Christians rejecting Darwinism - Why?

the solo arguement for evolution isn't that it makes sense though, your post seemed to assume that. anyways it makes more sense than anything in the bible.

if the world is only 6000 years old, yet there were religions that existed 1000s of years before christianity, what were these religions worshiping? this proves god is a man-made concept and religion is too. it also proves christianity was not the first 'idea' or 'concept' of believing in a god. but what about the 1 billion hindus who say they have a relationship with god or say they've had some sort of experience...are they lying? or does this prove that religion is all in the mind. every sect of every religion cannot be right, yet each person within those religions claim they are right. someone is lying, and if they are lying then you are all lying.

O.K so there is all this prove evolution well can someone plaese proof Christianity.
(Warning proof does not include-a feeling in your head
somone told you
something youve made up
or lastly evidence youve manipulated.)

I agree, where is the proof of a virgin giving birth to the son of God? I have prayed before, to no avail, and hark, the Lord has never spoken to me. I've tried to believe, but how would a good loving God let all of the evils in this world be? It doesn't make sense. We have proof of civilizations long before those mentioned in the bible. Also, if evolution isn't real, could you please explain pre-historic man? Explain cave people. Hmmm, that's not mentioned in the book, so they must not have existed. (said sarcastically) Wake up, science is real and so is the evidence of evolution. Nuff said.

i think what it comes down to is evolution. over time religion has been so forced on to civilisations that it becomes the norm. hence why when you have two christian parents, usually they will teach their children to be christian. since 400AD that's a lot of generations to be taught down to, now the 'god-gene' is so implanted, that maybe when people are born they have either a higher or lower percentage chance of being religious. environmental influences will decide whether they are religious, yet also i think genetics play a large part. this is why some people will pray and hear nothing, but some will pray and hear god, have a relationship with jesus and so on.

All you Creationalists sorry I forgot everything that is against the bible scientifically was created by god to test the faithful adn all proof against him is realy proof of him.

Well someone who belives any of that really needs some pych evaluation.

Originally posted by Shenroon
All you Creationalists sorry I forgot everything that is against the bible scientifically was created by god to test the faithful adn all proof against him is realy proof of him.

Well someone who belives any of that really needs some pych evaluation.

heh, that was awfully productive for the conversation. Are you trying to establish understanding, or a fight? If you're aiming for understanding, and not a fight, I'd like to tell you that words such as those you used will not cause people to step closer and try to understand. They will step back, gird their loins to use a Biblical term, draw their sword and prepare for a battle. With statements like these, you're going to cause your opposition to ignore all logic and attack. As long as we address the other's concerns, and talk to them in a loving manner, they will be open to flaws in their own beliefs and receptive to advise. As soon as you go on the offensive, the other side will, too. That's not the way to handle ideological differences, that's the way to win debates and battles. Just step back and decide what it is you want. If you want a battle, your words established one. If you want to change the mind of the other side, your words ensured that will not happene.

Hopefully this response will negate the battle that is about to take place, but I suspect people will focus on your words and ignore mine. I urge you to edit your post and phrase that sentiment in a way that is not so combative to prevent this. Assuming you don't want battle, but rather understanding.

I agree, where is the proof of a virgin giving birth to the son of God?

I don't know about that, but there's some good evidence for Jesus existing...

And not only that, if you were the parent of a 3-year-old in a toy store and they wanted a super-expensive doll, would you give it to her without her doing anything or working for it? The reason He doesn't stop all the wars, etc. is because part of acheiving to world peace/enlightenment/and so on is coming to that level of realization by yourself.

I'm not trying to convert anyone, just my views on the subject.

if the world is only 6000 years old, yet there were religions that existed 1000s of years before christianity, what were these religions worshiping? this proves god is a man-made concept and religion is too.

That proves nothing. The world isn't 6,000 years old. Genesis isn't a book to be taken literally. Instead of 6 "days," look at it as 6 "ages." And I don't mean 6 ages of 1,000 years, either - More like a billion years each.

Originally posted by ShreddedIce
Genesis isn't a book to be taken literally.

if genesis can't be interpreted literaly as a history of us and our planet then why interpret the rest of the bible literaly?

I didn't say that you should. The Old Testament was created in a time where people were still very primitive, and so things were simplified or used "Because I told you so" tactics, merely because people back then were very simple. Some of the New Testament, especially Revalations, is figurative, but for different reasons.

Sorry if any one was offended by my post but I was just saying that to prevent any one else saying it which would have been just as unproductive.
And yes there is proof of Jesus existing but no proof he was son of god.

I never denied believing in God or Jesus. I believe that Jesus exists, and I believe that God created life on Earth. But could it be be that God started life, and it evolved on it's own due to environmental influences and the need of survival? My fiancee is a zoo-keeper, and she sees the ties of primates and humans on a daily basis. We are absolutely related. This doesn't mean that we are one and the same. Maybe that's where a lot of Christians have trouble with the issue. They accept so many things in blind faith that they may feel like we are saying a monkey all of a sudden gave birth to a human. Not the case. It was a very gradual change as documented in fossil records over a period of up to 2.3million years. (even as recent as 40-50 thousand years, when homo-erectus overtook Neanderthal man.) By the way, we have proof of Neanderthal civilization and others prior to it. With that evidence, why is it so hard to trace that back even further to ... apes. After all, we are the most advanced of the primate group. If people can change in a lifetime, then surely a species can change on developmental level over an extended period of time such as a million years.

[edit on 29-8-2005 by venom79x]

FEAR that it is not God's will to envisage an idea that goes against what is written in the Bible. Darwinism says it took a long time for life to evolve whereas the Bible says God created everything in six days.

If the Bible were to say that the Earth was FLAT there would be a great many people would simply accept it due to the written word of God.

Here are words of the REAL TRUTH... to waken the worlds faithful...
The ideas in the OLD TESTAMENT Bible were for a people who would not understand evolution if it were told to them. Christianity is nothing to do with the OLD TESTAMENT... it is everything to do with the NEW TESTAMENT; where CHRIST was crucified for the redemption of sin. He said that the OLD TESTAMENT was wrong because the laws were an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. His teaching was to love one another and forgive trespasses.
TESTAMENT means "promise between God and Man" and TESTAMENT Christ paid for was FORGIVENESS.

Darwin was NOT 100% correct and there remains some mystery in the advancement process, especially spontaneous offshoots and extinctions.

Many wonder if there is a God... all you have to do is open your eyes and science will show that there MUST be. Without direction chaos would rule and the universe would not have evolved until now.
Energy created our Universe from a singularity during the Big Bang. Pure Energy has no mass nor had any size at the first instance of time. The future was drawn out by channeling, by a natural plan; and without that direction our universe would not exist.

I need your attention so will say.. NO RELIGION IS CORRECT because these are political in nature; power by desire, and money needing funding.
NOTHING has changed since Jesus upturned the tables in the Temple.

So what is RIGHT?
Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy might and your fellow beings and everything that God has done.

Every being will be trialed to what is in their heart. Past and present and those of the future. Ancient Egyptians worshiped GOD. How can there be different religions when there is only one god? God is Alpha and Omega and knows what is in his seedlings hearts. Trust and love in God and between fellow beings and your soul will be part of his plan.

If God wished, he could have created automatons all bowing and praying.
All this would have no meaning because of the fundamental right we have been given. The right to be free and choose to be good or bad. Free to LOVE GOD and one another or CHOOSE NOT TO. God prohibits "himself" from intervening in everyday situations because if he did we would not be free.

With this freedom comes an inherent responsibility too.
God will NOT intervene if we decided to press the big war button.
Guidance of what should be done in his name has already been said.

I have answered your questions in TRUTH
So here is one for you all to consider...


IF JESUS were to return (right now) what changes would he find?
A God and neighbour loving world or one that is much the same as before?

To the OP:

The reason that some Christians totally reject anything outside of the Bible, even if it makes sense that the science and the religious dogma could coincide and be consistent or congruent, is that they have bought into an authoritarian power structure, and any outside authority threatens their identities within that structure. It is not about God and it is not about Darwin, it is about obedience. Some people crave authority, and some people are natural authoritarians, and no amount of reason will change them.

[Note: read Conservatives Without Conscience by John Dean for a fascinating analysis of this situation and how it has destroyed the party of Goldwater.]

To your second question, if the people are as I say they are in my explanation above, then people like you and I who have simply taken the teachings of Jesus to heart and tried to live good lives following His example are the worst sort of heretics. After all, to them it is all about authority, not meaning. They attack us because we are the greatest threats to their world views.


By the way, I had a conversation with a relative who is a Southern Baptist fundamentalist. It went like this:

Me: So if the world is 6,000 years old, how do you explain the dinosaur fossils?

Her: God works in mysterious ways.

Me: So did God create them in the rocks for us to find?

Her: God works in mysterious ways.

Me: How can you not question things about the Bible that are obviously not literal?

Her: If you had faith you would understand.

Me: You know that is absolutely ridiculous.

Her: You will be really sorry you rejected Christ after you die.

And no, I did not make that up.

reply to post by venom79x


Epicurus summed it up nicely:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

Maybe because there is no evidence that man was anything but a man,although I do agree I have talked to some people that give the argument that man evolved from apes

reply to post by Oldtimer2


If you think there is no evidence that man hasn't evolved, then you are ignorant of the facts. That is all. That's not our fault, and it is no negative reflection of the theory of evolution, just your education.

St. Augustine said something rather apt:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.

[edit on 14/10/08 by dave420]

I grew up not in a Christian household but a military household now by saying that my parents both grew up in Tennessee. And I have periods in my life where I get really religious and then I get tired of it all, but that's not the point of my post. Let's be realistic about both the bible and evolution. If you look at the Old Testament is fairly obvious if you actually read it for yourself that it's been heavily edited probably during that captivity. The Bible references books that's not canon that's been used throughout the whole Bible like the Book of Jasher or the Book of Enoch. So that means it's not perfect. Then there's the gap theory that in the original Hebrew the possibility that it could be interpreted as became void. Zechariah Sitchen has and idea that the Old Testament could have been a very heavily edited version reflecting the Hebrews belief in monotheism based on the Sumerian Creation Tablets which coincentdently has 7 tablets. Now think 7 days of creation 7 Sumerian Creation Tablets. I just can't get myself to accept Sitchens theory about aliens being the Annunaki and etc. The New Testament has other Gospels that's been thrown out like the Gospel of Thomas or Mary or even the Apocrypha. You have archaeological evidence of mankind being around earlier than the creationists chronology even among Biblical Archaeologist in fact they don't even call themselves biblical archaeologists anymore. In fact you find more and more archaeologists switching or preferring to use the Common Era chronology over B.C. and A.D. because of scientific evidence among archaeologist and anthropologists of mankind before the biblical chronology. So some could say that archaeology proves the bible, but there's evidence that also points the other way. Both sides have wholes in their theories and I think that's why both theories should be taught showing the imperfections and both sides need to quit being so dogmatic. I know I didn't mention Evolution but the biggest whole is where's the missing link?
I also don't have college degree but I do have an interest in archaeology

reply to post by theEXxman


Just read about evolution on wikipedia, and you will answer your own question about the missing link. Clearly your doubts of evolution stem from you not being educated about the theory.