Why do Christians Scowl at Evolution?

Post Reply New Topic

I know that its called "biblical literalism".

My point was that: its not JUST taking the Biblical timescale literally that creates a problem. Its the whole underlying theology of christianity that creates a problem.

So though to an outsider its the YEC's who seem crazy- if you look into Christian theology to see where the YECa are coming from- then- it appears that its 'christians' like yourself who accept evolution who need to explain yourselves because it would seem that your theology would indeed have to rely on mortality being invented when Adam and Eve disobeyed God (that one day a few thousand years ago) to work. Its the christians who get around that who need to give an explanation.

yes and no, i seriously wonder why they scowl at scientific fact though and they willfully do not like to see truth because their imaginary friend from a book of fairytales dictates so even though the evidence is right there in front of them! Although come to think of it facts and reality can be a spectacular art in trolling if you think about it. But the original intention wasn't to anger but find a viable logical answer to the question. The Bible seems to be fiction for sure with many flaws when it comes to the origins of species and in a rather primative manner so in response to actual educational museums they come up with creationist museums and uneducate the youths of the future of actual knowledge thus contributing to the intellectual retrogression of America and other western societies ran by Christians!*side note the troll gif is to make you laugh and not take seriously or get angry * [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVHWq0ZGE_Y[/youtube]

Also snake do not and cannot talk due to lack of vocal chords *sorry Ggpviper* Although the idea of talking snakes is awesome its not possible at all neither can humans be created from a rib when male and female of each speicies existed prior to the whole Adam and Eve crap.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrwcnV-d-M4[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSxgnu3Hww8[/youtube]

Ezekiel 28:13-18, "Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

Since Adam and Eve were not adorned with gems, nor did they had pipes, Satan was either manipulating the snake or WAS the snake. Just because Satan isn't God doesn't mean he's weak.

I am *not* Satan, and I was *not* manipulated by him (he wasn't even there at the time... He was still in law school). The naked woman was hungry, and I simply suggested that she should eat an apple! Why all the hatin' on snakes?

Well, I found a good article that has an answer about this sort of question, as it explains it far better then I could have. It makes a plausible case for alternate possible interpretations, and illustrates that the traditional 'no death before the fall' interpretation is likely to have been something that came later.

http://biologos.org/questions/death-before-the-fall

I was raised Catholic and still hold many of the same views. I don't have a problem with evolution per say, however I do think certain evolutionary claims can be overly simplistic. There is no reason to assume that a creature cannot evolve by natural selection over millions of years. However, I do find it hard to believe that a creature with gills could evolve fast enough to grow lungs in an adverse environment.

Christians sure do a lot of snake bashing.Most other religions have a more positive attitude towards serpents.
Eve didn't have to eat that apple,I'm sure there were figs around.
Or she could have made a salad.

I think the Catholic Church supports the idea of evolutionary theory, if I'm remembering it correctly.

Also some secular scientists feel that traditional Darwinian theory is flawed and has too many discrepancies, and have come up with alternate evolutionary theories.

Here's two that I know of:

http://www.programmed-aging.org/theorie ... ssues.html

http://www.macroevolution.net/gradualis ... oawpSf2bMo

Look in Genisis.

Nowhere does it mention "apples".

The forbidden fruit is just refered to as "the fruit".

(I realize that I called it an apple myself in the above post),

Even in Medeaval, and Renaissance paintings its a vague looking golden thing.

Calling it an "apple" is a modern convention.

And in fact apples dont do well in the middle east so its unlikely that it was an apple (pomegranite, date, or fig maybe).

Careful, can blow peoples minds when you tell them an apple was not mentioned as the forbidden fruit. Same thing with Humpty Dumpty. (Not an egg!!)

Most Christians worldwide belong to denominations that either accept evolution as the fact it is, or say whether or not it happens is irrelevant to their faith. The Biblical literalists are the ones who have the most trouble with it, and I understand why: if no Adam and Eve, then no original sin, no fall from grace, no need for salvation and Jesus becomes unnecessary.

Most people who argue against evolution or deny its reality do so because they have been very badly misinformed about this subject. Creationist sources are notorious for ignoring much of the strongest evidence for evolution and for denying or distorting the evidence they do not ignore. And no, it is not just a matter of interpreting the same evidence from different world views.

For example, when one compares the DNA of different species to each other, there are patterns of nested hierarchies of many types of genetic data that clearly show a family tree type relationship consistent with descent from a common ancestor. Not only that, but the family trees generated from different types of genetic data match each other. That is itself another bit of evidence. AND the predictions from studying genetic data also match what we find in the fossil record. And of course, we do not find any fossil rabbits in the preCambrian.

I have had some creationists try to tell me that the genetic data can just as easily come from a common designer rather than a common ancestor. Some creationists call these nested hierarchies "ranking" as if scientists arbitrarily arranged things this way. That ignores the fact that these patterns are being described, not invented, and that they match what we find in the fossil record as to which forms appear first and when they split off to become different forms.

To summarize, most of those who deny the fact of evolution do so because they base their opinions on faulty information. They have been LIED to by sources they trust, and apparently are too lazy or afraid to check out these sources for themselves. Using a search engine, it is very easy to find out in a very short time how blatantly DISHONEST most creationist web sites, books and movies are. These sources shame Christ and make Christians and Christianity look really stupid by ignoring, distorting or denying the evidence and by quoting people out of context in a very dishonest manner known as "quote mining."

Not so, I love snakes. Especially in a sweet mustard sauce

Christians scowl at evolution because they can't fit it into their Holy book and since it doesn't fit, it is troublesome to them, so they complain, negate, frown and then eventually this leads to perma scowl and deep furrows between the eyes and on their brows.