Christians accept the Bible as truth, which in the case of allegorical or poetic passages in the bible is not the same thing as literal facts. Incidentally, the majority of Christians are free to believe that evolution may have been the mechanism whereby God developed man's physical nature.

I have one Bible and you have thousands of books on evolution, and more will continue to be written because the old ones will never seem convincing enough.

it is all based on the reliability of the source. The Bible is more reliable than all of the books on evolution because the Bible is God's Word, and therefore is without error.

Some (especially young earth advocates) argue that God planted all these misleading clues such as bogus fossil records as a means to test our faith. The problem with this is - God does not deceive those who are honestly searching for truth. He may choose to not reveal everything to us at once, but He doesn't litter the universe with deliberately false clues just to confuse us.

I don't. Christians who reject evolution do so because they believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of the sole omnipotent, omnescient deity. This is a presumption that they do not subject to question, and does not require proof. Thus, nothing can refute this inerrant word. They use an unending series of largely illogical rationalizations for the scientific and historical inaccuracies (as well as severe moral flaws) in the Bible. This is their belief, and it isn't subject to proof or logic.

I believe in both. There is such a thing as believing in a higher power that set this thing in motion and uses evolution for his own ends. The Bible is a teaching tool and has lots of examples, stories, parables, etc. I do not believe it literally. Too many oral traditions, translations, etc.

Just because most people thought that the earth ws flat are we to beleive the majority? All you need is one piece of truth.

Actually humans have not proven one thing about evolution there are 1000's of theories but no actual facts!

I don't think the problem is acceptance or rejection. It is knowledge versus ignorance. The vast majority of christians, and I mean THE VAST MAJORITY, haven't even read Genesis, any Gospel, of Facts. How can you expect, dear Mister Sloth, these guys will accept a far more complicated (accurate, valid and full of evidence) scientific theory if they barely understand their catechism.

It's simple: you trust and/or are persuaded/convinced by the author of the 1 book, and neither trust nor have been convinced by the authors of the other books. After Einstein left Nazi Germany, Hitler sponsored and promulgated a booklet intended to discredit him and his Theory of Relativity entitled, "1000 Scientists Against Einstein". When a journalist showed it to Einstein and asked him what he thought, he took one look at the title and said, "If I was wrong, 1 would have been enough." But, be that as it may, the Bible has nothing to say on the subject of evolution, for or against it. There is nothing un-Biblical about evolution. I and most thinking Christians -- and the honest scientists -- reject evolution on purely scientific and philosophic grounds. And my experience with the "evolution fundamentalists" is that evolution is an unscientific theory in that there is apparently no evidence that might be found or test that could be conducted that would disprove it, at least to the satisfaction of its proponents. *Note: I am NOT saying anything here regarding the age of the earth, the order of creation, or whether or not existing species developed out of different species. I'm using the term evolution quite specificially and technically: "the theory of evolution" is that species developed GRADUALLY by infinitessimally small increments accumulated over eons through the process of natural selection. Rationally, this cannot work -- e.g., the transition between a 2 chambered heart and a 4 chambered heart can't be made by infinitessimally small increments: a creature with a 2.1 or even 3 chambered heart is DEAD. Also the 2 additional chambers must come into existence with the lungs and a completely functional respiratory system... AND all this has to happen in several animals of different sexes in reasonable proximity to each other, or the new "species" (of 1) would die out. Reason necessitates AND the fossil record proves that speciation occurrs by vast systemic changes in just a single generation... and that aint evolution.

"What could cause intelligent (even brilliant!) men and women to bang their collective heads against the brick walls of 'proving evolution' when every new discovery in geology, paleontology, genetics, probability, information theory, design inference, and even cosmology throws a monkey wrench into evolutionary thought and creates a new obstacle for which these brilliant minds must now conjure new and contrived explanations? The answer is Methodological Naturalism. The quotes on this site are meant to demonstrate how far naturalistic scientists will go, (as Professor Lewontin has said), to preempt any possibility of letting a "Divine Foot" in the door." ~Jon Saboe

Firstly, the Bible is not written as a textbook on anti-evolutionary theory. In amongst the important teachings of the Bible are these starting points: 1)God existed before it all 2)God created the heavens and the earth 3)God created humans as special creations to rule over and care for the earth He created, under His authority. Christians still hold to these beliefs. I do not claim to speak for all Christians, as I know that many of my American brothers and sisters hold stronger views against evolution than I, but I must say that we all believe that the Bible is true in what it claims, and has been proven so in the lives of billions of Christians throughout history. Personally, I do not accept evolution as a fact, which in reality, neither does science. Evolution is still a theory. It does have (apparently) lots of support in the fossil record, but that support only holds up IF you accept an evolutionary viewpoint to begin with. If you were to look at the fossil record through non-evolutionary eyes, you might see it differently. I am not talking out of thin air. I have studied Antropology and I love it. I have also learnt a lot about evolution's clay feet by studying Anthrop. What the average person does not see are the many discoveries that cannot be explained by evolution, that are pushed to the backburner by scientists because they cannot explain them. Let me give you an example. Several years ago, a discovery of h sapiens remains was found in Georgia (former USSR) that threw the whole timeline of h sapiens into disarray, because it was so old. (This was reported in National Geographic at the time, BTW, so is documented.) One of the scientists was recorded as saying "I wish we could just put them back in the ground". (Funnily enough, very little about this discovery has been printed since!) Let me give you another example: Lake Mungo in Australia, about 10 000 BP was home to two distinct groups of humans, living side by side. One was definitely Aboriginal, the other resembles h erectus. The information on this discovery was coming out as I was studying Antropology 30 years ago....but seems to have been pushed to the back too. Too hard to deal with. ANd a third: what on earth are the mini-skeletons coming out of Flores in Indonesia? These small humans seem to have interacted with other residents of the island well into historical times, and there were reports as late as the 19th century. And another:The Laetoli footprints. Disovered by Mary Leakey, the renowned anthropologist, they have been dated at 3.6 million years. Leakey attributes them to her famous discovery h afarensis (best known skeleton is "Lucy"), but Lucy's skeleton has no feet, so this cannot be verified. What these footprints DO resemble is h sapiens footprints. But was h sapiens around 3.6 million years ago? According to evolutionary theory, impossible, because h sapiens is the end product of evolution, but what if this is not what happened? It has to be acknowledged as a possibility, doesn't it, especially if these footprints DO resemble h sapiens closely? The field is split on support.... What is Leakey's take on the possibility? The question was put to her at a lecture she gave on the footprints. Her answer" They cannot be h sapiens, because h sapiens wasn't around 3.6 million years ago." The questioner (who I met) asked again: "But what if he WERE?" "Impossible" was the curt answer. The reason that many Christians have not thrown in their lot with evolution lies there. Evolution is a theory, and it is still being worked out. Evidence is coming out every day, both for it and against it. However, much of the against will only appear in obscure journals, and will never make it into the textbooks that teach children in school that evolution is a done deal. It might surprise you to know that there are many prominent scientists in many fields, who do not accept it, and are not Christians. I remember that the Head of our Science Department at one school I taught in came and did a lecture on "Why I don't believe in Evolution". He was a PhD in Physics, an agnostic, no axe to grind, but he did not believe that the fossil record proved evolution and he had very interesting proofs. In summary, you can wake, eat, brush your teeth, dress, go to work and come home to sleep, without evolution even entering into your thoughts. It makes no difference to the lives of billions of people all over the world. Faith in Jesus, however, influences the lives of billions and inspires them to run programmes for the poor, to teach and run health-care in war-torn areas of the world, to deliver aid to victims of natural disasters, and feed millions daily out of their own pockets. That is the proof of the Bible-that belief in its teachings motivates people to make a difference in the world.

100.000 lies do not equal one Truth.

"The Bible's only been on the best-seller list for centuries." ~paraphrase of Davy Jones on an episode of the Monkees Even a Monkee knows better than to believe in evolution

There really isn't any hard proof of evolution. You can't recreate it and observe it, therefore it is not provable by scientific method. Also, if evolution were true, why do we not see transitional species? There aren't any, not even in the fossil record, wouldn't this indicate some serious flaws within the theory? This is why it's called a theory in the first place. I tend to think it's more of a religion, myself.

Christians accept the Bible as revealed truth divinely inspired by God. This is different than looking at something and calling it a fact. I could give you facts that support this view on the scriptures, however, I cannot give you the infallibility of the Bible as a fact, because it is reliant on so much more than someone saying so. Evolution has many bits of evidence for it, unfortunately for those attempting to disprove Christianity through the proof of evolution, Christians, many of us, believe and accept evolution, MICRO Evolution that is. And the vast majority of this 100,000's worth of evidence supports micro and not macro evolution.

Simple - Christians are raised Closed minded, so they wont accpet anything else. Therefore, are annoying.

as I see it, evolution of plants is acceptable. evolution of humans isnt acceptable. there seems to be proof for plant evolution. there doesnt seem to be proof for human evolution. that isnt too stupid is it?

There is plenty of evidence. Everything that you see had be designed, hence evidence of a designer. The Big Bang!? Even in High School the kids laughed at the name. This is the theory that out of an explosion came order. Every explosion that I've ever heard of results in chaos. Did a nice new larger, better twin towers spring up after the terrorists blew them up? I'm guess that evolutionists have some sort of "evidence" that it already has. We just have to wait eleventy billion years for the quantum jump. Ever find the missing link? NO (mock surprise)! No evidence in the fossil record of any? Any species changing into another species today? Didn't think so. Lucy? Bones from different animals mixed with human bones scattered over a half a mile. Some proof! I don't say that evolution is stupidity (although your insulting attacks make it seem so). Evolution just takes more faith. A mountain of spurious "evidence" doesn't persuade me.

Blind faith in an unsupported claim is a powerful - yet easy - thing. Actual study and investigation into an unknown and the open mindedness to be willing to change your belief based on evidence is difficult and time consuming.

1) A lot of books has also been written in the US or in the Muslim words from religious fundamentalists against evolution. None of those can prove anything, except the strong belief of their authors in the Bible (or the Qu'ran). The further back you go inside the Bible to Noah or Adam and Eve and the creation story, the more mythical and unhistorical it is. On the other hand, science bases on facts and evidence. 2) "Creationism is not a theory of evolution, rather it is a Bronze Age mythology captured in the writings of a band of Hebrews about 2500 years ago. Creationism has absolutely no science that supports it. By the way, your preacher is dead wrong when he tells you that we all come from dirt and rocks. That is not how evolution works. Evolution is about tiny, unrecognizable alterations to replicators that, when beneficial to life, tend to stick around. What Darwin did was to eliminate the need for teleological argumentation, to have to rely on a prime mover to explain the origins of life in the first place. By the way, what does your preacher tell you about the age of the earth?" Source and further information: http://rpassman.wordpress.com/2007/05/23/evolution-vs-creationism-listen-to-the-scientists/

As a Christian, I say that you can believe what you want. Trying to prove the existence of Yahweh God is not my burden to carry just as it's not your burden to carry trying to convince me of "all" aspects of evolution. Many aspects of evolution I agree with, some I don't. It's my choice to do so. Frankly, I don't worry about it.