks were actually killed -- just mauled.

I did explain that.

The source material provided was of the opinion that punishment by death would have been justifiable -- but I also gave my inference that the teens were most likely not executed.

Alright, I see I missed this in my post just before this one. Clearly its ok to maul teenagers when they make fun of you, even though they should be killed for such a terrible crime. Most Bible translations disagree with you however and go for a "tare up" rather finial translation of the word since thats how its written

My apologies. I do not prefer the King James Version. I actually usually employ the New International Version.

The 'family friendly' yet more inaccurate translation.

Incidently, the The New King James Version uses the better translation of “youths” -- which agrees with the NIV. It appears that these young men were old enough to be accountable for their actions.

Interesting use of the word "better". Its not more accurate, but it fits what you would rather it be rather than what it is. Thats why you really think its "better".

Certainly violence is implied -- although it seems to me that those throwing insults and curses at Elisha were almost surely not children.

Hebrew: "qatan"
Strongs: young/small/insignificant/unimportant

Hebrew: "na`ar"
Strongs: boy/lad/youth/servant/retainer

Hebrew: 'baqa`
The useage and tence of the word shows it means:
"to be ripped open, be torn open,to be cleft, be rent open, be split open".

So:
"And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth "young/small/insignificant/unimportant" "boys/lads/youths/servants/retainers" 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 "ripped open, torn open, be cleft, rent open, split open" forty and two children of them"

primate, it is possible that none of our interpretations are correct. I'm certainly not claiming 100% accuracy with my own. However, each one of us have attempted to search the Scriptures with an honest heart and ask God for answers concerning this.

I think its because you believe it would be morally wrong to kill 42 little children for making fun of a bald man, and so that the little children were actually rebellious teenagers that were mauled, but not killed for making fun of a bald man. I think you do this because you feel the need for creative interpretations of everything that you think contradicts your religious views because you cannot face reality.

Ed

 

[primate]

each one of us have attempted to search the Scriptures with an honest heart and ask God for answers concerning this

Did He reply?


Ed has already touched upon the fact that recent translations tend to tone down the violence - for good reason - some of the acts committed by and in the name of God are considered immoral. The 2 Kings example is one of many.

 

[Risen from the Dust]

I think its because you believe it would be morally wrong to kill 42 little children for making fun of a bald man, and so that the little children were actually rebellious teenagers that were mauled, but not killed for making fun of a bald man. I think you do this because you feel the need for creative interpretations of everything that you think contradicts your religious views because you cannot face reality.

Ed

And I think you've just levelled quite few personal attacks against me -- especially since you missed where I already explained that there are plenty of real instances in Joshua where I thought that God was too harsh on the people they were conquering (instances where God really did command thousands of men, women and children -- including little infants -- to be totally destroyed).

In other words, the accounts in Joshua are real examples of things that I feel are morally wrong and I've fully admitted it. Yet people are trying to make a big deal about me defending Elisha the prophet calling on the Lord to maul these 42 teens by two bears -- even after it's been explained over and over again why I don't think it means what others thought it did?

If I was simply worried about something contradicting my religious views, why would I attempt to defend and recast Elisha as nicer person over 42 teens and then turn around and admit that Joshua and company slaughtered thousands of people, including men, women, and children -- and at the direct commandment of God at that?

Edit: Ed, I've just read your second post, and, again, I've noticed many personal attacks levelled against me there. I would kindly ask that you revise your wording a bit more politely -- or at least read what I've clearly explained already and change your wording appropriately.

 

[OldShepherd]

Alright, I see I missed this in my post just before this one. Clearly its ok to maul teenagers when they make fun of you, even though they should be killed for such a terrible crime. Most Bible translations disagree with you however and go for a "tare up" rather finial translation of the word since thats how its written

The 'family friendly' yet more inaccurate translation.

Interesting use of the word "better". Its not more accurate, but it fits what you would rather it be rather than what it is. Thats why you really think its "better".

Hebrew: "qatan"
Strongs: young/small/insignificant/unimportant

Hebrew: "na`ar"
Strongs: boy/lad/youth/servant/retainer

Hebrew: 'baqa`
The useage and tence of the word shows it means:
"to be ripped open, be torn open,to be cleft, be rent open, be split open".

So:
"And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth "young/small/insignificant/unimportant" "boys/lads/youths/servants/retainers" 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 "ripped open, torn open, be cleft, rent open, split open" forty and two children of them"

I think its because you believe it would be morally wrong to kill 42 little children for making fun of a bald man, and so that the little children were actually rebellious teenagers that were mauled, but not killed for making fun of a bald man. I think you do this because you feel the need for creative interpretations of everything that you think contradicts your religious views because you cannot face reality.

Ed

This is a most interesting discussion. I always find it quite humorous when people who don't even believe the Bible, or read the original languages, try to tell Christians what the Bible means.

Question, do she bears, in or out of the woods, "rip open, tear open, cleave, rend open, split open" people who get too close to them, particularly when they have young, without any intervention of bystanders or God?

Perhaps one of you non-Christians, who want to interpret my scriptures, can show me where this incident was directly caused by the prophet, or God, and was not a normal, but coincidental, occurrence?

 

[Dal M.]

Perhaps one of you non-Christians, who want to interpret my scriptures, can show me where this incident was directly caused by the prophet, or God, and was not a normal, but coincidental, occurrence?

I'm honestly unsure whether you believe what you're saying or just trying to prove the infinite flexibility of a so-called "literal interpretation."

 

[Electric Skeptic]

This is a most interesting discussion. I always find it quite humorous when people who don't even believe the Bible, or read the original languages, try to tell Christians what the Bible means.

Question, do she bears, in or out of the woods, "rip open, tear open, cleave, rend open, split open" people who get too close to them, particularly when they have young, without any intervention of bystanders or God?

Perhaps one of you non-Christians, who want to interpret my scriptures, can show me where this incident was directly caused by the prophet, or God, and was not a normal, but coincidental, occurrence?

Are you seriously suggesting that the bears ripped up these kids by coincidence? That the cursing by Elisha had nothing to do with it?

 

[LittleNipper]

i have read many posts here about the "great" debate of Evolution vs. Creationism. it just seems the more and more i read, the more and more i see Christians being afraid of the idea of Evolution being correct.

so if this is true, i would like to know the reasons why.

i also want to add questions with my question of wanting to know why Christians are afraid of Evolution being true.

1. If Evolution is true, what does that mean to a Christian's spiritual life?
my opinion, it doesn't mean a thing.

2. If Evolution is true, why would that threaten the idea of there being a Higher power?
my opinion, how would it threaten it. just because science cannot prove "super"natural things, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it just means it is not modern science's place to prove the supernatural with theories and rationalizations. and wouldn't this mean that the verse in the Bible that says, "Faith is the evidence of things unseen" is actually true?

now to the Creationism side and this is my crux problem with Creationism, so the science issue of it is something i need to research more, but this here is my main problem with Creationism and which is the reason why i see it as nothing but a failed attempt to put mysteries of God into logical/rational explainable measures.

1. If Creationism is true, with the reasoning to prove God behind all of it nevertheless, and using scientific evidence as its source, wouldn't that damage the Christian faith more than Evolution?
my reasoning for asking such a question is, to say there is evidence of God's existence basically nullifys the way to salvation in Christianity, which is FAITH, thus puts the trustworthiness of this "science" into question to me.

The real question is why do Evolutionists and Atheists fear CREATIONISM? I don't like evolution for only one reason---that mindset makes it very hard to to logically discuss Biblical reasoning with others. I feel this is Satan's reason for developing the theory all along...

 

[corvus_corax]

The real question is why do Evolutionists and Atheists fear CREATIONISM? I don't like evolution for only one reason---that mindset makes it very hard to to logically discuss Biblical reasoning with others. I feel this is Satan's reason for developing the theory all along...

It's not a fear of creationism
It's lack of evidence and lack of a sound scientific theory backing it up


BTW- many christians on these forums will disagree with your statement "..that mindset makes it very hard to to logically discuss Biblical reasoning with others."

 

[Lucretius]

The real question is why do Evolutionists and Atheists fear CREATIONISM? I don't like evolution for only one reason---that mindset makes it very hard to to logically discuss Biblical reasoning with others. I feel this is Satan's reason for developing the theory all along...

Fear Creationism? Lol, you're joking right? A totally unevidenced belief. Contradictory to science. It doesn't scare me. The people who actually believe the thing do. You gotta totally shut off your brain in order to subscribe to that kind of thing.

 

[Hydra009]

The real question is why do Evolutionists and Atheists fear CREATIONISM?

Are you kidding me? There's no greater source of humor to atheists.

I don't like evolution for only one reason---that mindset makes it very hard to to logically discuss Biblical reasoning with others. I feel this is Satan's reason for developing the theory all along...

Evolution makes it hard to talk about the Bible? Come on, be honest. What's the real reason?

IMO, it isn't just evolution that makes you guys (YECs) scared. It's geology, cosmology, archaelogy, etc. What's there to be scared of?

 

[LittleNipper]

It's not a fear of creationism
It's lack of evidence and lack of a sound scientific theory backing it up


BTW- many christians on these forums will disagree with your statement "..that mindset makes it very hard to to logically discuss Biblical reasoning with others."

I don't believe that most people have a clue what "SOUND" science actually is. What is important is what GOD reveals to Christian's in HIS Word and that is parmount to anything man may think he understands. The problem is that the Bible has been systematicly excluded from most if not all areas of public educational research.

 

[caravelair]

The problem is that the Bible has been systematicly excluded from most if not all areas of public educational research.

the bible has been excluded from science class because it is not science and therefore does not belong there.

 

[Vastavus]

The problem is that the Bible has been systematicly excluded from most if not all areas of public educational research.

Why do you think that is?