Evolution+Deeptime question

[KV-44-v1]

QUESTION: Why do people believe in Darwin Evolution, cosmic evolution, and/or millions of years, even though it evidently contradicts Genesis and erodes Biblical trust?

Sure Creation vs Evolution is not a salvation issue, but it is the foundation of our faith. And when that foundation is compromised, more compromise will come.

QUESTION 2: Why do many Christians Not see these facts and conclusions on these?

 

[Free]

QUESTION: Why do people believe in Darwin Evolution, cosmic evolution, and/or millions of years, even though it evidently contradicts Genesis and erodes Biblical trust?

Does it?

Sure Creation vs Evolution is not a salvation issue, but it is the foundation of our faith. And when that foundation is compromised, more compromise will come.

Why “creation vs evolution”? Why couldn’t God have created using evolution?

QUESTION 2: Why do many Christians Not see these facts and conclusions on these?

Are they facts? Are your conclusions correct?

 

[Whatever]

Why “creation vs evolution”? Why couldn’t God have created using evolution?

Not according to current ideas of evolution.
Genesis 1:14 -19. God created the Earth first, then on the 4th day he created the Sun and the moon and the stars also.
Evolution the stars came billions of years before the Earth. The Sun I assume billions of years before the Earth.

 

[donadams]

QUESTION: Why do people believe in Darwin Evolution, cosmic evolution, and/or millions of years, even though it evidently contradicts Genesis and erodes Biblical trust?

Sure Creation vs Evolution is not a salvation issue, but it is the foundation of our faith. And when that foundation is compromised, more compromise will come.

QUESTION 2: Why do many Christians Not see these facts and conclusions on these?

Why don’t they see it as an attack on God and a means to avoid the moral law of God?

Thks

 

[Vaccine]

I can understand why a lot of Christians accept what scientists say. They are very smart and educated people, who generally know what they're talking about. It's hard to see where the line is between science and a worldview. It's there if one looks hard enough.

When I became a Christian at 27, I shoehorned Darwin/cosmic evolution/millions of years into my new worldview. I grew up in an agnostic home where nobody ever discussed creation or evolution. I just never had a reason to examine anything beyond the superficial. My views have changed over time. I understand the obvious contradictions Ken Ham points out and no longer think of Genesis as allegory. I still lean toward an old universe, young Earth since I haven't found any good argument against starlight and time. But I've found many good reasons to doubt Darwinian evolution and believe Adam and Eve were literal people.

I think takes time for some Christians to reconcile their faith with what scientist say. The important thing is to keep seeking answers and contemplating these issues.

Romans 12:2 "Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind."

 

[LOOKING]

Science does not contradict God's creation; it simply offers a different perspective on it. A day for humans is one thing, but a day for God is not the same as it is for us. We are not in a position to fully understand reality—neither science nor religion can give us complete understanding of what is truly happening.

Science faces fundamental contradictions in its explanation of reality. For example, the physics of the very large (relativity) is incompatible with the physics of the very small (quantum mechanics). Therefore, neither can be considered a complete model of reality.

Religion provides a simplified version of reality that we can grasp and apply in a meaningful way. The mistake lies in thinking that what we understand is the absolute "truth." No one can fully comprehend the truth on an intellectual level. Truth is an experience, and the ideas that guide your mind are valuable as long as they align you with the purpose of life, but this does not mean they are literally true.

In short, truth is found in acting in accordance with God, which implies, among other things, following reason and common sense. The error is in believing we can "know" the truth completely. The words are written, but our understanding of them differs for each person.

A separate issue is trying to understand how reality functions mechanically, which is what science does. This is valuable and beneficial as long as we recognize that the map is not the same as the territory.

For example, why do you think Jesus speaks in parables? Why not say things directly? Because the literal meaning of the words is not the real message Jesus wants us to understand. It is the spirit, the inspiration behind those words that we must grasp.

Words are the map, not the territory.

 

[Vinny37]

'''

[QUESTION: Why do people believe in Darwin Evolution, cosmic evolution, and/or millions of years, even though it evidently contradicts Genesis and erodes Biblical trust?

Sure Creation vs Evolution is not a salvation issue, but it is the foundation of our faith. And when that foundation is compromised, more compromise will come.

QUESTION 2: Why do many Christians not see these facts and conclusions on these?]

Q1.A: probably because it both seems an escape from theism and also because it seems to have some scientific basis and they appreciate science.

Q1.B: many theists believe in cosmic evolution, namely from a Big Bang. Indeed Atheism was very troubled by the whole new science.

Q1.C: re the Young Earth vs Old Earth debate, many Christians have switched from the former on the basis of science (eg Kevin Logan’s Responding to the Challenge of Evolution (2005).

NB: arguably only Darwinian evolutionary theory should trouble Christians and scientists, though he was basically clued in about survival of the fittest and clueless about the arrival of species. Biblical trust should be based on the evidence.

Q2: I presume your ‘facts’ here are 1# the Bible is reliable, and 2# intelligent creation beats blind randomness. To my mind it is perhaps because they have not studied in sufficient depth. Biblical reliability can be seen by such as K A Kitchen’s On the Reliability of the OT (2006). Intelligent creation can be seen by such as Anthony Flew’s There is a God (2008). Intelligent evolution can be seen by such as Perry Marshall’s Evolution 2.0 (2015).

Many theists fail to see science because they presume a conflict of interests, and many non-theists fail to see theism because they presume a conflict of interests.

 

[donadams]

Read any scientific journal and you will always find two things

One: its not science but theory based on a belief system

Two: there were wrong!

Always goes something like this, scientists now believe…

In other what they believed before was WRONG!

In the 1950’s scientists believed there would be a mini ice age by the 1970’s how did that turn out?

Thks

 

[Hawkins]

The contradiction lies on whether humans have a soul or not. If yes then evolution must be false, unless scientists provide an explanation on how a soul is evolved from. While an explanation is more or less a belief, as pointed out above.

 

[Dave...]

QUESTION: Why do people believe in Darwin Evolution, cosmic evolution, and/or millions of years, even though it evidently contradicts Genesis and erodes Biblical trust?

It contradicts true science also.

Dave

 

[miamited]

Hey KV-44-v1

As one who is a fully confirmed young earth believer, I don't understand it either. But I know that God has told us that it was going to happen. That a day would come when men would not put up with sound doctrine.

 

[Whatever]

But I know that God has told us that it was going to happen. That a day would come when men would not put up with sound doctrine.

Paul put it like this:
1Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons,

The word "doctrines" simply means instruction or teachings. I can think of nothing more demonic today that the idea of Transgenderism. Getting young people to cut off body parts in order to become another sex than they were born. We now have thousands of de-transitioners whose bodies have been so screwed up that they can never be a mother or a father.

 

[Consecrated Life]

QUESTION: Why do people believe in Darwin Evolution, cosmic evolution, and/or millions of years, even though it evidently contradicts Genesis and erodes Biblical trust?

It's not about science, it is about morality .
The real question they need to ask themselves is , if evolution is true how can it be that out of the billions of living things on the planet the only creatures that suffer the consequences of sin are humans .
Just as God said it would be.

 

[miamited]

It's not about science, it is about morality .
The real question they need to ask themselves is , if evolution is true how can it be that out of the billions of living things on the planet the only creatures that suffer the consequences of sin are humans .
Just as God said it would be.

Hi Consecrated Life

I agree that's a pretty good question for folks to ponder when discussing evolutionary theory. Why, if man is merely a higher order of some previous animal that is a higher order from some other previous animal, etc, etc, etc, going back millions of years, is man suddenly the only one of all those evolved creatures that has to deal with sin?

 

[Dave...]

Macarthur says the whole system is made up for no other reason that the sheer love of sin. Here's a similar thought...

"The real issue in the creation/evolution debate is not the existence of God. The real issue is the nature of God. To think of evolution as basically atheistic is to misunderstand the uniqueness of evolution. Evolution was not designed as a general attack against theism. It was designed as a specific attack against the God of the Bible, and the God of the Bible is clearly revealed through the doctrine of creation. Obviously, if a person is an atheist, it would be normal for him to also be an evolutionist. But evolution is as comfortable with theism as it is with atheism. An evolutionist is perfectly free to choose any god he wishes, as long as it is not the God of the Bible. The gods allowed by evolution are private, subjective, and artificial. They bother no one and make no absolute ethical demands. However, the God of the Bible is the Creator, Sustainer, Savior, and Judge. all are responsible to him. He has an agenda that conflicts with that of sinful humans. For man to be created in the image of God is very awesome. For God to be created in the image of man is very comfortable." Judge Marvin L. Lubenow

Dave

If anyone's interested. Darwin believed in a Creator, that's what He called Him in his book "Of The Origin Of Species". He even used a capitol "C". Don't know much beyond that, but Darwinians omitted that fact from their theory.

 

[KV-44-v1]

It's not about science, it is about morality .
The real question they need to ask themselves is , if evolution is true how can it be that out of the billions of living things on the planet the only creatures that suffer the consequences of sin are humans .
Just as God said it would be.

All do. All creatures are decaying genetically, they die, etc.
What do you mean by "consequences", though?
I think the question should be, "Why does man suffer THE MOST from sin and the consequences of sin?"

 

[Vaccine]

Just to add to my original comments, the physical sciences have had great success in their explanations and discoveries. This has earned them some authority in the public's eyes. While this authority has been used to challenge biblical authority. We should identify the line between empirical science and philosophy so we can keep the discussion on a philosophical level.

For example, here's some quotes from the namesake of the Hubble telescope:
"This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save the phenomena.” (The hypothesis being our galaxy is near the center of the universe)
"...the unwelcome position of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs.... such a favoured position is intolerable...Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position…must be compensated by spatial curvature." Edwin Hubble

His motivation was driven by his atheism. While I'm not suggesting everything he discovered should be rejected. Just the principle he asserted based on his philosophy: that there is no center of the universe. We can discuss the science that disproves his assertion in the science forum. This is just meant to show how scientists are blind to the influence of their worldview.

Another example is Darwin:
"I may be permitted to say, as some excuse, that I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to shew that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change,"
"I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations."

His stated goal was to overthrow creationism. His motivation was driven by his worldview (naturalism). While I believe in the theory of evolution, at least what can be observed (micro-evolution). We should question his motives for asserting common descent.

To make Darwin's worldview clearer:

"I have lately read Money's Life of Voltaire and he insists strongly that direct attacks on Christianity (even when written with the wonderful force and vigor of Voltaire) produce little permanent effect: real good seems only to follow the slow and silent side attacks" Darwin, Letters dated Oct 22 and 24, 1878

Darwin's view on a creator:
"It will be sometime before we see slime, snot, or protoplasm generating a new animal. But I have long regretted that I truckled to public opinion & used the pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant 'appeared' by some wholly unknown process" Darwin

Darwin stated goal in his book is to overturn separate creation (Adam&Eve), he didn't believe in a creator, and he found Voltaire's attacks on Christianity had wonderful force and vigor. Empirical science backs up micro-evolution, and macro-evolution extrapolations should be discussed in the science forum. But I think Christians should know more about Darwin's motivations.

 

[Consecrated Life]

All do. All creatures are decaying genetically, they die, etc.
What do you mean by "consequences", though?
I think the question should be, "Why does man suffer THE MOST from sin and the consequences of sin?"

Obviously all living things die, I was speaking to suffering from the consequences of pro-actively sinning.

 

[Dave...]

True science only deals with what can be observed in nature or recreated in a lab. Therefore, true science can tell us nothing about the origin of man. The 'millions of years', yet another theory that's not science.

Is Genesis 1-3 important?

THE BATTLE FOR THE BEGINNING: Creation, Evolution and the Bible by John MacArthur

THE BATTLE FOR THE BEGINNING: Creation, Evolution and the Bible by John MacArthur Many Christians who claim to believe that the Bible is God's revealed truth seem willing to allow modern scientific theories to replace the Genesis account of creation. Such compromises present a conspicuous...

bogardpress.org

 

[Consecrated Life]

Would accepting evolution From a Christian standpoint have to entail ( no pun) that Adam & Eve were given their souls as infants ?
I have heard of Christians believing in evolution but there are numerous other details in the biblical creation account that must be then reconciled .
Personally I don't see how all the other details of Genesis can be reconciled .
It becomes a matter not of God lying about this one detail, but God purposely lying extensively , on multiple details ?