By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Why can't some Christians accept Evolution?

rakugakist on 08 January 2012
spurgeonryan said:
MrBubbles said:
plenty of christians believe in evolution and the big bang theory.


Come on now! Most kids growing up in a religous home get taught many things, one of them is that Evolution is wrong!

 

I am sure there are some Christians who believe that, but I assure you a majority refuse to!

I'm not religious, but I was raised Christian and I was never taught that Evolution is wrong.  I think you're wrong.



Around the Network
Player1x3 on 08 January 2012
spurgeonryan said:
Well player, you need to look at who made the thread. If I was to say this waterfall next to my house is the greatest in the world(lets say Niagara falls) you may say Victoria falls in Africa was more magnificent. I have never been there before so to me that is what I see and that is my perception.

From what I have seen in my neck of the woods, Christians do not believe in evolution. Period!
Mabye in Spain, Greece, Ireland, Sri Lanka, Timbuktu, whatever the Christians believe in evolution. Here they do not.


If it would make everyone feel better I will say "some" Christians in the title or maybe American Christians.

From what I have seen in my neck of the woods, Christians do believe in evolution. Period!



Player1x3 on 08 January 2012
EdHieron said:
Player1x3 said:
EdHieron said:
Jumpin said:

spurgeonryan said:

Why can't Christian's accept Evolution?

Actually, I think mostly all Christians in the western world do accept evolution. The Catholic Church also officially accepts evolution.

The Christians who do not accept evolution, don't accept it for the same reason that any non-Christian who don't believe evolution wouldn't accept it - it is a matter of not being educated about evolution. I would say that nearly 100% of (if not all) liberal Christians accept evolution - I also think that the majority of Christians in the western world are liberal Christians.

I also feel that the atheist perception that all Christians don't accept evolution is a product of neo-atheist prejudice/ignorance.

It seems as if  that you've not spent much time in the United States (especially the Southern Parts) where 70% of the Christians believe in the Literal Truth of The Bible and reject the notion of Evolution being taught in schools.


it seems southeast america =  world

If you live there it is.  But one also has to take into account that the US is the most powerful nation on earth and its policies are shaped to a large extent by the 70% of Fundamantalists that live there.  For example, if Obamaisn't re-elected in November, then he's probably going to be replaced by a wannabe Theocrat with a heavy interest in supporting wars in the Middle East stemming from his religion.


American involvement in middle east doesn't have the first thing to do with religion at all whatsoever. Especially not in Iraq



lordmandeep on 08 January 2012

I will remind, everyone just because if you believe in a religion or God, does not mean they have to not accept Evolution.



Scoobes on 08 January 2012
thranx said:


Wow condensiung much? Perhaps you should read that evidence and links. Show me the path of human evolution form a simple creature... oh wahts that you can't? I understand that, because it has not been verified to what has happeneded to the human species. So please save your educaate myself and please read up on some facts and not just accept things. I prefer acctual eveidence, not speculation and misssing peices.

Following human genetics we can trace back a large number of homologous genes to simpler organisms. Even more important is the structure of our proteins and enzymes. For example, many of our digestive enzymes are almost identical in structure to enzymes used by bacteria (also to break things down) and can be traced in virtually all living organisms. These stuctures can be very different in DNA sequence barring a few key points and using bioinformatics we can trace the evolution on a genetic (DNA sequence), structural (proteins and enzymes) and functional level. That's the evidence ignoring the fossil record.

The evidence is there (and a lot is on wiki):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

Most of the stuff is referenced too.




Get your Portable ID!

Around the Network
Dr.Grass on 08 January 2012
Andrespetmonkey said:
Dr.Grass said:
Andrespetmonkey said:
Dr.Grass said:
Andrespetmonkey said:
mhsillen said:
I look at it that the creator is a powerful scientific being. He is not some mystical being. He uses scientific laws to create and if it was the big bang he used then so be it. But whatever you believe it is never wise to ignore other ideas contrary to your beliefs. It is not absurd to look at living things and think these are so complicated it must of been planned and built by a intelligent being.

It sounds like the sharks are adapting not turning into geese. Adaptation happens all the time.

Liked your post until I read that, makes you sound a little ignorant. You have to consider those small adaptions accumulating over the space of billions of years.  And even if you personally can't visualize it, it's been well supported by the fossil record and confirmed by DNA sequencing. Not specifically "sharks turning into geese" ofcourse but macro-evolution as a whole.

Everyone gets this point.

But sir, if science is so advanced then why won't a pumpkin ever go past a certain size (both ways) ? Why does artificial selection always hit a breaking point (fruit fly experiments etc.)? And don't tell me that in the future someone will come and breed a functional advantage... I want to see a new biological device built from the ground up through random changes - I really do.

No, not everyone gets this point actually.

The fact that you're on a computer shows you how incredibly advanced science is, but that's besides the point. "Always hit a breaking point", and you base this on the fruit fly experiments? Even with the rapidly evolving fruit flys macro-evolution would still take thousands of years instead of millions, and that's only if those severe and rapid adaptions are needed. So what is this breaking point? And it's also your job to now explain all the other evidence for macro-evolution, like the high shared similarity of DNA in all animals, the clear pattern shown in the fossil record (If your gonna give me "gaps in the fossil record" reply then I hope you know it's been rtt) of common decent between different species. Why do we share DNA with a banana? 

"I want to see a new biological device built form the ground up through randon changes" Urgh, another misconception about evolution is that it comes down to "random changes", while chance places a large role in it, this ignores the fundemental role of natural selection. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, and this is what natural selection works with; it sorts out certain variations... "Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different

variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.

Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go)."

''... the high shared similarity of DNA in all animals'',

Just because it's light doesn't mean the sun's shining...

A Volkswagen is sharing almost identical structure to a BMW, but does this reveal anything at all about their respective origins and relationship? Using this evidence just means that you are not willing to accept any alternative. 

... you have to admit that there is no proposeable theory that would satisfy the mental state of the current breed of scientists. I mean, do you really want to hear my explanation of the origins of life? Most probably not. More importantly, when I start explaining the typical response is, ''Is this Hindu, Buddhist, new-age blah blah etc.''. Ultimately the 'label' I give it has much more to do with your interpretation than the actual explanation.

 

''...the clear pattern shown in the fossil record...''

This is one of the poorests pieces of evidence and probably one of the few true scientific conspiracies. There are TONS of archives FILLED with finds that contradict the evolutionary viewpoint. Take an open mind to the literature and you will find mathematicians, archeologists, geologists, etc. that are shunned from scientific respectability due to simply presenting what they find... Mary Leaky? Forbidden Archeology...

This one is only beaten by the Aryan-invasion theory (clear proof how broken academia is) in the 'propaganda' category.

''Why do we share DNA with a banana?  ''

Common heritage.

''I want to see a new biological device built form the ground up through randon changes" Urgh, another misconception about evolution is that it comes down to "random changes''  ''

WUT. Please don't tell me I don't know how evolution works. The above mechanic is the integral part of building up new organisms.

(first 4 lines) Maybe I just don't get the analogies, but I don't see how they relate properly. Doesn't the fact that there is a high shared similarity of DNA in all organisms on earth, (which also accurately fits many predictions in the evolutionary tree that were made before our knowledge of DNA) strongly suggest that all these organisms came from a single point? And the only way to of got from point A (3.8 billion years ago) to point B (now) would involve macro-evolution, no? (whether you think that single point was God, abiogenesis etc. is irrelevant, could be either as far I'm concerned). "Using this evidence just means that you are not willing to accept any alternative" Err... not sure how you got to that conclusion, but despite what you may think I like to keep an open mind and would be willing to accept an alternative if it is better supported and effectively explains why my current belief in wrong.

(next para) Why do you make so many assumptions about me? I'm actually pretty interested in what your explanation may me, I get the impression that it'll be something I've never heard before, so if you have the time, I'd actually love to hear it. 

(fossil record conspiracies para) The one thing I don't understand is what could all these scientists possibly gain from this conspiracy? Why in the world would they? I've seen quite a few claims of fossils or whatever it may be that contradicts evolution, but then usually google the title of that article/author etc, write "refuted" on the end and find just as many hits. And the refutations are always a hell of a lot more convincing. But obviously I haven't heard nearly all of them if there really are "TONS", I'd like to hear some if you don't mind. Don't worry, I don't expect you to write and explain many yourself, links will do if you want.

"The term Aryan invasion theory (AIT) refers to invasional scenarios of prehistorical Aryans into India."  Don't know how this relates.

(last 5 lines) When I googled "common heritage" I didn't see anything that relates to the relationship in DNA between all organisms on earth, did I miss something?

Did you ignore the 3 paragraphs in which I explained to you how evolution is ultimately not random? If you think evolution occurs solely due to "random changes" than that my good sir, is a misconception.

 

Sorry if I don't reply to your next post, I will definitely read it but I have a lot of revision to do for school, and when I get in these debates it just eats up a lot of time. If I don't find time to reply soon I'll either reply to you at a later date, forget about replying or you would have changed my mind, in which case I'll thank you.


... I just got married and am off to a long holiday. I hope you'll forgive me for not responding now. 



bouzane on 08 January 2012

@thranx

I'm condescending toward you because you are extremely ignorant, inexcusably so. Why bother to participate in such a discussion at all? I have no patience for such individuals as yourself.



thranx on 08 January 2012
bouzane said:

@thranx

I'm condescending toward you because you are extremely ignorant, inexcusably so. Why bother to participate in such a discussion at all? I have no patience for such individuals as yourself.

perhaps you should use valid counter arguments instead of trying to attack my character and intelligence. You haven't even made a counter argument.



thranx on 08 January 2012
Scoobes said:
thranx said:


Wow condensiung much? Perhaps you should read that evidence and links. Show me the path of human evolution form a simple creature... oh wahts that you can't? I understand that, because it has not been verified to what has happeneded to the human species. So please save your educaate myself and please read up on some facts and not just accept things. I prefer acctual eveidence, not speculation and misssing peices.

Following human genetics we can trace back a large number of homologous genes to simpler organisms. Even more important is the structure of our proteins and enzymes. For example, many of our digestive enzymes are almost identical in structure to enzymes used by bacteria (also to break things down) and can be traced in virtually all living organisms. These stuctures can be very different in DNA sequence barring a few key points and using bioinformatics we can trace the evolution on a genetic (DNA sequence), structural (proteins and enzymes) and functional level. That's the evidence ignoring the fossil record.

The evidence is there (and a lot is on wiki):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

Most of the stuff is referenced too.

 i never said evolution does not happen or can not explain some things, all I said was it does not have all the evidence to say with out a reasonable doubt that we as humans evovled from simple organisms. I have yet to see the many stages we would havbe gone through. Sure there are some, but its not a cohesive line of evolution steps that led from organism A to humans. That is all. You guys attacking me act as if evoultion explains it all, and it clearly does not. I was pointing that out.



EdHieron on 08 January 2012
Player1x3 said:
EdHieron said:
Player1x3 said:
EdHieron said:
Jumpin said:

spurgeonryan said:

Why can't Christian's accept Evolution?

Actually, I think mostly all Christians in the western world do accept evolution. The Catholic Church also officially accepts evolution.

The Christians who do not accept evolution, don't accept it for the same reason that any non-Christian who don't believe evolution wouldn't accept it - it is a matter of not being educated about evolution. I would say that nearly 100% of (if not all) liberal Christians accept evolution - I also think that the majority of Christians in the western world are liberal Christians.

I also feel that the atheist perception that all Christians don't accept evolution is a product of neo-atheist prejudice/ignorance.

It seems as if  that you've not spent much time in the United States (especially the Southern Parts) where 70% of the Christians believe in the Literal Truth of The Bible and reject the notion of Evolution being taught in schools.


it seems southeast america =  world

If you live there it is.  But one also has to take into account that the US is the most powerful nation on earth and its policies are shaped to a large extent by the 70% of Fundamantalists that live there.  For example, if Obamaisn't re-elected in November, then he's probably going to be replaced by a wannabe Theocrat with a heavy interest in supporting wars in the Middle East stemming from his religion.


American involvement in middle east doesn't have the first thing to do with religion at all whatsoever. Especially not in Iraq


America's involvement in the Middle East has a tremendous amount to do with religion.  Why do you think that America donates so much money to Israel for weapons instead of working to help them compromise with the Palestinians?  It's because there is a huge lobby in this country ( the US ) that believes the story in Revelations is a historical event that is going to occur in the immenent future.