Why is Christianity opposed to the theory of Evolution?

Status
Not open for further replies.

As I was saying

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2015
1,258
200
82
Drouin, Victoria, Australia
✟2,608.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Getting back to the original question of why Christianity opposes the theory of evolution I'd have to say that it likely is based on the fear that if evolution theory is true it allows for a scientific theory of creation that negates the need for an omnipotent Creator God. In other words, if evolution is a naturalistic process that can be scientifically proven then there is no need for the belief in a supernatural deity running the show. So, in essence it is a threat to the belief in God as creator.

However, I and many other Christians believe that quite the contrary to disproving God, evolution theory actually supports the mysterious and wondrous workings of God in a new and profoundly meaningful way. If one only shifts one's perspective from the Creation story as a static event that occurred at some point in the Biblical past to one that sees creation as an ongoing story of God's magnificent and glorious plan unfolding over Time then Evolution takes on a wholly new and Holy wondrous meaning. We are part and parcel of an unimaginable unfolding of beauty, majesty and mystery. God's story of creation is not finished, it is not completed, and it needs us as active participants helping to usher in God's Kingdom right here in this world that we are inhabiting. Right here on Earth! That is the story of evolution. it is a story that leads right up to us human beings and to Jesus, the one of us who recognized his own divine origin and spoke up. And how are we going to take that story to it's next chapter? That my fellow Christians is the real question.

But, at the beginning God created man and at the end of the day we have man and everywhere in between we have man. What you might say is the same yesterday, today and forever which is not surprising as that is what Jesus is.
 
Upvote 0
Jan 23, 2013
408
130
✟9,894.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I never said "kind" was a scientific theory. i said it was a statement of fact.

You said that evolution tells us that we weren't made after our own kind. Evolution is a scientific theory, and "kind" is not a scientific term. Evolution says nothing whatsoever about "kinds" in any context.

I watched one TV programme about evolution and the evolutionist said we evolved from a sand worm no bigger than our thumbnail. I watched another one where David Attenborough said we all evolved from a fish.

I question whether your memory of these programmes is complete and accurate.

Ah yes. The evolutionists favourite evidence. We have produced it in the lab. Nothing in real life but the lab will do.

I gave you two examples of evolution which have occurred in nature within the last hundred years.
 
Upvote 0

joshua 1 9

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 11, 2015
17,420
3,592
Northern Ohio
✟314,577.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
My question is: why do some Christiants refuse to accept evolution as a reasonable explanation to our becoming if the data strongly suggests it?
The do not reject the data. They just reject some of the more bazaar and desperate theorys that they need to get the theory to work. For example, they do not accept that God uses virus, mutations, errors and mistakes to make the universe. This sort of an approach clearly conflicts with what the Bible teaches. But there is no problem with true science we can find founder effect in the Bible, and a lot of the other 101 evolution theorys.
 
Upvote 0

joshua 1 9

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 11, 2015
17,420
3,592
Northern Ohio
✟314,577.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Indeed. The thing is though, only science is actually doing that....
If that were true then evolution would be false.

Religion changes, like... never.
If evolution were true then religion would evolve and change just like everything else. If anything anywhere in the universe remained consistent and did not change then evolution could not be true.
 
Upvote 0

NothingIsImpossible

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
5,619
3,254
✟274,922.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I'm more concerned with how many christians on here believe evolution is real in terms of where we came from. I mean.... that blows my mind. The bible is the Word. And Word is God. God is the Word. Hence what the bible says is truth. So how can someone say evolution (again in terms of how we came to be) is true? Then your basically saying Gods word isn't accurate. And your turning away from God at that point.

Now does evolution exist outside of the whole "humans evolved" thing? I am unsure. I call it adapting, not evolution. I have heard to of animals that have "evolved" so to speak but even if that is the case I don't believe evolution is a thing. I'd rather be safe then sorry when I get to heaven and Gods like "So, why did you believe in evolution?" It wasn't real!". After all we all know the devil does whatever he can to draw us away from God. Science at times is the devils best tool because we think logical and we tend to look at science as the answer to everything. Heck some Christians believe in the big bang because science told them its real. Despite having no physical evidence. Just theories about everything. Saying life began x amount of billions of years ago is easy to do. And trying to bring tools into it is flawed. Tools can be flawed. I mean a tool is invented by a man, programmed by a man who has math calculations and formulas in his head based on what HE thinks is real.

So the tool by default is built on bias information. Like carbon dating for example. Which is more proof of the devil at play. Every tool can be used by him to trick us.
 
Upvote 0

marcusyg

Member
Aug 5, 2013
6
0
✟7,616.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Hi peeps, there are so many posts, so I might be repeating some opinion mentioned before; but on the off chance I'm not, i'm just going to share my two cents.

I think the reason why Christianity is often 'opposed to the theory of evolution' is due to the theological and moral repercussions that can arise from a fundamental integration of the concept of evolution in human thinking. Firstly, for a Christian, evolution affects the way we look at God. Did God actively create everything we see, or did he just create the physical laws of the universe that allowed life and evolution to occur? If evolution is true, its impression on the Christian faith would be that God is passively affecting our lives, he seems less personal, less inclined to do the miracles mentioned in the Bible. If it was well integrated into a Christian's faith, it would make the person reconsider the events of the Bible, possibly accepting a more 'post-modern' interpretation.
Secondly, it affects theology in many ways. As mentioned before, it makes you question the miracles of the Bible. The question also arises, if evolution was true and Christianity was true, why would God create the brutal environment for life which we live in in order to advance life? The more genetically suitable to the environment survive, while the less suitable die off, allowing the species to grow more and more resistant to environmental conditions, and often becoming more brutal in the process. This doesn't seem theologically sound. Isn't God the God of the weak, the poor, the dejected, the broken hearted? Doesn't he often despise the strong, the rich of this world because of their pride and selfishness? If you accept both views, then you view God as a hypocrite who purposely created a horrible world which he himself despises. From a Biblical perspective, the conditions of the world that make evolution possible in the current sense were brought about from the fall, and the entering of sin into the world. This would of course not make much sense, and simply become esoteric information subject to each person's opinions if you were to take a post-modernist, or evolutionary take on the Genesis account of the world.
Lastly, it affects a person's world view. If you are a Christian, then it would be of no surprise that if your theology is affected, then your world view would be as well. If one was to take the most fundamental understanding of evolutionary theory, which is survival of the fittest and usually most brutal, and death or eventual genetic death of the least (brushing aside the almost self contradictory and varied theories of human kindness, compassion and love evolved for the benefit of the humanity) and take that as one of the fundamental truths of life by which to understand other things, we have the perfect environment for a psychopath, to put it bluntly. I know many otherwise nice people (whom I believe have cognitive dissonance or a very complex syncretic way of thinking) who simply believe that it's only right that the brutally strong rule, and the weak are subjugated. While most people would find that thinking psychopathic, I believe most educated people probably believe that in the back of their minds. So who rules the world right now? Is it simply the psychopaths, the people who take advantage of the system? Or does God ultimately rule?
 
Upvote 0
Jan 23, 2013
408
130
✟9,894.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
The do not reject the data. They just reject some of the more bazaar and desperate theorys that they need to get the theory to work. For example, they do not accept that God uses virus, mutations, errors and mistakes to make the universe.
The theory of evolution has nothing whatsoever to say about the origin of the universe.
 
Upvote 0

Crowns&Laurels

Well-Known Member
Jul 11, 2015
2,769
751
✟6,832.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
From my last post, #210, I mentioned that I didn't know what the Catholic Church has as a resolution to theistic evolution, so I went and did a little research.

What the RCC is holding to is the notion that the body is a vessel created through evolution, but that the souls of men did not evolve nor are they inherited. Falling back on Pope Pius XII, who stated that the creation of a human soul is immediate, they continue with the usual doctrine that sin comes in through bodily inheritance which conflicts the soul thereafter.
 
Upvote 0

Wonkyu

Member
Jun 27, 2015
6
1
57
✟7,631.00
Faith
Protestant
upload_2015-10-21_21-10-45.png


Exactly. Now you understand my point. Let death play essential, Key Role in your life. Live your life according to the nature of death. Plan your life up to your existence in the world. Save your 401K to match your life style.
That's how most people plan their lives. Be average. Obey to your ultimate master, Death.

My life is ruled by God of life and the even death obeys him. So are you letting death rule your life?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

eclipsenow

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works
Dec 17, 2010
8,361
1,754
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟145,263.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Only one reason. If you believe in Evolution, you deny God (because He is the CREATOR). Man was created in the image of God. If you believe in Evolution, you are denying this too.

Sorry, that's woefully simplistic.
First, Genesis 1 and 2 are creative narratives more like parables. They contradict the order of creation, the very sequence of plants and animals and mankind, right next to each other! I think that's just one literary cue we are given to understand these passages as theological in intent, not literal.

Second, I'm a TE: Theistic Evolutionist. I still believe God created the world. I don't deny that at all. We're just disagreeing on how because you don't know how to read early Genesis!
 
Upvote 0

Wonkyu

Member
Jun 27, 2015
6
1
57
✟7,631.00
Faith
Protestant
upload_2015-10-21_21-35-5.png


As Bible is not the right source of finding out "how", we will never agree on the method of his creation. However whether you are a TE or a pseudo christian, we should not disagree on "Why". The importance of why you have(if any) your children is way far more important how you had your children. I hope you understand.
 
Upvote 0

eclipsenow

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works
Dec 17, 2010
8,361
1,754
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟145,263.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
View attachment 164593

Exactly. Now you understand my point. Let death play essential, Key Role in your life. Live your life according to the nature of death. Plan your life up to your existence in the world. Save your 401K to match your life style.
That's how most people plan their lives. Be average. Obey to your ultimate master, Death.

So was Adam going to die if He didn't get the tree of life? Was this tree of life going to maintain him as an immortal human being? In other words, how do we know we didn't evolve and then at some point God 'woke us up' as fully sentient human beings capable of relationship with him, but full of our genetic diseases and degradation, and needing some outside influence to keep us alive? Remember what God said if we sinned? We would die. Then how did we die? We were banished. God did not strike us down with lightning, but we were excluded from the tree of life. We were sent out into the wilderness. We were returned to 'normal'. From dust to dust. This is Baddedley discussing 1 Cor 15, and early Christian thought on these matters. Enjoy.

*****

What is important for our discussion however, is the way in which Paul here seems happy to intermingle conditions arising from sin and conditions arising from creation without any attempt to distinguish them. Adam is earthy, he is from the earth, and is living soul. Accordingly his body is natural, and so is mortal, perishable, weak, and ends in dishonour. Paul is very clear that death is the final enemy, and is the result of sin—he returns to this theme in the next verse after what I’ve just quoted above. And yet, the way he talks about Adam in contrast to Christ in these verses makes the difference seem primarily to do with creation versus new creation. After all, he is focusing on Adam’s natural body, the fact that Adam is from the earth and so is earthy, and the nature of Adam in Gen 2:7. Nothing about what he says here about Adam seems drawn from chapter three. I've shortened it....

That is, the basic picture in 1 Cor 15 seems to be both that death is a tyrant, and Christ’s final enemy and that Adam and his image-sharers (us) are by nature mortal and perishable and that we need to be fundamentally changed to be made immortal.

How is this to be understood? I’ll highlight three ways I think Christians have often sought to understand this. This isn’t an exhaustive list, and there are variations of how these views could be expressed, and they can be combined in different ways, but it’ll give some pegs for thinking:

First.... Second....

Third, Adam was mortal by nature but immortal by participation. That is, left to ourselves, death is as natural to human beings as it is for all other parts of the animate creation. There is nothing inherently immortal about flesh and blood—which is why flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God but must be put off for us to put on imperishability and immortality. What Adam and Eve were given was a source of life external to themselves that enabled them to enjoy a share in God’s own eternal life and so be kept from death. This was mediated through the Tree of Life.

On this view death is unnatural when at looked at from the point of view of God’s purpose in creating humanity. We were made to stay connected to God through trusting his word and obeying it and so stay in the realm of life by being caught up in something greater than ourselves. Yet death is natural when looked at from the point of view of humanity’s nature. Humanity was made mortal like all creatures and so once we were cut off from God, we faced death like every other animal. ....
Two, I think it is arguably the dominant position of the early church. It’s not the only position in the early church, my impression is that Tertullian, for example believes that human souls are inherently immortal. Nonetheless, the view I’ve tried to unpack briefly here is held by a number of respected and orthodox teachers in the early church. I’ll give some brief extracts from Athanasius as an example:
For the transgression of the commandment was making them turn back again according to their nature; and as they had at the beginning come into being out of non-existence, so were they now on the way to returning, through corruption, to non-existence again. The presence and love of the Word had called them into being; inevitably, therefore when they lost the knowledge of God, they lost existence with it for it is God alone Who exists, evil is non-being, the negation and antithesis of good. By nature, of course, man is mortal, since he was made from nothing, but he bears also the Likeness of Him Who is, and if he preserves that Likeness through constant contemplation, then his nature is deprived of its power and he remains incorrupt. De Incarnatione §4
Here, I hope, it should be clear that the basic schema is fairly similar to what I’ve outlined. Humanity is by nature mortal ‘of course’ (!). This is because he is a creature, and so has been made from nothing (a common link among the early church fathers in my reading—that which has a beginning naturally has an end as well). Hence, returning to non-existence is natural for humanity. But because humanity bears the Likeness of the Son, that underlying nature ‘is deprived of its power’ and humanity ‘remains incorrupt’. I’ll give one more example to show this isn’t an exception:
For God is good—or rather, of all goodness He is Fountainhead, and it is impossible for one who is good to be mean or grudging about anything. Grudging existence to none therefore, He made all things out of nothing through His own Word, our Lord Jesus Christ; and of all these His earthly creatures He reserved especial mercy for the race of men. Upon them, therefore, upon men who, as animals, were essentially impermanent, He bestowed a grace which other creatures lacked—namely, the impress of His own Image, a share in the reasonable being of the very Word Himself, so that, reflecting Him and themselves becoming reasonable and expressing the Mind of God even as He does, though in a limited degree, they might continue for ever in the blessed and only true life of the saints in paradise. De Incarnatione§3
Here Athanasius indicates that men naturally die because we are fundamentally animals: ‘men who, as animals, were essentially impermanent.’ What makes us different from all other animals is a particular grace we have that nothing else has—we are made with an impress of God’s own Image, and share in the rationality of the Word of God. This is ‘so that, reflecting Him…they might continue for ever…in paradise.’ Here Athanasius is briefly stating my key points—human beings are animals and so are mortal. Our immortality came through our link to God forged by our sharing in the nature of the Word because we had the imprint of His Image within us.

Much more good stuff on this theme here.
http://reflectionsinexile.blogspot.com.au/2007/11/problems-with-creation-science-iv.html
 
Upvote 0

marcusyg

Member
Aug 5, 2013
6
0
✟7,616.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Hi peeps, there are so many posts, so I might be repeating some opinion mentioned before; but on the off chance I'm not, i'm just going to share my two cents.

I think the reason why Christianity is often 'opposed to the theory of evolution' is due to the theological and moral repercussions that can arise from a fundamental integration of the concept of evolution in human thinking. Firstly, for a Christian, evolution affects the way we look at God. Did God actively create everything we see, or did he just create the physical laws of the universe that allowed life and evolution to occur? If evolution is true, its impression on the Christian faith would be that God is passively affecting our lives, he seems less personal, less inclined to do the miracles mentioned in the Bible. If it was well integrated into a Christian's faith, it would make the person reconsider the events of the Bible, possibly accepting a more 'post-modern' interpretation.
Secondly, it affects theology in many ways. As mentioned before, it makes you question the miracles of the Bible. The question also arises, if evolution was true and Christianity was true, why would God create the brutal environment for life which we live in in order to advance life? The more genetically suitable to the environment survive, while the less suitable die off, allowing the species to grow more and more resistant to environmental conditions, and often becoming more brutal in the process. This doesn't seem theologically sound. Isn't God the God of the weak, the poor, the dejected, the broken hearted? Doesn't he often despise the strong, the rich of this world because of their pride and selfishness? If you accept both views, then you view God as a hypocrite who purposely created a horrible world which he himself despises. From a Biblical perspective, the conditions of the world that make evolution possible in the current sense were brought about from the fall, and the entering of sin into the world. This would of course not make much sense, and simply become esoteric information subject to each person's opinions if you were to take a post-modernist, or evolutionary take on the Genesis account of the world.
Lastly, it affects a person's world view. If you are a Christian, then it would be of no surprise that if your theology is affected, then your world view would be as well. If one was to take the most fundamental understanding of evolutionary theory, which is survival of the fittest and usually most brutal, and death or eventual genetic death of the least (brushing aside the almost self contradictory and varied theories of human kindness, compassion and love evolved for the benefit of the humanity) and take that as one of the fundamental truths of life by which to understand other things, we have the perfect environment for a psychopath, to put it bluntly. I know many otherwise nice people (whom I believe have cognitive dissonance or a very complex syncretic way of thinking) who simply believe that it's only right that the brutally strong rule, and the weak are subjugated. While most people would find that thinking psychopathic, I believe most educated people probably believe that in the back of their minds. So who rules the world right now? Is it simply the psychopaths, the people who take advantage of the system? Or does God ultimately rule?

By the way, when I was referring to evolution, I was referring to the evolutionary theory that all life as we know it evolved from one small simple organism. The fact that organisms change to suit their environment is irrefutable, it's simple cause and effect; but all organisms, including fascinatingly complex organisms (including us sentient humans) evolving from extremely simple organisms, that is debatable - it is arguably against the entropic nature of the universe.
 
Upvote 0

eclipsenow

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works
Dec 17, 2010
8,361
1,754
Sydney, Australia
Visit site
✟145,263.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
By the way, when I was referring to evolution, I was referring to the evolutionary theory that all life as we know it evolved from one small simple organism. The fact that organisms change to suit their environment is irrefutable, it's simple cause and effect; but all organisms, including fascinatingly complex organisms (including us sentient humans) evolving from extremely simple organisms, that is debatable - it is arguably against the entropic nature of the universe.
And yet what if science slowly proves that it did? The fossil record alone should be convincing, and I know of plenty articulate Christians in the evolutionary sciences that have no problem with it.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

marcusyg

Member
Aug 5, 2013
6
0
✟7,616.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
And yet what if science slowly proves that it did? The fossil record alone should be convincing, and I know of plenty articulate Christians in the evolutionary sciences that have no problem with it.
Did you read my posts? I really don't get the point of what you said. I am saying it is debatable. How do you know for certain the morphological differences between the fossils were simply the result of natural variation within a species? Take for instance the massive differences between dogs - all the same species, yet morphologically so different. In fact the fossils found in Georgia (the country) has been making scientists reconsider the ancestry of humans in the theory of evolution. They found several fossils of 'proto-humans' which all had very different skull shape, which they would have likely considered different species if found in different geographical locations; but now believe are all from the same species. This is why they are simplifying the ancestry of humans according to the theory of evolution.
Regardless of this, my posts were about the original question of the thread, not about whether evolution is correct. So your comment really is irrelevant.
 
Upvote 0

marcusyg

Member
Aug 5, 2013
6
0
✟7,616.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Did you read my posts? I really don't get the point of what you said. I am saying it is debatable. How do you know for certain the morphological differences between the fossils were simply the result of natural variation within a species? Take for instance the massive differences between dogs - all the same species, yet morphologically so different. In fact the fossils found in Georgia (the country) has been making scientists reconsider the ancestry of humans in the theory of evolution. They found several fossils of 'proto-humans' which all had very different skull shape, which they would have likely considered different species if found in different geographical locations; but now believe are all from the same species. This is why they are simplifying the ancestry of humans according to the theory of evolution.
Regardless of this, my posts were about the original question of the thread, not about whether evolution is correct. So your comment really is irrelevant.
Here's a link about the Georgian fossils if you would like to read it:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/131104_lumperssplitters
 
Upvote 0

Rattus58

Newbie
Dec 1, 2013
272
5
Hawaii
✟15,443.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Is it because it refutes the idea of Adam and Eve, original sin, and coming of Jesus?
Or are there any other reasons?
The point is, that God Created Us. God also created the means that evolution progressed though Intelligent Design. Evolution couldn't have happened without Intelligent Design which allowed the right parts to accomplish the need at hand. Adam and Eve could have been through evolution... a guided mutation such as had to happened with apes, if you accept that course had to be directed... and the ONLY possible explanation for that would have been Intelligent Design. Man and Woman... Penises and Vaginas aren't random experiments nor are the the things that go on around the body during creative activity. God Created us, and he created the mechanism that we evolved so perfectly. Evolution doesn't work without giving credit to God our Creator... Period!
 
Upvote 0
Oct 16, 2014
47
8
✟15,321.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Why is Christianity opposed to the theory of Evolution?

There is a simple, yet entirely complicated answer to this question. Evolution is simply not compatible with Christianity because of the following reasons:

1) Genesis 1:1 - "In the beginning God created..." This is an undeniable fact and the entire backbone of our FAITH as Christians, and Jews for that matter. If you do not believe in this simple statement of fact, then everything else is a moot point. You must first trust and believe in this fact. Evolution may have taken place on a microevolutionary scale (which even I disagree with), but it most certainly did not take place on a macroevolutionary scale like the way its being taught in public education and "higher" education establishments. Even some private schools and private universities are now entertaining this and it's simply unbiblical to believe in macroevolution.

2) What comes first? Faith or obedience? Faith does! Without faith there is no obedience. This pearl of wisdom is directly associated with 2 of the heroes of the faith: Noah and Abraham. Both had tremendous faith, yet Abraham was skeptical and even wavered in his faith when he conceived a child with Hagar on the request of his faithless wife, Sarai. What does this have to do with evolution? It means that your faith must drive you to obey the commandments that God has written in the hearts of man. This includes belief in what Moses wrote in Genesis, "In the beginning God created..."

3) Someone has already mentioned the point of nothing +nothing = nothing. This is a scientific fact! To conclude otherwise is to violate one of the foundational principles of the scientific enterprise: causality. To claim that the universe is uncaused is ultimately absurd. Further, to claim that the universe is self-caused would likewise be absurd. The big problem is that if the universe created itself, it would have had to exist and not exist at the same time. How about philosophically? An eternal universe would include an infinite series of causes and effects that would never lead to a first cause or starting point. This is known as an infinite regress, which is philosophically impossible. One cannot assert that this finite thing caused this finite thing, and another finite thing caused the first one, and on and on into eternity past, because this merely puts off the explanation indefinitely. Regardless of how many finite causes are in the past, eventually one of them would have to both cause its own existence and be an effect of that cause at the same moment. This is crazy! If the universe is not uncaused, if it is not self-caused, if it is not eternal, the atheist or unbeliever is in a real dilemma to explain where the universe came from. Atheism cannot explain why there is something rather than nothing. In sum, out of nothing, nothing comes. But something exists. Where did it come from? (Ron Rhodes) This is why evolutionists have to always go back and constantly adjust the record of how old the Earth really is...to fit their argument. The more they learn about science and the complexities of life, like DNA for one example, the older the Earth must be to justify their belief in infinite regression. That's why the theory of evolution in its infancy went from millions of years, to tens of millions of years, to hundreds of millions of years, to now billions of years. No matter how good you are, you simply cannot take a 3000-piece Lego set and dump it onto the floor and get what you see in the picture on the box....not in 1 year. Not in 100 years. Not in 100 million years. Not in billions of years will you spill a 3000-piece Lego set that comes out looking exactly like image on the front of the box. I believe Charles Darwin himself once said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case.” He could find no such case....and yet today we now have knowledge of just how complex a single strand of DNA really is. The science today directly refutes Charles Darwin's theory.

4) To accept evolution as fact, the Christian must concede that death happening over and over again repeatedly in order to create something better (mutation), would mean that death over and over again causes life. However, this sort of thinking is the direct opposite approach to God, who is the Creator of life. Why would God, who creates, allow destruction and chaos to occur to bring about life? It's a direct contestation to the whole character of God! Further, it counters the infallible Word of God which states that "God created..." Some Christians may call themselves theistic evolutionists, but the truth is I believe they only label themselves that for their belief in microevolution. It's the macroevolution that takes more faith to believe in than simply intelligent design or a Creator behind the creation.


These are just some points to ponder. I hope this helps!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Jan 23, 2013
408
130
✟9,894.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Evolution may have taken place on a microevolutionary scale (which even I disagree with), but it most certainly did not take place on a macroevolutionary scale like the way its being taught in public education and "higher" education establishments.

Macrevolution = microevolution + time.

2) What comes first? Faith or obedience? Faith does! Without faith there is no obedience. This pearl of wisdom is directly associated with 2 of the heroes of the faith: Noah and Abraham. Both had tremendous faith, yet Abraham was skeptical and even wavered in his faith when he conceived a child with Hagar on the request of his faithless wife, Sarai. What does this have to do with evolution? It means that your faith must drive you to obey the commandments that God has written in the hearts of man. This includes belief in what Moses wrote in Genesis, "In the beginning God created..."

Of course, throughout most of the history of Christianity, most people would have understood much of the Bible to be metaphorical and allegorical, rather than literally true.

3) Someone has already mentioned the point of nothing +nothing = nothing. This is a scientific fact!

Actually, it's been demonstrated that quantum particles can spontaneously appear out of nothing.

To claim that the universe is uncaused is ultimately absurd. Further, to claim that the universe is self-caused would likewise be absurd. The big problem is that if the universe created itself, it would have had to exist and not exist at the same time.

Christians, of course, face exactly the same dilemma with God - he cannot be uncaused, and saying that he caused himself is absurd. Invoking God doesn't resolve these problems, it just pushes them back one step.

This is irrelevant to this thread, though, as the theory of evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with the origins of the universe.
This is why evolutionists have to always go back and constantly adjust the record of how old the Earth really is...to fit their argument. The more they learn about science and the complexities of life, like DNA for one example, the older the Earth must be to justify their belief in infinite regression.

That science adjusts its conclusions according to the evidence rather than adhering to dogma despite the evidence is a strength, not a weakness.

4) To accept evolution as fact, the Christian must concede that death happening over and over again repeatedly in order to create something better (mutation), would mean that death over and over again causes life. However, this sort of thinking is the direct opposite approach to God, who is the Creator of life. Why would God, who creates, allow destruction and chaos to occur to bring about life?

Ask any animal who is not a vegetarian whether death can sustain life.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.