Why is Christianity opposed to the theory of Evolution?

[Crowns&Laurels]

Don't be silly. Science is currently providing more knowledge than ever before. Knowledge that helps us communicate, fight disease, feed the world, and on and on.

Irrelevant.

You just don't like where the evidence is leading science in regards to your personal beliefs.

You don't really know what I believe to make that assertion. In fact, if you did, you would that statement is obsolete because my beliefs transcend the redundancies of creation vs evolution evidence.

Did you know that its starting to look like Jesus Christ never existed?

So scientists are historians now? Gee, are there any good thing these omnipotent beings aren't?

 

[justlookinla]

You know, I can only try reasoning with you for so long before I realize all I'm getting in return is a bloody forehead and a big headache.

By 'reasoning with me', you mean attempting to sway me to embracing a Godless evolutionary view which produced humanity from an alleged single life form (unknown) of long ago.

Sorry, that's not a Christian viewpoint.

 

[justlookinla]

The question was if there existed a non-mammal that can give raise to a mammals and the question was answered with synapsids, for he reason being that mammals are specialized synapsids - so called mammalian synapsids.

Either synapsids are mammals or they're not. The question stands.

Most reasonable people will accept that so diverse mammals such as a squirrels and whales both are mammals without start asking question about when a 150 tons aquatic whale shrank to the size of mouse, got up on land, got fur, four legs, climbed up in the trees and start crack nuts. So why is it so hard to accept that mammals are synapsids as well without asking malformed question about when mammals stopped laying egg (which they never did, e.g. platypus) ?

Most reasonable people will be curious about the non-mammalian life forms which preceded, and later produced by some method, mammalian life forms.

"The platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus) also known as the duck-billed platypus is a semiaquatic egg-laying mammal"

-- wikipedia

(For all I know it is possible that those synapsids that became mammals stopped lay eggs after they where specialized to mammals - but I don't know so I don't say anything).

Somehow it seems like creationist believe if I cant tell when a 150 tons aquatic whale shrank to the size of mouse, got up on land, got fur, four legs, climbed up in the trees and start crack nuts then they have refuted that a whale is a mammal. But they haven't - they only proved how illogical or ignorant they are themselves. What is worst is the smug attitude they have about it. I find that obnoxious since the purpose is not to learn but to deny in any way possible.

My only point was in response to the earlier claim that mammals always produce mammals. Yet we have claims that non-mammals produced mammals thus lending credence to mammals being able to produce non-mammals entirely through naturalistic mechanisms.

 

[Black Dog]

Irrelevant.

See what I mean? When you don't like something, you deny it.

You don't really know what I believe to make that assertion. In fact, if you did, you would that statement is obsolete because my beliefs transcend the redundancies of creation vs evolution evidence.

Yet you are on this forum defending creationists and creationism time and time again.

So scientists are historians now? Gee, are there any good thing these omnipotent beings aren't?

Of course scientists examine the past. Are you home schooled?

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

See what I mean? When you don't like something, you deny it.

Just because science does good things doesn't mean it is always right, or even that certain directions it goes in isn't completely biased.

Yet you are on this forum defending creationists and creationism time and time again.

I'm an old earth creationist. Why would I not defend other creationists?

 

[justlookinla]

Just because science does good things doesn't mean it is always right, or even that certain directions it goes in isn't completely biased.

You're right, science has it's errors and biases throughout history. Still has them and will have them in the future.

 

[Black Dog]

Just because science does good things doesn't mean it is always right, or even that certain directions it goes in isn't completely biased.

You are correct, where science goes has nothing to do with it doing good things. Nor is science always right. Science goes where the evidence points. Try anything else and you get eviscerated by your colleagues.

I'm an old earth creationist. Why would I not defend creationism?

You said I didn't know what you believed in this regard. Obviously I did, because I looked at the evidence. Gotta love evidence.

 

[Black Dog]

You're right, science has it's errors and biases throughout history. Still has them and will have them in the future.

Can you provide one documented case of widespread scientific bias in the last century?

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

You said I didn't know what you believed in this regard. Obviously I did, because I looked at the evidence. Gotta love evidence.

I believe that what science mistakes as evolution is actually the repeated extinction of animals in which God replaced and renewed until the cultivation and biosphere of the planet was sufficient for His purpose of mankind.

 

[justlookinla]

Can you provide one documented case of widespread scientific bias in the last century?

Ah....the conditional of "widespread".

 

[Black Dog]

Ah....the conditional of "widespread".

Obviously. I'm sure you can find one scientist who has exhibited bias. They are human. You said "science" was biased, so any bias would be widespread, involving most, if not all, scientists.

 

[justlookinla]

Obviously. I'm sure you can find one scientist who has exhibited bias. They are human. You said "science" was biased, so any bias would be widespread, involving most, if not all, scientists.

"Widespread" is a subjective term.

 

[Black Dog]

"Widespread" is a subjective term.

It is. If "science" is biased, can we agree that you would need to show where 2/3 of scientists are biased?

 

[justlookinla]

It is. If "science" is biased, can we agree that you would need to show where 2/3 of scientists are biased?

No way to show that 2/3 of scientists are biased.

 

[justlookinla]

It is. If "science" is biased, can we agree that you would need to show where 2/3 of scientists are biased?

Here's an example....can't prove it's 2/3, but it seems to be a widespread (whatever that means) bias.

Most scientists have a bias that living matter was produced from non-living matter.

 

[ecco]

By 'reasoning with me', you mean attempting to sway me to embracing a Godless evolutionary view which produced humanity from an alleged single life form (unknown) of long ago.

Are you implying there is a godly evolutionary view which produced humanity from an alleged single life form (unknown) of long ago.

 

[justlookinla]

Are you implying there is a godly evolutionary view which produced humanity from an alleged single life form (unknown) of long ago.

There is an evolutionary view which includes God which produced humanity from an alleged single life form (unknown) of long ago.

www.biologos.org

 

[ecco]

ecco said: ↑
Give an all encompassing definition of life. Then we can discuss.

See my definition of life at http://lifefromgod.com/evolution-is-simple/

Sorry for the delay in responding, but my alerts messed up.

I don't disagree with what is stated in your link. Unfortunately it does not "Give an all encompassing definition of life". If I've misunderstood parts of the article, perhaps you can quote that portion that does give a definition of life.

 

[ecco]

There is an evolutionary view which includes God which produced humanity from an alleged single life form (unknown) of long ago.

www.biologos.org

Right, we've been down that road haven't we. There were several people in that thread, so I may have you confused with someone else. But, aren't you the one who does not believe in "macro evolution"?

 

[justlookinla]

Right, we've been down that road haven't we. There were several people in that thread, so I may have you confused with someone else. But, aren't you the one who does not believe in "macro evolution"?

Yeah, I'm not sure if we've discussed it or not. I do not believe in the position of Godless macro-evolution (atheistic Darwinist evolution).