What is wrong with Christians?

Question

So how do Christians justify creationism simply because the have faith in a book of questionable origins, yet deny the overwhelming physical evidence of evolution?

Answer 1

idiots

Answer 2

I find your question to be rather biased and offending. While it is true that almost half of Americans believe that the world was created in six days the other half believes otherwise. But this does not mean that all Christians are narrowminded, fire and brimstone preachers, some Christians hold their beliefs close to their hearts and to hear an idea that blasts away everything they believe in may be too overwhelming for them. Also I do not believe that the Bible is questionable. It was written by scholars over a thousand year period who attempted to explain the world around them. And so these stories became the Gospel when Constantine declared Christianity the official religion of his empire. Do not be so quick to judge other people, there are Christians out there who are willing to accept a different idea as long as it does not threaten the existence of God. Do not be so quick as to label these Christians as "wrong" just because their beliefs are different than yours.

Answer 3

is that the best you can do????? Come on now, how stupid do you think the world is??? You have a handful of fools saying there is no God, most people believe there is. And you go and ask such a rediculous question, come on, get real, you can do better than that.

How much time have you spent doing an honest research of the Bible and all the PROOF that its history and science is right on?

I'll be you haven't spent 5 minutes doing research and making an honest effort to understand it!

If you were having brain surgery, would you want the brain surgeon to be as ignorant of brain surgery as you are of the Bible?

Would you want your cook to have as much experience and knowledge of cooking YOUR dinner, as you have of creation and intelligent design?

Why trust your soul to a handful of people who say they know that we came from monkeys or fish?

Wake up call!!!!!!!!!

Answer 4

There is NO evidence of evolution!!!!!!!!! Look around you, if you think that this beautiful world could have been created by accident you are truly mistaking! How can you believe in the theory of evolution when the inventor of that theory didn't even believe in it himself!? I urge you to rethink your beliefs before it is to late.

Answer 5

I'm a christian, but I think the world was created in 7 billion years instead of 7 days, each day being a billion years and that Adam and Eve were Neanderthals...

Answer 6

Not all of them. You are referring to a narrow stripe of Christians. Many of the Church Fathers argued against a young earth, and the first inklings of evolutionary theory are found in Christian writings. Darwin himself was a Christian.

Answer 7

frozen: You feel there is something "wrong" with Christians in their support of "creationism" ? A better rendition of your question might be ... "What is right with Christians ?" !!!

see: www.dissentfromdarwin.org (CSC - Center for SCIENCE and CULTURE) ... if you dare !!!

Answer 8

Give me some evidence? I found this evidence refuting the evolutionary theory of life on this link. I just copied and pasted this information because it explained it better than I ever could. But I truly hope that you read the information and consider it, if you hear me out, I would be more than willing to hear you out.

There is almost universal agreement among specialists that earth’s primordial atmosphere contained no methane, ammonia or hydrogen—‘reducing’ gases. Rather, most evolutionists now believe it contained carbon dioxide and nitrogen. Miller-type sparking experiments will not work with those gases in the absence of reducing gases. See The Primitive Atmosphere.

The atmosphere contained free oxygen, which would destroy organic compounds. Oxygen would be produced by photodissociation of water vapour. Oxidised minerals such as hematite are found as early as 3.8 billion years old, almost as old as the earliest rocks, and 300 million older than the earliest life (these ‘dates’ are according to the evolutionary/uniformitarian framework, which I strongly reject on both biblical and scientific grounds—see Six Days?—Honestly! and Evidence for a Young World).

Catch-22: if there was no oxygen there would be no ozone, so ultraviolet light would destroy biochemicals.

All energy sources that produce the biochemicals destroy them even faster! The Miller/Urey experiments used strategically designed traps to isolate the biochemicals as soon as they were formed so the sparks/UV did not destroy them. Without the traps, even the tiny amounts obtained would not have been formed.

Biochemicals would react with each other or with inorganic chemicals. Sugars (and other carbonyl (>C=O) compounds) react destructively with amino acids (and other amino (–NH2) compounds), but both must be present for a cell to form.

Without enzymes from a living cell, formaldehyde (HCHO) reactions with hydrogen cyanide (HCN) are necessary for the formation of DNA and RNA bases, condensing agents, etc. But HCHO and especially HCN are deadly poisons —HCN was used in the Nazi gas chambers! They destroy vital proteins.

Abundant Ca2+ ions would precipitate fatty acids (necessary for cell membranes) and phosphate (necessary for such vital compounds as DNA, RNA, ATP, etc.). Metal ions readily form complexes with amino acids, hindering them from more important reactions.

No geological evidence has been found anywhere on earth for the alleged primordial soup. See Primeval soup—failed paradigm

Depolymerisation is much faster than polymerisation. Water is a poor medium for condensation polymerisation. Polymers will hydrolyse in water over geological time. Condensing agents (water absorbing chemicals) require acid conditions and they could not accumulate in water. Heating to evaporate water tends to destroy some vital amino acids, racemise all the amino acids, and requires geologically unrealistic conditions. Besides, heating amino acids with other gunk produced by Miller experiments would destroy them. See Origin of Life: The Polymerization Problem.

Polymerisation requires bifunctional molecules (can combine with two others), and is stopped by a small fraction of unifunctional molecules (can combine with only one other, thus blocking one end of the growing chain). Miller experiments produce five times more unifunctional molecules than bifunctional molecules. See Origin of Life: The Polymerization Problem.

Sugars are destroyed quickly after the reaction (‘formose’) which is supposed to have formed them. Also, the alkaline conditions needed to form sugars are incompatible with acid conditions required to form polypeptides with condensing agents. See The RNA World: A Critique.

Long time periods do not help the evolutionary theory if biochemicals are destroyed faster than they are formed (cf. points 4, 7, & 9).

Not all of the necessary ‘building blocks’ are formed; e.g. ribose and cytosine are hard to form and are very unstable. See Origin of life: Instability of building blocks.

Life requires homochiral polymers (all the same ‘handedness’)—proteins have only ‘left-handed’ amino acids, while DNA and RNA have only ‘right-handed’ sugars. Miller experiments produce racemates—equal mixtures of left and right handed molecules. A small fraction of wrong handed molecules terminates RNA replication, shortens polypeptides, and ruins enzymes. See Origin of Life: The Chirality Problem.

Life requires catalysts which are specific for a single type of molecule. This requires specific amino acid sequences, which have extremely low probabilities (~10–650 for all the enzymes required). Prebiotic polymerisation simulations yield random sequences, not functional proteins or enzymes. See Proteins and Casket Draws, Could monkeys type the 23rd Psalm? and Cheating with Chance.

The origin of coding system of proteins on DNA is an enigma. So is the origin of the message encoded, which is extraneous to the chemistry, as a printed message is to ink molecules. Code translation apparatus and replicating machinery are themselves encoded—a vicious circle. A code cannot self-organize. See Self-Replicating Enzymes?

The origin of machines requires design, not random energy. E.g: the Nobel prize-winner Merrifield designed an automatic protein synthesiser. Each amino acid added to the polymer requires 90 steps. The amino acid sequence is determined by a program. A living cell is like a self-replicating Merrifield machine.

Answer 9

I know I would rather take my chances believing in God and find out I'm wrong, then not believing in GOD and find out I was wrong..

If I'm wrong about GOD then so what right?

If I'm not wrong about GOD(which I'm not!) then I'm spending eternity in heaven.

Answer 10

I have yet to see any evidence of evolution. Stick that in your craw for a while and think about it.

Answer 11

Christians can believe on any thing.......no wonder