So how come Christians were able to accept that the world is not flat but they won’t accept evolution?

Question

I would have added a qualifier like ‘most Christians’ or ‘some Christians’ but there wasn’t enough character spaces left. But is it just that a certain amount of time must pass before Christians will accept new knowledge? I mean, I for one see parallels with what Galileo went through and what Darwin went through, but Christians eventually accepted Galileo’s discoveries. Many though, seem adamant about never accepting Darwin’s discovery. Is it because evolution is more of a ‘slap in the face’ for theists than the discovery that the world is in fact spherical?

capnarlo: "...we don't beleive lies.." that pretty much sums up the Christian stance completely. Here's a picture for you..

http://www.flickr.com/photos/9033417@N02/682975234

Answer 1

I love it when you ask a question like this and 'they' come in with their 'monkey talk' – you’re like the straight man in a comedy duo; ‘they’ are the perfect foil.
You just wind them up and off they go.
How do you sleep at night?
LOLz

Thanks for providing an old man with so much laughter.

So far as evolution goes – I don’t know what makes creationists tick (there’s a pun there somewhere).
They haven’t at all thought through the childishness of the creation hypothesis, with all its ramifications but this is where the power of the preacher and the gullibility of the fundie teams up.
“Faith is what your preacher says you must have so that you’ll believe all the other stuff he wants to tell you.”
.

Answer 2

I freely accept new knowledge. I do not accept theory or an idea contrary to my theory or idea without proof. There has never been a new universe made by creation nor by a big bang so it is still only wishful thinking on both sides. The creation and the idea that things came about that way seems more credible. If people ever developed from monkeys, they still would. Big bang people have never been able to cross a turkey and a chicken, a rabbit and a cat, a dog and a mink, a fish and a frog and they say they all came from the same places. There was some guide somewhere or all these things would be able to mix. Living cells would still be made from rocks if the Big Bang theory were true.

I accept that you have a different belief and I do not bemean you because you do not believe like I do. You describe your guess of how the universe came about as a slap in the face. I did not feel it even though you may have thrown the slap. I give you the right to your opinion. Darwin discovered nothing that I can find from any lab. What lab did he use? What did he do? Was his experiment written up in which science books, not theory, but science? The discovery of Galileo could be repeated and it always had the same result. Tell me about Darwin's experiment.

Answer 3

Actually, most Christians are very up on evolution, we read all the latest things on it. Which is how I for one know that Darwin's writings were not original with him, and that many scientists are coming to the conclusion that the linear concept of evolution - a straight line from monkey to man - as proposed by Darwin is flawed and oversimplified. Strange that whenever an atheist posts something about evolution on here, they always cite Darwin and outdated evolutionary "discoveries". Is this because any deviation from the holy texts is a "slap in the face" for atheists and a threat to their faith?

Answer 4

Why might everyone "settle for Evolution" as something extra that a "thought." Even the main effective supporters can not teach evolution to be a actuality. it is not a actuality. existence can not come from non existence. the parable of the primordial soup and of nonliving chemical substances combining to type existence is carefully and scientifically unproven. it may't be carried out in any Laboratory placing. It has not been carried out maximum of cases that scientists are in contract that it may't be carried out. there is not any scientific info what so ever that fins can exchange into feathers or feathers into scales no rely how plenty time a species is given. The observable transformations that scientist see are inter species transformations and not go species transformations. There are not any lacking links. Reptiles do not exchange into mammals. It only would not ensue that way. So say the scientists helping the assumption of evolution. What evolution is, it our superb wager, supported via authentic info, as to how we've been given right here. Any scientist nicely worth his salt should help comprehend that it somewhat is an incomplete thought at superb. it continues to be somewhat effectual. It nonetheless logs the form of guy or woman species by way of time. it continues to be clever in explaining the historic sessions and animal existence on out planet. actuality: it is the main clever thought that we've immediately and it would stay used until eventually some thing extra clever comes alongside. it would; even nevertheless, not be commonplace as something extra advantageous than a clever gadget. in actuality, it would be challenged. purely via complicated the assumption can or not it is made extra ideal. For the assumption to strengthen and strengthen it would conquer the stressful situations placed previously it. consequently some distance it has not met all of them. in accordance to creationist thought, God certainly did create organisms that have been able to survival devoid of having to evolve. He created each and every thing and the countless stuff has only died off. there isn't an evolution of guy according to fossils yet somewhat there have been as quickly as many ape like creatures on earth alongside with guy. "So assert the Creationist." in my view speaking, with each and all of the great stuff being found on Mars and with the explosion of existence in the worldwide, i'm leaning in direction of the countless option history theories at the instant. We, people, would quite have been transplanted onto the planet. it type of feels to be making further and further experience. i'm somewhat looking forward to the extra exploration of Mars.

Answer 5

I think Christian's are learning to accept evolution at the same rate that scientists are learning to accept the existence of spirituality. Just as with evolution there's lots of evidence to show spirituality exists but not a lot of understanding about it unless you study hard and look at numerous text around the world and through centuries of mankinds history. Christian's may not have a good grasp of evolution and find it hard to believe we came from monkeys. Evolution of course didn't claim we come from monkeys and just like spirituality has a lot to say and needs careful and indepth study to understand. Taken on face value yes it does sound ridiculous to the questioning mind. Most who accept evolution, I suspect know almost nothing about it. While Christian's much the same reject it with out knowing much either.

Answer 6

I doubt that many people in the last 2000 years (and that includes all Christians) have thought the world was flat. The Greeks, for example had it worked out well before then.

Galileo's dispute was with those who insisted the sun revolved around the earth rather than the earth around the sun.

Answer 7

Well - there are Flat Earthers if i recall correctly.

Second, in the case of Galileo - i know there is this sort of romantic view that it was lone Galileo vs. The Church.

Why do people forget that he had his defenders, most notablely, Francesco Barberini and two other cardinals whose names slip through my mind.

Answer 8

If you read the Bible literally, the world is declared to be flat. I think there's a reference to God appearing and all people can see him. The only way that could happen is if the earth were flat. Also, if you look at the earth, it appears flat. People didn't have anywhere near the scientific knowledge back then that we do now. However, the Bible is NOT a science book, it never claims to be, and it should not be taken as such.

Answer 9

Galileo's dispute was with those who insisted the sun revolved around the earth, not vice versa, and most people at the time believed the same. Further study showed conclusively otherwise.

The difference with evolution (from goo to you) is that with increasing knowledge its becoming more and more obvious that macro evolution doesn't fit the facts. The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today. The human brain's complexity shows a higher intelligence behind it. There is an intelligence to it, the ability to reason, to produce feelings, to dream and plan, to take action, and relate to other people. How does one explain the human brain? "Chance" or "natural causes" are insufficient explanations.

Answer 10

The difference is HARD IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE.

And even there is one, it takes them centuries to get around to accepting the concept.

Remember that it's only in the 20th century did the Catholic Church accept that Galileo was right? Oh.... about 400 years after?