Why Christians Ignorantly Oppose The Theory Of Evolution

@viaro,
thank you for the keen observation and correction on my use of the word literarily instead of literally.


Why is it not more correct? Do those myths make any literal sense to you? Why should your own interpretation be different from that of any other christian if you are all truly guided by the same God/holy spirit who is suppose to know all things?

By the way why is it that only well educated christians that have the power of logic/science at their disposal adopt your kind of views on creation/adam/messiah? Your view is a very simple one and here is its summary IMO:

The Bible is the word of God and every other knowledge gained through science (or other means) can not make any part of it invalid.

Hahaha ,in the face of the Almighty God would this  earth and its deceptive evolution pass away but the word of God(bible would stand forever.anyway,u ain't the first neither the second generation to attack the bible.all those generations are already gone and urs will and i promise u dat the word of God will continue to grow.hw can u dare prove d bible wrong? Even all geniue science supports what the bible says.isaiah said the earth is spherical in shape even though he wasn't a scientist and after many failure of science and astrology.they confirmed what isaiah said.HMM

Christ and the Writings of Moses
November 18, 2009
 
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?" (John 5:46-47)
 
This sharp rebuke by Jesus to the Jewish leaders who were seeking an occasion to have Him executed came as the climax to a long message following His miracle at the pool of Bethesda.  These Jews always made a great show of allegiance to the teachings of Moses in the Pentateuch, so Jesus pointed out that this was hypocritical, since Moses "wrote of me"--yet they refused to "believe my words."

There are many "Christian" intellectuals today who are, if anything, involved in even greater hypocrisy, professing to believe in Christ while rejecting the plain teachings of Genesis and the other books of Moses.  The Lord Jesus, for example, taught that "from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female" (quoting Genesis 1:27) and also that, therefore, "shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh" (quoting Genesis 2:24).  But these compromising Christians insist that He was quoting from two contradictory accounts of creation, and also that men and women were there not at the "beginning" of creation, but came along about 4.5 billion years after the creation of the earth and about 15 billion years after the beginning of the cosmos.
 
The Lord also taught that the Genesis Flood was global and cataclysmic (Luke 17:26-27), whereas the compromisers argue that it was either local or tranquil or both.  They also commonly seek to explain away the miracle of the Red Sea parting, the daily bread from heaven, and other mighty miracles recorded in the books of Moses.  Rejecting Moses and his teaching to their shame, how can they really believe in Christ when they reject His words? HMM

Your grand children will most likely still be waiting for it by the time they are 90 yrs old.

Darwin's missing link has been identified! Has it? 

"Charles Dawson, a British lawyer and amateur geologist, announced in 1912 his discovery of pieces of a human skull and an apelike jaw in a gravel pit near the town of Piltdown, England . . . Dawson's announcement stopped the scorn cold.  Experts instantly declared Piltdown Man (estimated to be 300,000 to one million years old) the evolutionary find of the century.  Darwin's missing link had been identified.

Or so it seemed for the next 40 or so years.  Then, in the early 50's . . .  scientists began to suspect misattribution.  In 1953, that suspicion gave way to a full-blown scandal: Piltdown Man was a hoax.  Radiocarbon test proved that its skull belonged to a 600-year old woman, and its jaw to a 500-year old orangutan from the East Indies."

-- Our Times: The Illustrated History of the 20th Century

The Piltdown Man fraud wasn't an isolated incident.  The famed Nebraska Man was derived from a single tooth, which was later found to be from an extinct pig.  Java Man, found in the early 20th century, was nothing more than a piece of skull, a fragment of a thigh bone, and three molar teeth.  The rest came from the deeply fertile imaginations of plaster of Paris workers.  Java Man is now regarded as fully human.  Heidelberg Man came from a jawbone, a large chin section, and a few teeth.  Most scientists reject the jawbone because it's similar to that of modern man.  Still, many evolutionists believe that he's 250,000 years old.  No doubt they pinpointed his birthday with carbon dating.  However, Time magazine (June 11, 1990) published a science article submitted, "Geologists show that carbon dating can be way off."  And don't look to Neanderthal Man for any evidence of evolution.  He died of exposure.  His skull was exposed as being fully human, not ape.  Not only was his stooped posture found to be caused by disease, but he spoke and was artistic and religious.

"Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old."   Science magazine, vol. 224, 1984 (emphasis added)

Evolutionary fraud indeed.

@Modupe

Don't mind them. That was how they said dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago before man evolved. Yet, evidence shows that dinosaurs lived with man. They are busy hiding information and evidence that is against their "faith" ( it appears scientists no longer believe in rigor but in faith) from the public. The Devil is indeed mad.

@ Viaro

I will refer you to a video shortly but they don't get media attention because satan-owned media will never give them publicity for it will be him fighting against himself. Just give me a few minutes.

@ Viaro

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3411/01-ask.html

My question to the paleontologist that made this find is: How did the Tissues manage to survive for 65-100 million years? Does this evidence not support the theory of a relatively young earth?

Check out this site.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmC4dwCcsUs
 Please ignore the fact that they are Christians and look at the evidence presented and ask your mind questions.

@Viaro

Truth I'm not a scientist. But questions abound that need answers. Christians have always maintained that every scientific discovery supports the bible. What are we to say of rock engravings with the pictures of dinosaur? What do you say about this link. http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/mokele.html

I also thank you for taking the time to painstakingly respond to some if not all of my objections.  I have been expecting you to respond to the rest of my points or rather open another post to address them, hence my late posts.


You are entitled to your own opinion on these matters I still believe that God did not leave it open for any private interpretation, the text and contexts speaks for itself.


Let us see.


If you read Mark 10:6-9 you will see the context in which Jesus was talking.  He was quoting Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 respectively.  By quoting from both chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis, Jesus shows that these chapters are not contradictory, as some may claim.  Chapter 2 merely gives the details of chapter 1 just as Genesis 1:2 gives the description of Genesis 1:1.  A sports comentator is not in error when (after a game) he gives in-depth analysis and fails to repeat every detail in chronological order.  He is merely reviewing the completed game by mentioning the highlights.


This is a verse commonly quoted by the JW's when they claim that Jesus was "made" of the seed of David (that Jesus was a god "created by Jehovah" to die for our sins), they point to Proverbs 8:22-35 for their justification.  However, the Bible is speaking here of the personification of "wisdom" (verse 12).  Jesus had no beginning and He was not created but was begotten as the only begotten Son of God when He was incarnated 2,000 years ago.


If you read it in context and without any predetermined bias you will realise that Jesus was quoting Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 respectively as other animate living organisms do not marry.


The JW's also think that Jesus had a beginning when they translate that verse to mean that he was a god.  They may refer to John 14:28 in which Jesus said, "I go to the Father: for my Father is greater than I," but they fail to show why Jesus said the Father was greater: "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death,,  that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man" (Hebrew 2:9).  In Romans 1:3, the word used to refer to the incarnation ("made") is ginomai, which means "assembled."  A body was prepared for God to manifest Himself in the flesh;

"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached to the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory" (1 Timothy 3:16).


With all these eisegesis we often end up with spurious interpretations that are not necessary.  Jesus before His incarnation was the Second Person in the Godhead called the Word, it was during His incarnation that He became the only begotten Son of God and it was at this point that the Father in heaven commanded the angels to worship Him.  This redemption plan was new to the angels and they would not have worshipped Him if the Father had not commanded them to.  It was only God that we are to worship.  Jesus Christ is God.


Jesus was talking about male and female.  Read what Jesus was quoting in Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created He them."


I believe that I have been able to point out that the Bible says what it means and means what it says without any foreign interpretation needed.  With time I may be able to provide reasons these are so and why your standpoint is a dangerous stand to take.

@modupe01,


My apologies. Somehow a lot of things came my way and my remembrance might have been clouded. It would be nice if you could point out the other points I missed earlier in yours.


While I appreciate the right of people to have their own opinions on anything, there's an undeniable fact that people tend to interpret anything they read from the Bible. There is not a single verse that anyone can just read and not seek its meaning - and it is in finding meaning that interpretations are employed. Even the Lord Jesus Himself made that point so very clear in Luke 10:26 -

         He said unto him,
             ~ What is written in the law?
             ~ how readest thou?

It is not enough to see "what" is written, but we should care for "how" we read the written statements. But notice also that the question rests upon the reader - "how readest thou?" That does not mean we are at liberty to make "private interpretations" of our own (as Peter warns against in 2 Peter 1:20); but it also does not mean we should always adhere to calcified traditions handed down through the ages by others who have made up their own biases as the final doctrine - in this case, the doctrine of a "YEC" (young earth creationism).


Hehe. . what do you think you're doing just now? Are you not the same person who said that 'God did not leave it open for any private interpretation' . . and yet you're doing the same by mentioning "context"?

In any case, while I might grant you that simplistic assumption, the bigger question you might need to address is this: what is meant by 'the beginning of the creation'? We often tend to think that it all happened within six days, so that the age of the earth can be neatly boxed into a convenient doctrinal position of YEC's 6,000 years old.

Put this in its proper context and you will find that neither Mark 10:6-9 nor Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 define what is actually "the beginning of the creation". Nada. Zilch. We do not know exactly how long ago was 'the beginning of creation'; nor can we say that Mark 10:6 defines that very instance. All we can say is that the intended meaning of Jesus' statement in Mark 10:6 ('from the beginning of the creation') applies to a time epoch based on a relationship - the relationship between a man and his wife.

You certainly are entitled to disagree; but you would have a hard time squeezing pre-Adamic existence into Mark 10:6. Good enough that you quoted Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 as cross references, which are all the more pointing to a time long after the actual beginning of creation.

I noted much earlier in post #62 that the phrase "in the beginning" has reference to various applications and meanings, and they do not all refer to the very same instance in time! If they did, that would mean that "in the beginning" in John 1:1 is also 6,000 years old! I gave at least seven points there to consider the meaning of that phrase - all to the point that the age of Adam and Eve (however that may be interpreted) cannot be used for a doctrinal position of 'young earth creationism', YEC. The earth is much older than Adam and Eve - and that is fact! Therefore, one cannot use the age of man to draw unnecessary summations for the age of the earth. In simple outline, one might say:

    (a)  YEC:
                'age of man'      =         'age of earth'

    (b)  the Bible:
                'age of man'      ≠        'age of earth'


What people in YEC are doing is to make the age of man equal to the age of the earth, thereby making both man and earth stand at 6,000 years old. However, one does not have to hold the calcified interpretation of the YEC in order to see that 'the age of man' ≠ (is not equal to) the 'age of the earth'. This may sound silly, but the 'YEC' as the name implies argues for a 'young EARTH creationism' by basing the weight of their presumption upon the age of Adam and Eve! This is all wrong-footed and presumptive, for Adam and Eve only arrived on the creation scene eons after Genesis 1:1 ('in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth'). Man was not created in the cosmological "beginning" of Genesis 1:1, but only arrived at another "beginning" that was eons away from the "beginning" of the first verse!

I didn't want to reply to, or comment on, your second post; but I'd spend some time just making reminders that we've been through this part of the scripts and there's no need belabouring the point.


Lol, but have I appealed to outside influences to strengthen what I discussed? What influences, really? Sometimes, when people make such statements, I shake my head in amazement. .  because it tends to make me feel that these folks suppose that absolutely NOTHING can be known outside the Bible! I dare say that even the Bible points us many times to events and instances where knowledge and understanding came from other sources than the sacred pages of any canon. Oh dear me. . just ask and I shall be too glad to open a thread and walk you through that subject.

Relax, I have not used outside influence to share my points; and I don't need to make appeal to such. From within the pages of the Bible itself, it's easy to show how the position of the YEC is misguided, presumptive and deeply flawed.


That's just what I thought - many of us read the Scriptures and assume there's no other source to understand the works of God in creation. I apologise, but that is not what I find in Scripture itself. Even in other matters, the saints (or men of God) studied other books to get some understanding about what God had declared. Two examples:

• In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem. ~ (Daniel 9:2)

• The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments. ~ (2 Tim. 4:13)

Outstanding men of God, and yet they loved "books" and gave themselves to seeking to understanding issues without a religious spirit we often take today of seeing 'only the 66 books of the Bible' and nothing more.

And yes, they used the knowledge gained from their study to minister to others. Paul, for example, used his knowledge of the poetry of the Athenians in his preaching to them. For how else could he have known that certain of the Athenian poets have also said: "For we are also his offspring"? (Acts 17:28). What the Athenian poets said as quoted by Paul was not written by the finger of God as was the case with Moses' Law in Exodus - and yet, Paul did not rubbish the Athenians by claiming: "Oh, you superstitious lot. . forget your poets, I know all that I need to know about being the offspring of God!"

Hehe, just imagine what the Athenians would have done!! This one is familiar: "Get lost! We Athenians cannot be bothered by self-satisfied Jews from Tarsus!"

Okay, jokes aside. I only wanted to lay this idea to rest that we often mistake as superior to understanding issues broadly, even if it means we read "books" such as in the example with Daniel and Paul.