Why do Christians Strongly Disagree with Science and Distrust Scientists

[Care4all]

on your other thoughts of our relationship to monkeys or chimps or whomever...there is absolutely no Scientific proof, the MISSING LINK has not been found, as of yet....so there is no purpose for me to hypothesis on this issue....

Sorry, Care, but JBeukema (did I get that right?) is right. There isn't a single link between homo sapiens and the common ancestor from which we and other primates have evolved. There are, in fact, many links, transitional fossils, that clearly show the evolution of homo sapiens from homo erectus and australopithicus, etc. etc. Did God create many other bipedal species of primates that are very similar to us who went alternated going extinct and the next, more human-like species appeared in the fossil record until the last one which went extinct in about the same place and time, when and where homo sapiens began to appear in the fossil record? What about neandertals? They existed at the same time homo sapiens did? Did God create them and then decide he liked the slimmer, more intelligent version better?

Transitional Fossils of Hominid Skulls

The Transitional Fossil Challenge for Creationists | Progressive U

Show me the change that took place in evolution from ape to man, show me the bones of this "transitional" person and I will consider it.......

Just check those links above. But you can also purchase a biological anthropology text book which will lay it out for you in a way that's easy enough for a college freshman to understand. I took the course while majoring in Anthropology at Colorado University, and talk about fascinating stuff and hard to deny without being irrational about it.

Here is a page of a thread where N4ddissent explains it very well and articulately:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/72160-science-under-attack-in-texas-11.html

This is directed at others on this topic:

you know the daffodil flower has 94% of the same genetic make up as human's as well....

JBeukema is also right about this. Science has answered these questions, but Christian propaganda, without much scientific validity or verifiability, still challenges the very valid, credible, verifiable, and believable research studies which support human evolution.

Why can't Christians believe in common ancestry? Couldn't God have created the conditions wherein single-celled organisms would develop, that then evolved under His influence into the current level of biodiversity? There is A LOT of scientific evidence which suggests and supports that that is exactly what happened (minus the God part). But that doesn't mean God didn't mean for it to happen that way.

Are you kidding? I have been around LONG ENOUGH to have been taught that we came from apes or apelike creatures (edited and corrected from chimp).... I know how science jumped ahead of itself first hand....I have never been reared to be overly religious or anything of the such....(I just chose to be later on in life, after I had a kazillion experiences and time to think about it)

I am glued to Discovery channel, the Learning Channel, National Geographic channel and Pbs with Nova etc....I don't watch anything else on the tv, other than 24/7 news for politics...I don't work anymore so, it is me and the tv and housework for most of the day and night...

I love this stuff...

And there are still programs about searching for the missing link on this, NOW....not just ages ago....and I admit, other than these programs, it has been decades since i had it in school, but you would THINK that the whole world would have been made aware of this SECOND or 100th NEW theory of how we evolved and from whom or what....

So why don't you youngsters tell me what the "going thing" being taught is now on how we evolved....?

ps. I just saw the links above, I will look at them!*

Care

 

[JBeukema]

Noone with any comprehension of evolution ever said we evolved from chimps

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Are you kidding? I have been around LONG ENOUGH to have been taught that we came from chimps.... I know how science jumped ahead of itself first hand....I have never been reared to be overly religious or anything of the such....(I just chose to be later on in life, after I had a kazillion experiences and time to think about it)

I am glued to Discovery channel, the Learning Channel, National Geographic channel and Pbs with Nova etc....I don't watch anything else on the tv, other than 24/7 news for politics...I don't work anymore so, it is me and the tv and housework for most of the day and night...

I love this stuff...

And there are still programs about searching for the missing link on this, NOW....not just ages ago....and I admit, other than these programs, it has been decades since i had it in school, but you would THINK that the whole world would have been made aware of this SECOND or 100th NEW theory of how we evolved and from whom or what....

So why don't you youngster tell me what the "going thing" being taught is now on how we evolved....?

Care

Alright, there, old timer!

First of all, other than PBS I would say those other channels are not the best sources of information, and since they have only a limited level of broadcast time for each program and evolution is such a far-reaching and impacting scientific fact (not theory*) that they don't do the subject justice.

*Evolution Through Natural Selection, Sexual Selection, and a number of other theories attempt to explain evolution, which is a scientific, observable, repeatable fact.

I would also say that those programs tend to be sensationalistic. Such as Naked Scientist. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather watch sensationalistic science shows than Dancing With The Stars or American Idol anyday!

Did you check out those links in my other post?

Here are some websites that one could explore to find more information about this extremely fascinating field of study:
The Biological Anthropology Web
Physical Anthropology Tutorials Menu
Physical Anthropology - Biological Anthropology - Academic Info

Now these aren't political websites, but are entirely academic. These are people dedicated to discovering the truth about the physical origins of human beings.

And you could go to Amazon.com: Online Shopping for Electronics, Apparel, Computers, Books, DVDs & more and get some used college text books for pretty cheap on the subject, too.

If you are really open-minded and interested in this topic, and won't let your faith blind you to other information which may contradict your beliefs, you might just change your mind, not about whether there is a God or whether Jesus died for your sins, but about just how God works.

 

[Care4all]

Noone with any comprehension of evolution ever said we evolved from chimps

from apes or ape like creatures...

from wikipedia....

Human evolution, or anthropogenesis, is the part of biological evolution concerning the emergence of Homo sapiens as a distinct species from other hominans, great apes and placental mammals. It is the subject of a broad scientific inquiry that seeks to understand and describe how this change occurred. The study of human evolution encompasses many scientific disciplines, most notably physical anthropology, primatology, linguistics and genetics.

The term "human", in the context of human evolution, refers to the genus Homo, but studies of human evolution usually include other hominins, such as the australopithecines. The Homo genus diverged from the australopithecines about 2 million years ago in Africa. Scientists have estimated that humans branched off from their common ancestor with chimpanzees—the only other living hominins—about 5–7 million years ago. Several typological species of Homo, now extinct,[1] evolved. These include Homo erectus, which inhabited Asia, and Homo neanderthalensis, which inhabited Europe.

Archaic Homo sapiens evolved between 400,000 and 250,000 years ago. The dominant view among scientists is the recent African origin of modern humans (RAO) that H. sapiens evolved in Africa and spread across the globe, replacing populations of H. erectus and H. neanderthalensis. Scientists supporting the alternative hypothesis on the multiregional origin of modern humans (MTO) view modern humans as having evolved as a single, widespread population from existing Homo species, particularly H. erectus. The fossil evidence is insufficient to resolve this vigorous debate,[2] while studies of human population genetics have largely supported a recent African Origin explanation.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Personally, if there turns out to be a god (deity), I would be much more impressed and in awe about an evolving creating set in motion just so as to bring us the this very moment, where the natural laws of the universe would combine with our perception, will, and actions, to create all we see around us than a series of incompetent attempts to create man that had to be erased and the need to make things 'as they are' and set the light from the stars in motion partway here, so as to try to set the stage ahead of time and act as though god could have created the amazing conditions described in the first possibility. In the latter case, that's is if the xtian propaganda is right, god is pretty incompetent. in the first, more deistic, scenario, the power and mind of such a deity would be truly awe-inspiring, and the wonder of a self-evolving creation would be truly striking. Of course, one could then argue whether the course was planned or left to fate, or to what degree it was planned out- in either case, however, the wonder of it all would be truly impressive

With that I very much agree.

We put God into a box when we say he could not have set the ball rolling and included evolution in the laws of nature.

Heck, Christians assume he set up the law of gravity, why wouldn't he also set up a plan for life to evolve as things change?

Immie

Interestingly enough.......they have proven that humans NEED gravity to develop properly during gestation, as well as for the first couple of years of life.

 

[JBeukema]

Interestingly enough.......they have proven that humans NEED gravity to develop properly during gestation, as well as for the first couple of years of life.

We also need air. Fish need water. It's funny how species evolve according to the conditions of their environment, isn't it?

 

[007]

on your other thoughts of our relationship to monkeys or chimps or whomever...there is absolutely no Scientific proof, the MISSING LINK has not been found, as of yet....so there is no purpose for me to hypothesis on this issue....

Sorry, Care, but JBeukema (did I get that right?) is right. There isn't a single link between homo sapiens and the common ancestor from which we and other primates have evolved. There are, in fact, many links, transitional fossils, that clearly show the evolution of homo sapiens from homo erectus and australopithicus, etc. etc. Did God create many other bipedal species of primates that are very similar to us who went alternated going extinct and the next, more human-like species appeared in the fossil record until the last one which went extinct in about the same place and time, when and where homo sapiens began to appear in the fossil record? What about neandertals? They existed at the same time homo sapiens did? Did God create them and then decide he liked the slimmer, more intelligent version better?

Transitional Fossils of Hominid Skulls

The Transitional Fossil Challenge for Creationists | Progressive U



Just check those links above. But you can also purchase a biological anthropology text book which will lay it out for you in a way that's easy enough for a college freshman to understand. I took the course while majoring in Anthropology at Colorado University, and talk about fascinating stuff and hard to deny without being irrational about it.

Here is a page of a thread where N4ddissent explains it very well and articulately:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/72160-science-under-attack-in-texas-11.html

This is directed at others on this topic:

you know the daffodil flower has 94% of the same genetic make up as human's as well....

JBeukema is also right about this. Science has answered these questions, but Christian propaganda, without much scientific validity or verifiability, still challenges the very valid, credible, verifiable, and believable research studies which support human evolution.

Why can't Christians believe in common ancestry? Couldn't God have created the conditions wherein single-celled organisms would develop, that then evolved under His influence into the current level of biodiversity? There is A LOT of scientific evidence which suggests and supports that that is exactly what happened (minus the God part). But that doesn't mean God didn't mean for it to happen that way.

Are you kidding? I have been around LONG ENOUGH to have been taught that we came from apes or apelike creatures (edited and corrected from chimp).... I know how science jumped ahead of itself first hand....I have never been reared to be overly religious or anything of the such....(I just chose to be later on in life, after I had a kazillion experiences and time to think about it)

I am glued to Discovery channel, the Learning Channel, National Geographic channel and Pbs with Nova etc....I don't watch anything else on the tv, other than 24/7 news for politics...I don't work anymore so, it is me and the tv and housework for most of the day and night...

I love this stuff...

And there are still programs about searching for the missing link on this, NOW....not just ages ago....and I admit, other than these programs, it has been decades since i had it in school, but you would THINK that the whole world would have been made aware of this SECOND or 100th NEW theory of how we evolved and from whom or what....

So why don't you youngsters tell me what the "going thing" being taught is now on how we evolved....?

ps. I just saw the links above, I will look at them!*

Care

Exactly care. Darwin's theory is STILL referred to as a theory. Evolution has NOT been proven. Sure there's website after website that loves to build it up as though it's been proven, but it hasn't. If it had, it would have been the biggest story of the century and it would have been plastered all over every TV network in the world. Until you see that, you can pretty much rest assured scientists "findings" of evolution just don't pass the proof test.

You can't have evolution without their first being life. NO ONE has ever been able to PROVE where life came from on this planet, or all the water for that matter. There's nothing but theories for that as well. Creation is just as viable as any theory in existence.

Start with "where did life come from" before you claim we evolved.

 

[JBeukema]

Exactly care. Darwin's theory is STILL referred to as a theory. Evolution has NOT been proven.

Google 'observed speciation', 'genetic drift', and so forth. It's been observed- the highest empirical proof- that evolution occurs and is ongoing

You can't have evolution without their first being life.

Evolution is not abiogenesis

 

[AllieBaba]

Evolution within a species has been observed...passing on of traits, mutations, etc.

This doesn't disprove the theory of life being created by God. Life started somewhere. We believe it started with God, in the way the Bible states.

Which hasn't been proven to be in conflict with what real science has shown us.

 

[Toro]

Evolution within a species has been observed...passing on of traits, mutations, etc.

This doesn't disprove the theory of life being created by God. Life started somewhere. We believe it started with God, in the way the Bible states.

Which hasn't been proven to be in conflict with what real science has shown us.

Perhaps God did start the universe but it almost certainly did not happen in the Christian manner. We know that the earth is younger than the sun, for example, which contradicts Genesis. The earth was not created before the universe.

 

[Amanda]

Evolution within a species has been observed...passing on of traits, mutations, etc.

This doesn't disprove the theory of life being created by God. Life started somewhere. We believe it started with God, in the way the Bible states.

Which hasn't been proven to be in conflict with what real science has shown us.

Perhaps God did start the universe but it almost certainly did not happen in the Christian manner. We know that the earth is younger than the sun, for example, which contradicts Genesis. The earth was not created before the universe.

I don't think the Bible has to be literally correct to have a good message. I know there are "errors" which are in conflict with science. It doesn't bother me. If the people that wrote the Bible had known what we knew now they might have written it different, but they didn't they were doing the best they could with what they had. None of which changes the central message of loving each other.

 

[JBeukema]

I don't think the Bible has to be literally correct to have a good message. I know there are "errors" which are in conflict with science. It doesn't bother me. If the people that wrote the Bible had known what we knew now they might have written it different, but they didn't they were doing the best they could with what they had. None of which changes the central message of loving each other.

Wait.. what happened to the literal word of an infallible god?

 

[Amanda]

I don't think the Bible has to be literally correct to have a good message. I know there are "errors" which are in conflict with science. It doesn't bother me. If the people that wrote the Bible had known what we knew now they might have written it different, but they didn't they were doing the best they could with what they had. None of which changes the central message of loving each other.

Wait.. what happened to the literal word of an infallible god?

I dunno, not my problem.

 

[JBeukema]

I misread your post, Amanda. I thought it said 'I think'


So... genocide, forcing a girl to marry her rapist, murder, conquest, killing all unbelievers... that's a 'good message'?

 

[del]

I misread your post, Amanda. I thought it said 'I think'


So... genocide, forcing a girl to marry her rapist, murder, conquest, killing all unbelievers... that's a 'good message'?

use a lighter line and a dry fly, troll.

and for chrissake, quit casting your shadow on the water.

 

[JBeukema]

No troll. Just someone whose read the bible. She said the bible has a strong message, so I'm asking her if these messages from the bible are good in her opinion

 

[del]

No troll. Just someone whose read the bible. She said the bible has a strong message, so I'm asking her if these messages from the bible are good in her opinion

sure thing, izaak


tell me another one.

 

[JBeukema]

What do you think dell? Is genocide a good message? What about making a virgin girl marry her rapist and telling slaves to accept their place? What about the passages stating that a woman should remain silent? Are these good messages in your opinion? I would contend that they are horrible messages

 

[del]

What do you think dell? Is genocide a good message? What about making a virgin girl marry her rapist and telling slaves to accept their place? What about the passages stating that a woman should remain silent? Are these good messages in your opinion? I would contend that they are horrible messages

i think they're all excellent ideas, especially genocide.
who wouldn't?

watch it, you'll snag that elm on your back cast.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Exactly care. Darwin's theory is STILL referred to as a theory. Evolution has NOT been proven. Sure there's website after website that loves to build it up as though it's been proven, but it hasn't. If it had, it would have been the biggest story of the century and it would have been plastered all over every TV network in the world. Until you see that, you can pretty much rest assured scientists "findings" of evolution just don't pass the proof test.

Let me just correct a little misunderstanding. You're right, Darwin's Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection is just a theory. There is so much supporting evidence to the theory, however, that anthropologists, biologists, geneticists, and even criminologists (who use the same genetic markers that the other fields of study use to support human evolution from australopithecines, for convictions) work with it as a framework, and so far no one has found any evidence which refutes the theory. But, you're right, it is a theory.

Evolution, which is not Darwin's theory, is a scientific fact which you can see in everyday life i.e. domestication of animals, different breeds of animals and plants (as in agriculture), cancer, congenital birth defects, etc. Its the reason you look like your parents, and your children resemble you and their mother. Its the reason why each individual of every complex species are not identitical.

You can't have evolution without their first being life. NO ONE has ever been able to PROVE where life came from on this planet, or all the water for that matter.

Also very true. But Darwin's theory doesn't directly address the appearance of life. There are implications of the theory which apply to it, but as wide-ranging as Darwin's theory is, it isn't all encompassing.

There's nothing but theories for that as well. Creation is just as viable as any theory in existence.

The Creation story from the Bible may be as viable as any other theory out there, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that the story of Creation in the Bible is as valid. There isn't any supporting evidence for the Creation story, but there is much, and I mean A LOT, of evidence which suggests that life developed in the primordial soup of early Earth. Nothing has been proven yet, but the evidence is compelling that life began as complex strings of naturally forming DNA and evolved from there over the course of 3.5 billion years (which is an unimaginably long time; so long that no human mind can begin to fully comprehend it) to the level of biodiversity we see today.

Start with "where did life come from" before you claim we evolved.

I think that's backwards. It makes much more logical sense that scientists work backward in order to understand the appearance of life. That's how it has been in every other field of study, to start with observable reality and then move on to what we can not directly observe as we begin to understand more.

And there can be little doubt that homo sapiens sapiens (no, I didn't repeat myself, that is our actual taxonomical name) evolved from earlier forms of hominins. A lot of those who challenge evolution ask for the "missing link". However, there isn't just one link between humans and earlier forms of hominins; there are many and they aren't missing. There was Homo erectus, Homo neandertalis (the neandertals who went extinct after the appearance of homo sapiens in the fossil record - demonstrating that homo sapiens and neadertals co-existed for about 30 to 40 thousand years - 3 to 4 times as long as recorded history).

If one were to study biological anthropology (as I did at CU Boulder), one would learn that homo sapien fossils appeared in the fossil record long after the creation of the planet, the first fossils (bacteria and viruses which took about 3 billion years to evolve into multicellular organisms), the appearance of plants, then sea animals, then land plants and animals, then dinosaurs which died out 65 mya leaving room for mammals to become the dominant organisms, and then monkeys, then primates, then early hominins whose brain capacities show an increase in size over the next 4 million years until they were using tools, but they all died out leaving, eventually, only homo sapiens. Its all very clear in the fossil record and all very logical once one sees the evidence. Scientists haven't just leapt to a conclusion, they evidence is all very clear and easy to see for oneself without taking a "scientist's" word for it.

Why it is the God couldn't have meant for it to happen that way, I don't know. Science has never shown one way or another that God did or didn't set it up so that the course of history happened as all the evidence suggests it did. But fundamentalist Christians who take the Bible very literally will not accept that God could be a subtle planner, a tinkerer, and maybe even a scientist in His own right.