Fundamentalist contradiction....?

Question

Why is it that when you bring up evolution with Christian Fundamentalists, they dismiss it as a theory, saying there isn't ENOUGH scientific evidence to back up any of the clamis of evolution? But then they turn around and say that they believe in God. Isn't the existence of God even more of a "theory" under that logic? It is hilarious to me.

Sorry about the lack of being clear on the question. my question is, how can people have faith in God (since it is only provable by theory), but not evolution?

let me rephrase that, How can they believe in a God, yet completely dismiss evolution?

SEARCH4TRUTH.,...YOU ARE A MORON, WHAT ELSE CAN I SAY?

Answer 1

It's mostly the same old misunderstanding of the word "theory", something that has long since ceased to be a matter of honest misunderstanding and instead has become a matter of willful ignorance.

Evolution is a fact: living beings evolve, and the current beings evolved from earlier forms. There's no serious dispute about any of that, and that's why creationists established propaganda organizations to spread false stories like the "dinosaurs existed alongside humans" one cited above.

Whether or not life on Earth came from evolutionary processes on Earth in the first place is still an open question, with the significant alternative being that the Earth was "seeded" by life coming from elsewhere.

The whole creation story is neither true nor even a "theory" - it's a myth, but has come to be used as a political tool in recent years. It doesn't explain anything at all, of course, and in resorting to the supernatural cannot substitute for science.

Answer 2

Faith or belief is pretty much based on how one percieves the world. I as a Christian believe that evolution and Creation go hand in hand. God spoke in metaphor as Jesus did. Fundamentalists take the metaphor as literal and close their minds to any other logic. Every time I look at nature, I'm even more convinced that there is a God.
Believe what you want to but I'm definitely a believer in Christ.

Answer 3

Evolution deals with matters of the physical realm. Christians believe that all physical things originated from the spiritual realm. God spoke creation appears. God is spirit. God's word says that the natural mind cannot perceive things in the spirit because you need spiritual discernment to know things spiritual. So unless your spirit is made alive by acknowledging Jesus as your Savior and have the Holy Spirit living in you to give you spiritual discerment you can never know the existence of God. The Bible says it
is the Holy Spirit that bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God.
Knowing the reality of God is not an issue of logic or of the mind but of the spirit. People with dead spirits cannot encounter the living God.

Answer 4

nicholas your statement is flawed--- evolution is a theory --otherwise it would be taught as the "fact of evolution" --however, i do not as a christian dismiss the therory at all-- my logic is an omnipotent being without the constraints of time may very well begin life from scratch and sit back and watch what happens ...my logic for God is there is order in the chaos... and by definition you and i are mathematical impossibilities .... the laws of physics did not evolve-- and in every culture on earth there appears to be some form of spiritual laws-- for example karma...or reap what you sow, etc ... im glad you find God so amusing..im sure he probably finds you the same way

Answer 5

neither way has proof that is incontrivertable.

As one of those Fundie biochemists, I say it is a theory, because it is a theory


I used to believe in evolution, God created, then evolved over 5 billion years, with god's guidence in the background.

then I became a 6000 year old earth believer. I do it because I see more proof in that then 15 billion year old earth.
One big problem with evolution is dinosaurs - Every culture has paintings of dinosaurs (dragons), all over the world is found dinosaur tracks and human tracks imbedded together. They can't get the stories printed in reputable journals because it would cause chaos in the field, or ridcule.
Several other reasons, but that wold make this too lengthy


thank you for editing your questions, you are showing humility, and respect

Answer 6

optimistic - if: a million. there isn't any archeological discovery that contradicts its money owed. because of the fact there are none that contradict the Bible. 2. If, like the Bible, it claims an authorship of the two divine and human origins 3. If there have been hundreds of stressful situations in the time of historic past to its authenticity, that have been shown to be mere vapor. an common occasion is that critics used to assert "The Bible claims there are copper mines in Palestine. all of us know of none. subsequently, the Bible is incorrect. Lo and behold, copper mines have been found. those issues which could be widespread have been widespread. there isn't any different e book in literature like the Bible. it quite is not a "holy e book come down from God to a minimum of one guy" yet is sixty six books written by utilising dozens of authors over 1400 years in a minimum of three languages on a minimum of three continents. yet, the consistency in message and coherenncy is staggering. The Holy spirit "superintended" all of the human authors, utilising their historic past, their education, and their information to jot down poetry, historic past, and letters - all of the mutually as putting down precisely what he had to. Very unique - in simple terms like the resurrection. Which, by utilising the way, is the considerable to Christianity. no count if it quite is genuine, then Jesus is who he stated he's (the Son of God). no count if it quite is not, Christianity is ineffective, ineffective, and could be rejected.

Answer 7

Because you'll never be able to prove that God exists. Science cannot find God

Answer 8

True Dat!

Answer 9

cool...and ur question is..?

Answer 10

You are 100% incorrect. I have done the research and it is the other way around. The existence of God is backed up by scientific laws. Evolution is riddled with assumptions. Here is my proof.

The following evidence comes from THE GREAT BOOKS OF THE WESTERN WORLD vol. 2 & 19. St. Thomas Aquinas said:

ARTICLE 2. Whether It Can Be Demonstrated That God Exists?
I Answer that, Demonstration can be made in two ways. One is through the cause, and... The other is through the effect... When an effect is better known to us than its cause, from the effect we proceed to the knowledge of the cause. And from every effect the existence of its proper cause can be demonstrated, so long as its effects are better known to us, because since every effect depends upon its cause, if the effect exists, the cause must pre-exist. Hence the existence of God, in so far as it is not self-evident to us, can be demonstrated from those of His effects which are known to us.

ARTICLE 3. Whether God Exists?
I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion.... [Newton’s second law of motion] whatever is moved must be moved by another. If that by which it is moved be itself moved, then this also must be moved by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover, seeing that subsequent movers move only because as they are moved by the first mover... Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover which is moved by no other. And this everyone understands to be God.

The second way is from the notion of efficient cause.... There is no case known (nor indeed, is it possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself, because in that case it would be prior to itself, which is impossible.... Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect.... Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity... [or] to be or not to be. ...If everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. [FACT: Matter can not be destroyed nor created; at most it changes form i.e. solid, liquid, gas. Physical Law: the first law of Thermodynamics.] Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence -- which is clearly false. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary.... Therefore we must admit the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble, and the like. But “more” and “less” are predicated of different things [like a match in comparison to the sun]... Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being [a Supreme Being], goodness, and every other perfection. And this we call God.

The fifth way is taken from the governance of things. We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end... Hence it is plain that they achieve their end not by chance, but by design. Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence, as the arrow is directed by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are ordered to their end; and this being we call God.

EVOLUTION AND CREATION:

One main reason evolutionists and creationists differ in opinion is because they have a different premise. Evolution scientists believe everything originates from a series of changes and can be explained by time, chance, and continuing natural processes that are inherent in the organization of matter and energy. (Creation X) Evolution is commonly applied to the historical development of life and has been expanded into virtually any subject matter all the way to the development of the universe itself. Like most ideas, the Theory of Evolution has evolved into something it was not originally believed to be.

Creationists believe in evolution, but not to the extreme that every living thing evolved from a single cell into the complex organisms of today. In essence evolution means change. Micro-evolution (small changes) within species is a scientific fact that Creationists readily acknowledge (120). However, macro-evolution (tremendous changes) is a belief that is simply not evident in nature.

There are two kinds of Creationism; scientific and Biblical. Scientific creationism bases its beliefs upon the scientific data. In fact, creation scientists believe that scientific creationism and Biblical creationism should be taught independently of each other. Some of the most brilliant scientists in the history of the world were creationists: Newton, Pascal, Pasteur, Galileo, Faraday, Kepler, and so on.

While it is often asserted that Creationism is based on religious beliefs, evolution has its beliefs based in atheism and secular humanism. The Supreme Court has classified atheism and secular humanism as religions. The evolution model is atheistic in nature while the creation model is theistic. One evolutionist wrote an article titled, "Creation 'Science' Is Dishonest." On the contrary, scientists who assert evolution as a "fact" only need to look at the history of their false findings and hoaxes of man's "missing links" to see their hypocrisy (156 and 159). It is one thing to personally believe in evolution and relate it and all evidence associated with it as circumstantial, but to assert it as a "fact" is unethical and prejudicial.

Another reason why creation scientists view things so differently from evolutionists is simply a matter of differing interpretation of the data. Even evolutionists do not agree with one another because of differing interpretations of the data, especially when it comes to biological classifications. So, why are creation scientists shunned?

Evidence for evolution can be interpreted in different ways. Comparing anatomical similarities between different organisms can provide evidence for evolution. The forelimb in vertebrate animals can be compared bone for bone. The upper arm, forearm, wrist, hand, and fingers are distinguishable (53 and Britannica 7:9). While evolutionists contend that this is evidence of, "descent from a common ancestor (evolution)" creationists believe that this is no more than proof of, "a common design (creation)."

A second piece of evidence for evolution is shown in the development of organisms. The embryonic stage of development is so similar that a frog, chicken, salamander, or human embryo are virtually indistinguishable. Evolutionists believe these amazing similarities show how organs and structures have changed their form and function with evolution. Creationists show what evolutionists call "useless evolutionary leftovers" are in reality necessary functional structures (62 and 66).

A third source of evidence that evolutionists use comes from chemical evolution or "hot soup" as Dr. Stanley Miller calls it. In 1953 he conducted an experiment using a "primordial solution" along with an electrical discharge to simulate lightning. He became successful in producing amino acids commonly found in nature. Creationists hold that it is no more than science fiction that would make a scientist conclude that life could result from a hypothetical chemical evolutionary process. There is no evidence to support this kind of speculation.

A forth source of evidence is related to genetics. This evidence relies on the process of mutation in order to validate the theory of evolution. In the documentary Genetics: Patterns of Diversity it concludes, "But still, the controversy remains. The challenge to Darwin's theory is to explain these molecular changes in terms of natural selection." There are many other challenges to Darwin's theory. Creationist Dr. Parker states:

Evolutionists assume that all life started from one or a few chemically evolved life forms with an extremely small gene pool. For evolutionists, enlargement of the gene pool by selection of random mutations is a slow, tedious process that burdens each type with a "genetic load" of harmful mutations and evolutionary leftovers.

...The creationist mechanism works and it's consistent with what we observe. The evolutionist assumption doesn't work, and it's not consistent with what we presently know of genetics and reproduction. As a scientist, I tend to prefer ideas that do work and do help to explain what we can observe. (Creation 115)

It is an established fact that mutations can not be the mechanism that explains the process of evolution because it leads to the destruction of the organism.
Now, the creation model for variety that Parker refers to is the genetic square (114). This is the mechanism which is believed to have caused differences among people at the Biblical "Tower of Babel" incident. "Variation within created types" is a scientific fact (107). This is the (creationist) mechanism by which we observe such diversity among organisms. Evolutionists try to exaggerate this scientific fact to further their claims. The fact is, as Dr. Gary Parker wrote, "Creationists don't believe that frogs turn into princes... but rather that frogs and people were separately created from the same kinds of molecular 'building blocks'". The creationist mechanism works!

The fifth and most popular source of evidence used by evolutionist stems from the fossil record. Evolutionist Jay Savage states, "We do not need a listing of evidences to demonstrate the fact of evolution..." (V). Encyclopaedia Britannica (14:376) under a section called "The speculative nature of phylogeny [via fossil record]" states, "...judgements of relationships among organisms are almost always based upon incomplete evidence..." This means assumptions are used to fill in the missing pieces of evidence. Britannica also states, "The overwhelming majority of species that have ever lived have long since been extinct and with them the connecting links necessary for the direct demonstration of the descent of modern organisms from common ancestors." This statement shows that the evidence does not exist for Savage to "demonstrate the fact of evolution." He sidesteps the scientific process and logic thereby showing his bias thereby discrediting himself, his profession and the theory.