Why do people deny evolution?

Christianity is presented as Jesus Himself as the clarification and culmination (renewal back to perfection of everything and,everyone who believes in the entire universe) of the relationship between man and God threough the natural world. This clarification can be understood as the clarification and conclusion of all Pagan, and Jewish religions (and possibly all others as well). The Pagan religions are man's best interpretation of the ancient relationship between man and God through nature. This was clarified by the prophets in the first books of the bible (genesis) where the Pagan religions and the bible come from the same sources. Jesus was there as the Words in that information presented in both the oral stories and the information stored in the atoms of nature and developed by man as a logical understanding of natural law and the laws of nature.


That ancient information (God's plan as vaguely understood by man through nature and man's relationship with God that is now weakened by sin) was then clarified by the Jewish prophets with the prediction that the Word of God would become flesh and clarify the message and initiate the completion of the renewal of the relationship between God, man, and the universe that was broken by man's sin.

So, I think Paganism should not be described as preceding Christianity, it is better described as the initial step in a man's relationship with God that developed in a process over thousands or millions of years that culminates in the Jewish religion that laid the groundwork (the genetic bloodline and the written explanation) for the physical and spiritual renewal of the relationship between God, mankind and each individual as a person through the person of Jesus Christ who is the Word made flesh.

Just don't worship it as such or you're setting yourself up for oppositionalism/satanism.

Thank you.

Your own words have shown the obvious contradictions in your own story.
How do you expect to be taken seriously?

Welcome. Ehrman is an atheist BTW, and one of the best current scholars on these matters. He sees 'Jesus mythicists' as about as crazy as evolution deniers, and I agree with him.

For sure, but at least he’s an intellectually honest one. Unlike Dawkins who is a joke when it comes to explaining reasons for his position.

do explain, where are the contradictions?

problem is, there never was a 'jesus christ' in the first place,

Furthermore, you are just rationalising. every story in the bible can be found in much older pagan religions. that is just a fact.

That you don't want to see that christianity is just recycled paganism isn't my problem. you seem to still want to cling to your belief.
and that is fine with me. I feel that is your right.

this is all what you thought , still now evolution is seen as scientific theory not as scientific fact ... even Charles Darwinian wrote is his book that he has no faith in evolution but he needs to bring it as a topic to be studied ,

Ah, someone else who doesn't know what theory means in scientific terms.

From Berkeley EDU:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

Dawkins was an imbecile and a bushist war mongerer, with much Iraqi blood on his effete hands.

And you don't see a problem with this? You take it just on authority?

the evidence against the evolution shite is huge

another one:

1. Just the individual contents of the mouth alone form a complex integrated system in which each part is useless without all others in place.

2. Complex Integration: Remove just component, and the whole structure becomes non-viable.

3. For that reason alone (although there are many other flaws) Darwin's ridiculous paper gets an "F."


But of course the crazy evil-utionists have their rationalizing ready.

You say Christianity is recycled Paganism I say it is the fulfillment of Paganism.

Arguing there was no Jesus Christ is not accepting mainstream scholarly understanding of history.

If you can’t understand mainstream historical scholarship and the difference between recycling and completing a process is a problem I think you need to address.

Its a DEFINITION. You dont likedefinitions? Eviution is amply supportrd by observation and experiment. Think DNA.

Yes, well what about dna? dna is invalidating to evil-lotion theory!

fullfilment? lol, yeah right!



That's right, so what? evil-lotion is also mainstream which I also don't accept.
what are you trying to say here? That mainstream got it right? lol



I my eyes there is no completing of a process, that is really rubbish. The idiotic psychopathic and sociopathic christian chrurch has stolen all that. If it was completion there should be a difference in the stories, There is not, it's just replicated. Those idiotic in the catholic church just stole it. Very easy to see if you want to see it. Otherwise you are blinded by the dogma's of the psycho and sociopathic church.


Completion my arse!

Nonsense.

There is no way to replicate the process of involving DNA by random input of information. There are witnesses to Jesus Christ. Plus if Evolution by random input of information is not believable then you need somebody with the necessary characteristics to be the intelligence behind it. Jesus seems to fit those characteristics the best.