It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why do Christians have a problem with Evolution?

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by sambo5us

Originally posted by Prot0n

Evolution says nothing about the birth of our universe. Never has, never will. Seem's like you've got a problem over lack of understanding.


How do most evolutionists think the unvierse came to be? I know some believe in the big bang but come on. Nothing exploided and created everything? Plus, did you notice that most planets spin one way while some spin the other way? How would this happen if there was a big bang. If something breaks off from a spinning object it spins in the same direction as its parent. Maybe there was big bang's'.


there was no explosion, just expansion. It didn't come from nothing but from a singularity. As for the spinning business, think of a pool table with multiple collisions etc. You really have to read the theories scientists hold, rather than the nonsense some perpetuate.

I think Penrose is someone who talks about multiple 'big-bangs' but not as you possibly believe. I can't remember the details myself, but a bit like expansion then death of universe (not true crunch though), then expansion etc. He put it across as something new. I watched him at 4am talking about it as I was falling asleep and can't find his description of it anywhere - haha, maybe it was a dream.

or maybe penrose was talking about Steinhardt & Turok's cyclic model, not sure...

wwwphy.princeton.edu...


[edit on 31-3-2006 by melatonin]




posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 08:03 PM
link   


How do most evolutionists think the unvierse came to be? I know some believe in the big bang but come on.


Uh, it was the big bang. This has nothing to do with evolution though. If you don't "believe" in it, it's only due to your own lack of knowledge.



Nothing exploided and created everything?


As melatonin pointed out, it was more of an expansion then an explosion. The quantum fluctuation's of space do allow for 'virtual' particle's to pop in and out of existence from seemingly nothing. Exactly how everything got started, we don't know. Doubt we ever will have a definitive answer as we can't see past the birth of the observable universe.



Plus, did you notice that most planets spin one way while some spin the other way? How would this happen if there was a big bang. If something breaks off from a spinning object it spins in the same direction as its parent. Maybe there was big bang's'.


Not everything was "created" at once. Everything is subjected to outside infulence's and force's that would and could impart different properties on the object. Say you've got two planetoids both spinning in the same direction, a third planetoid that had been ejected from another solar system come's along and it's gravity (or physical collision) cause's one of those two planetoids to rotate in the opposite direction. There's ton's of variable's that could and do cause this. Part of the job is LEARNING about these thing's, not writing them off to a higher power because we think we can't understand them.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 12:37 AM
link   
Is that the best response you got "Prot0n?" Spewing insults, accusing me of not being knowlegeable, and having misunderstandings. Folks like you come on these boards and belittle and insult people. It's completely gross. Does it bring you joy to tear somebody down? I refuse to cowar myself to you.

I gave valid arguments. There were two evolutionary ideas that I was refering to: 1) Accidental evolution and 2) Created evolution. When I say "accidental evolution," I mean the notion that stuff just started from out of nowhere without anything to "spark" it. Maybe some big 2000 page textbook doesn't have the term "accidental evolution," it doesn't have to, I am just describing a concept.

I also spoke of creation without evolution as part of it. The "accident" just doesn't seem very likely.

Troy

[edit on 1-4-2006 by cybertroy]



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 05:44 AM
link   


Is that the best response you got "Prot0n?" Spewing insults, accusing me of not being knowlegeable, and having misunderstandings. Folks like you come on these boards and belittle and insult people. It's completely gross. Does it bring you joy to tear somebody down? I refuse to cowar myself to you.


I'm sorry if you took my observation of you as an insult, but it does appear that your just simply lacking knowledge in the whole issue by equating evlution with the birth of the universe. These are two seperate theories. So as to not cause confusion next time, refer to them as such.



I gave valid arguments.


Gee, I must have missed them.



There were two evolutionary ideas that I was refering to: 1) Accidental evolution


There simply is no such thing as accidental evolution. I'm really not sure where you picked up such a term.

EDIT: Tried doing a search on accidental evolution, seems like the only thing I can dig up on this silly concept is from other religous folk with equal misunderstanding of evolutionary processes as yours.



and 2) Created evolution.


You mean creation science? There really is nothing to back up such a "theory".



When I say "accidental evolution," I mean the notion that stuff just started from out of nowhere without anything to "spark" it.


Life didn't start out of nothing. Sounds like your confused on how life arose and still trying to equate big bang with spark of life. It may appear to be an accident, but it's really not. If there's other solar system's with a planet that has the same (or close too) properties as our own planet, there's pretty much a 100% chance we will find life on such a planet. Even then, we still may find life on planet's or moon's that we wouldn't consider life as possibly surviving on. We've had our own surprises here on our planet on this issue. Life follows very simple rule's, just like physics.



Maybe some big 2000 page textbook doesn't have the term "accidental evolution," it doesn't have to, I am just describing a concept.


There's a reason a big 2000 page textbook doesn't have this term. It's an erroneous term born through lack of knowledge of how evolutionary processes work.



I also spoke of creation without evolution as part of it. The "accident" just doesn't seem very likely.


Learn abit more about how evolution really works. Ask whoever is teaching you about "accidental evolution" how much he/she really know's about the theory. It sounds far more less likely for a complex disembodied consciousness with amazing supernatural powers of creation and destruction being born out of "nothingness" and then having the desire to just create a physical universe when it had already created a place for itself populated with being's similar to it (heaven/angels). It also seem's unlikely that that such complexity can come before simplicity. But hey, your entitled to your own belief's, but before you go on trying to knock down something, learn abit more about it so you don't come up with such silly terms as accidental evolution.


[edit on 1-4-2006 by Prot0n]



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 12:29 AM
link   
Why do you persist that I some how I'm lacking in knowlege? I think you may be just giving me a hard time for some reason?

I understand evolutionary concepts. I don't spend much time studying it, but generally I have a grasp on what it's about. And really that's all I need. Evolution just isn't very important to me, unless it is proven a fact and is useful.

"Created evolution" merely means evolution with a creative force behind it. That's it. And some previous contributors to this topic did more or less agree that evolution and creation could co-exist, having evolution being the means by which things were created.

And "accidental evolution" is more or less life without anything to motivate it. Perhaps I lump the universe and life together, but creation includes a great deal of things. So, if I say evolution, I tend to pull in the creation of the universe with it, even though evolution deals with life. I suppose I could use the terms like "accidental creation," but those terms don't mix too well, creation needs something behind it to get it to work.

Why is believing in a creator any harder to grasp than having matter and life appearing out of no where with nothing to create it? Some folks want to label it as "supernatural" and not possible, and try to pass that off as an explanation. But the reality is, we are here, and this vast universe is here. Something must have put it here. Some people will even call mathematics the creator, but there still needs to be a consciousness to have created mathematics.

Troy



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 06:29 AM
link   


Why do you persist that I some how I'm lacking in knowlege? I think you may be just giving me a hard time for some reason?


No, not really meaning to give you a hard time. Reason I keep stating that you lack knowledge in the theory is for your use of terms that don't exist. There is no such thing as accidental evolution. I still can't find a single scientific minded website that suggest's such a thing, but I did manage to find a few religous website's trying to knock down evolution by calling it "accidental".



I understand evolutionary concepts. I don't spend much time studying it, but generally I have a grasp on what it's about. And really that's all I need. Evolution just isn't very important to me, unless it is proven a fact and is useful.


Really? Then you wouldn't call it accidental evolution or equate it with the Big Bang theory. If you had a real, or should I say, correct understanding of evolutionary processes you wouln't be coming up with such silly terms as acidental evolution or created evolution.



"Created evolution" merely means evolution with a creative force behind it. That's it. And some previous contributors to this topic did more or less agree that evolution and creation could co-exist, having evolution being the means by which things were created.


Yes, the ID crowed does think the two can co-exist. The ID crowed also has nothing to show that anything has been created except through intellectual laziness. I tend to listen to those who are willing to study something and see how it works rather then someone who will go ah dang, too complex, gotta be created. Why bother learning about anything when we can just write it off to a creator if we don't initially understand it?



And "accidental evolution" is more or less life without anything to motivate it. Perhaps I lump the universe and life together, but creation includes a great deal of things. So, if I say evolution, I tend to pull in the creation of the universe with it, even though evolution deals with life. I suppose I could use the terms like "accidental creation," but those terms don't mix too well, creation needs something behind it to get it to work.


That's not how evolution works. It's not like a new species pops up one day out of motivation. It's not like one species gives birth to a new species over night. The "motivation" lies within enviromental influence's (which we have directly seen), genetic characteristics, and many other "motivations" for speciations.

Packaging evolution and the birth of the universe as one idea is wrong and just plain silly. Of course people are going to seem harsh when they tell you this. What your saying is a wrong idea and does seem to show lack of knowledge. Talk about the two as sperate theories, as they are seperate theories.



Why is believing in a creator any harder to grasp than having matter and life appearing out of no where with nothing to create it?


It's the whole complexity issue and simple logic and reason and in some cases, even philosophical arguments. For starter's, as religous people like to argue, you can't get something from nothing and if something is to complex it must need a creator. The supernatural diety most believe in came from nothing and is extremely complex, more so then the universe that was supposedly created.



Some folks want to label it as "supernatural" and not possible, and try to pass that off as an explanation. But the reality is, we are here, and this vast universe is here. Something must have put it here. Some people will even call mathematics the creator, but there still needs to be a consciousness to have created mathematics.


Every time we try to scientifically observe the paranormal under tight no possibility of a hoax condition's, the person or group of people claiming to hold such power's turn out to either be frauds or claim they can't perform under such condition's. There's a reason why scientist's don't readily accept paranormal explanations. Every tightly controlled study turned out to be people making a quick buck of the gullible. You know those "psychics"? The palm readin variety who can fortell your future or your past, you'd be surprised how they really work. Learn abit of psychology.

Just because we're here and the universe is here doesn't mean both MUST have been created or that there MUST be a conscious entity behind it. That's lazy. Little Johnny got into a car accident, it wasn't because he was drunk it was because the creator deemed it as his time to go. In other words, don't blame it on the real cause or bother to learn what the real cause was, just throw the creator in and leave it at that! Pure laziness.



Evolution just isn't very important to me, unless it is proven a fact and is useful.


Need I say more?



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
there was no explosion, just expansion. It didn't come from nothing but from a singularity.


Why is it called the big bang instead of the big expansion? When I think of bang I think explosion. I did a google search for big bang and out of the first four links 3 explain the big bang as a tremenoud explosion, cosmic explosion, or gigantic explosion. Plus the first one is from NASA.

Here are the links:
liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov...
www.umich.edu...
www.damtp.cam.ac.uk...

Please explain to me what a singularity is i'm lacking in knowledge on that subject. Secondly, where did that singularity come from? It supposibly came from vacuum fluctuations. Where did the vacuum come from?

I have another question. Why am I lazy because I believe my God created the universe? He wrote it in His word.
[edit on 3-4-2006 by sambo5us]

[edit on 3-4-2006 by sambo5us]



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by sambo5us
Why is it called the big bang instead of the big expansion? When I think of bang I think explosion. I did a google search for big bang and out of the first four links 3 explain the big bang as a tremenoud explosion, cosmic explosion, or gigantic explosion. Plus the first one is from NASA.

Please explain to me what a singularity is i'm lacking in knowledge on that subject. Secondly, where did that singularity come from? It supposibly came from vacuum fluctuations. Where did the vacuum come from?


The term "big bang" was used as a criticism of the theory by hoyle, who didn't like the idea.

Why do these sites state it was an explosion? Because they are not careful in their explanation - an explosion is due to the rapid combustion of unstable chemicals, the big bang is just a rapid expansion. It's a poor analogy.

If noone answers the singularity issue, I'll do so tomorrow.



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 07:43 AM
link   
OK, I'll have a bash at the singularity issue...

Singularity is a mathematical term that describes a state where a function diverges or becomes undefined. In big bang cosmology, using general relativity, physics breaks down at t=0. It is a state of infinite density and space-time curvature. At t=0, there is no before, only after (think north pole, at this point there is no north, only south).

However, when we can combine GR and quantum theories, we may eventually adequately explain this state.

where did "?" (this signifies the current earliest state of knowledge) come from? We currently don't know, but people are trying to explain these things. Of course, you could just say god 'poofed' it all into existence, it's an explanation but shouldn't we carry on trying to figure these things out? If we just assume this, does it not defeat this endeavour?

There will always be a place for your omnipotent being of choice at the boundaries of our knowledge (i.e. gaps).

[edit on 4-4-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by the_blue_sky11
evolution is not true. if you truly believe the bible as the word of God, why dont you just believe all that it says? and evolution is a religion not science. in order to be science it has to be fact. evolution is NOT fact.

who says it doesnt teach big bang, etc. or even evolution. just cause it doesnt give an acount word for word detail. study some judaism, from which Christianity is an offshoot, and you will find some intersting stuff concerning creation. The lenght of time runs along the same time line of the big ban theory.

the word of God definitley has contradictions...right at the beginning.
Even judaism admits that, this is why they have different levels of interpretation of the account in the beginning.

Gods peace

dalen



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 10:40 PM
link   


Are people so eager to bash christians and the bible that they really believe we used to be monkeys!

I don't think anyone one really believes that humans came from monkeys.

Later

[edit on 31/3/2006 by SportyMB]
Then could you please explain this whole theory of evolution bandwagon that everyone is on? Exactly what did we evolve from? If you say it was from one form of human to another, I don't think there would even be a debate.



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 11:29 PM
link   
Evolution has had a lot of fraud in it's background, look at Nebraska man and Peking man. Can any of you evolution theory folks show me any deliberate frauds where a creationist fabricated or lied to get their point across.

Just a couple of links
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

With Peking man, I find it hard to believe in that there is such a thing, if Peking man were true, other evidience should have shown up by now.

Also, just because you found an old monkey skull, doesn't make it my ancestor.



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by simtek 22
Evolution has had a lot of fraud in it's background, look at Nebraska man and Peking man. Can any of you evolution theory folks show me any deliberate frauds where a creationist fabricated or lied to get their point across.

Just a couple of links
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

With Peking man, I find it hard to believe in that there is such a thing, if Peking man were true, other evidience should have shown up by now.

Also, just because you found an old monkey skull, doesn't make it my ancestor.


religion is full of frauds, both material and bipedal (see Kent Hovind link). Usually it takes the application of scientific method to show the fraud (e.g. shroud of Turin).

en.wikipedia.org...

Science and religion are practiced by people, people can be deceptive. Luckily, science is self-correcting, it holds theories tentatively. Religion proposes the 'truth' and is generally corrected when science falsifies this 'truth'.

If the skull is legit, it is actually a hominid not a 'monkey'.

[edit on 5-4-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by dAlen
study some judaism, from which Christianity is an offshoot, and you will find some intersting stuff concerning creation.


Never heard anything of the sort. Any links to back this up?



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 08:51 PM
link   
More useless evolutionary drivel

www.foxnews.com...

Here are some things to ponder:

1. How do they know that the dinosaur was brightly colored. Did they find some orange dino skin. Where is the proof.

2. All they found were a claw and foot. Not very scientific to construct a whole animal from just a few parts. (Nebraska man)

3. Could run up to 25 MPH. How do they know this from a claw and foot. Did anyone ever clock one in action. The comment should be "we guess that the animal may have been able to run up to 25 MPH".

4. Feathers? What feathers, I didn't read anything about feathers, how did feathers get brought into this story. Quite a conjecture based on no proof at all.



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

religion is full of frauds, both material and bipedal (see Kent Hovind link). Usually it takes the application of scientific method to show the fraud (e.g. shroud of Turin).

en.wikipedia.org...
[edit on 5-4-2006 by melatonin]


Thanks for the link. My main problem with evolution is the fact that scientists create whole species based on a few broken bones. Its one thing to have a whole skeleton of an animal and to construct what that animal may have looked like. It's quite another to construct a entire picture of an animal based on just a small piece of the skeleton. (see my above rant).



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by simtek 22
1. How do they know that the dinosaur was brightly colored. Did they find some orange dino skin. Where is the proof.

2. All they found were a claw and foot. Not very scientific to construct a whole animal from just a few parts. (Nebraska man)

3. Could run up to 25 MPH. How do they know this from a claw and foot. Did anyone ever clock one in action. The comment should be "we guess that the animal may have been able to run up to 25 MPH".

4. Feathers? What feathers, I didn't read anything about feathers, how did feathers get brought into this story. Quite a conjecture based on no proof at all.


I've just read Zanno & Simpson's paper in J Vertebrate Paleo, so...

1. The picture I have seen is an artists impression. Blame the artist and people, they seem to like pretty pictures.

2. It is similar to other fossils they have found, therefore they have extrapolated to what it would probably have looked like from this knowledge.

3. It was probably determined using biomechanical knowledge of size, power, and other comparable species alive today.

4. I guess related species have been found to have feathers.

Criticise the FOX website for their reporting. The actual article makes no mention of most of the above. When science is filtered by journalism (especially of the FOX type) is usually becomes dumb. Here's a better report...

www.physorg.com...

[edit on 5-4-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Apr, 5 2006 @ 10:20 PM
link   
Thanks for the link, a little better information, Foxnews needs to hire better writers. Still a lot of speculation though, I imagine that they will eventually find enough to piece together what it really looked like. I still see no proof that these animals had feathers though. If they found a foot and claw, as it is drawn, there should have been fossilized imprints of feathers.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 11:11 AM
link   
To answer your original question.. christians have a problem with evolution because it challenges what they have been taught their whole life as reality.
In the end it is more ego than anything that makes them refuse to consider any possiblity besides creation as a reality. If something else was proven to be how we got here.. that would make them wrong.. and noone likes to be wrong.

EGO



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 09:00 PM
link   
If I may, it seems everyone has missed a very important matter, and I'll throw this out there for remarks.

Gen.1 KJV
[1] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
[2] And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Using a Strong's Concordance we find the first section of the 2nd verse, is not accurately translated into English.

(2) And the earth became a waste and a desolation, and darkness was upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God...........

This translation, keeps the Chaldean to it's prime, without extending it beyond the basic meaning to indicate a translation as found in the KJV.

This is much like the translation we find in the Ten Commandments.

Thou shall not Kill, is not a commandment. Sounds nice, but fails to accurately descirbe what was written.

Thou shall not Murder, is the commandment, and the Chaldean describes this as "to lie in wait".

I use this just as an example, to support the premise that errors where made in the KJV.

Back to Christians and Evolution.

We also have other things to consider. Paul teaches of creatures as large as a whale walking the earth in the first earth age. Oh, what was that, the first earth age? Pauls teaches of the three earth ages. One that was, the one that is, and the one to come.

Job is telling some interesting story of events that took place during the battle and the fall of Satan and his minions. And we find Satan as the serpent in the Garden, so this fall was pre Garden, pre Sixth Day man, (The Races) and pre Adam and Eve, the eight day creation.

Elsewhere in the Bible, details come out of events that occur precreation.

So with this said, how difficult is it to accept the evidence as we see it. I will also include this qualifier, TO A POINT.

The evolutionary details found may well have been the first earth age time on earth. Time after the initial, and God created the Heaven and the Earth.

And the earth became a waste and a desolation, fittingly describes the events noted in Job with the Battle, and the effects this had on the earth.

And for the Recreation part, I offer this for consideration.

Sixth Day Man. Review and describe him. It is quite simple.

Gen 1
[26] And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
[27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
[28] And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
[29] And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
[30] And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
[31] And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

It seems we have a statement of fact.

Let us make MAN in Our Image. Man is spoken of as if he was here in some other form previously, and was a known form. The phrase is not, let us make an upright life form and call it man. It is noted in a familiar sense.
Was Lucy the last image of man, in the first earth age?

Second we see a very unique instruction. Let us make man in Our Image.
Man is not made in God's image alone, or Micheal's image but in the Image of God and the Angels, which are varied and different from each other as the races are today.

They create THEM both male and female, and here some interesting words.

Gen 1
[28] And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth

Replenish. What is this word here for, if the world is being created for the first time??? Baffles me, unless man in some image previous inhabited the earth.

And then, in an effort to close the matter, we see a new creation, Adam, being MADE from the earth and directly by God. His purpose was to till the earth.

Now, we can be closed minded as Christians and have this preconcieved notion Adam and Eve are the First humans on Earth. That Eve ate an apple and all the races came for these two people. We can calculate back, the generations to indicate the earth is some 8000 years old or so. and we can sit back and say, this is what the theology of our church teaches.

Or we can read and study God's own words to find, this earth has been here for a long, long time, and that much of that history is omitted, but noted none the less. Does this aid anyone, as another poster noted?

He had been, like me, raised in the church, and told this and that, to the point he no longer goes. He studies himself, and it is this we should all do. If you are taught, God's word, it is onething, but if you are taught the theology of man according to the dogma of the sect you attend, then there is a problem you should address.

So in conclusion, Evolution is a real as the Creation/Recreation Story. And here is my TO A POINT. Science, for the life of it, has to find some missing link to support it's theory. The News Alert is this. The Missing link has been found. It's Genesis 1: 26.

Sorry if I rambled, but it is a loaded topic. Enjoy

Ciao



[edit on 9-4-2006 by Shane]




top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join