Why is Christianity opposed to the theory of Evolution?

[AV1611VET]

That said I understand your wall of text as an answer that you are against the theory of evolution, so no need to reply to this unless I am incorrect.

Well I'm certainly against the theory of evolution.

And I don't need a wall of text.

Just the first five words of the Bible will do.

Genesis 1:1a In the beginning, God created ...

 

[Meowzltov]

That means that non-mammals produced mammals. Somehow.

There would have been transitional species, ones with intermediate mammary glands, etc. "Lactation appears to be an ancient reproductive feature that pre-dates the origin of mammals." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2688910/

The most primitive mammals still in existence today are the monotremes. They lay eggs and then nurse their young once they are hatched. They are called monotremes because they have one hole that serves for urine, feces, and reproduction.

 

[Meowzltov]

Well I'm certainly against the theory of evolution.

And I don't need a wall of text.

Just the first five words of the Bible will do.

Genesis 1:1a In the beginning, God created ...

I also believe God created. I believe that using evolution was part of his method for creating. God can create any way he wants to.

 

[justlookinla]

There would have been transitional species, ones with intermediate mammary glands, etc. "Lactation appears to be an ancient reproductive feature that pre-dates the origin of mammals." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2688910/

The most primitive mammals still in existence today are the monotremes. They lay eggs and then nurse their young once they are hatched. They are called monotremes because they have one hole that serves for urine, feces, and reproduction.

The point was a simple one. Non-mammals produced mammals....somehow.

 

[justlookinla]

I also believe God created. I believe that using evolution was part of his method for creating. God can create any way he wants to.

Isn't that dependent upon one's faith-based view.

 

[Meowzltov]

The point was a simple one. Non-mammals produced mammals....somehow.

The point is simple. At some point in time there existed a species that can't really be classified as either mammal or non-mammal. It would have to ARBITRARILY be put into one group or the other.

 

[justlookinla]

The point is simple. At some point in time there existed a species that can't really be classified as either mammal or non-mammal.

If the life form wasn't a mammal, it wasn't a mammal. It was a non-mammal. Whatever it was, seems nobody knows.

 

[Meowzltov]

Isn't that dependent upon one's faith-based view.

I'm just saying that believing in "those three words of Genesis 1;1" are NOT the reason you dismiss evolution, since a whole lot of people accept those three words and still accept evolution.

 

[Graham Lloyd Dull]

Do you misunderstand me with purpose? I said mammals are synapsid, not that synapsid was mammal.

What we 'really want to know' is at what point a synapsid ceased laying an egg, and commenced giving birth to live young?

We are told that 'they gradually evolved increasingly mammalian features.'

Did a mother synapsid lay an egg, and the daughter synapsid hatching from that egg go on to give birth to live young? (This would constitute an immediate transition.)

Or was there a long transitional period where generations of synapsids gave birth in increasingly different ways, and eventually the egg laying aspect was forever dropped, and the resulting offspring forever after gave birth to living young? (What were the transitional ways of giving birth that were neither by egg, or by live birth?)

 

[justlookinla]

I'm just saying that believing in "those three words of Genesis 1;1" are NOT the reason you dismiss evolution, since a whole lot of people accept those three words and still accept evolution.

Nobody who accepts those three words accepts Godless Darwinist evolution.

 

[justlookinla]

What we 'really want to know' is at what point a synapsid ceased laying an egg, and commenced giving birth to live young?

We are told that 'they gradually evolved increasingly mammalian features.'

Did a mother synapsid lay an egg, and the daughter synapsid hatching from that egg go on to give birth to live young? (This would constitute an immediate transition.)

Or was there a long transitional period where generations of synapsids gave birth in increasingly different ways, and eventually the egg laying aspect was forever dropped, and the resulting offspring forever after gave to living young? (What were the transitional ways of giving birth that were neither by egg, or by live birth?)

I doubt you're going to get an explanation.

 

[Meowzltov]

If the life form wasn't a mammal, it wasn't a mammal. It was a non-mammal. Whatever it was, seems nobody knows.

I'm saying a transitional form. It's not really a mammal, and it's not really a reptile, or a bird, or any other category. The problem is with the very idea of categories.

Our categories are kind of fake. They work in a given time frame. But they don't work OVER time, because species are fluid, they are constantly evolving and changing into entirely new things over the long haul. God created us from the dust of the earth, and there has been millions of years and a gazillion different forms in between dust and today.

 

[Meowzltov]

Nobody who accepts those three words accepts Godless Darwinist evolution.

There is nothing Godless about evolution. The connection exists only in your fearful imaginings.

 

[justlookinla]

I'm saying a transitional form. It's not really a mammal, and it's not really a reptile, or a bird, or any other category. The problem is with the very idea of categories.

Our categories are kind of fake. They work in a given time frame. But they don't work OVER time, because species are fluid, they are constantly evolving and changing into entirely new things over the long haul. God created us from the dust of the earth, and there has been millions of years and a gazillion different forms in between dust and today.

Do you believe the first alleged life form was a plant or animal?

 

[justlookinla]

There is nothing Godless about evolution. The connection exists only in your fearful imaginings.

Darwinist evolutionary theory is Godless. God isn't wanted, needed or allowed in that particular view of evolution.

 

[Meowzltov]

What we 'really want to know' is at what point a synapsid ceased laying an egg, and commenced giving birth to live young?

Remember that some mammals (monotremes) lay eggs.

 

[Meowzltov]

Nobody who accepts those three words accepts Godless Darwinist evolution.

Do you imagine that if you say it enough times that it will your fallacies will disappear?

 

[justlookinla]

Do you imagine that if you say it enough times that it will your fallacies will disappear?

Do you imagine if you ignore it enough times the fact that Darwinist evolution doesn't want, need or allow God in the particular evolutionary view will go away?

It won't.

 

[In situ]

What we 'really want to know' is at what point a synapsid ceased laying an egg, and commenced giving birth to live young?

You don't need to know that in order to know that a mammal is a synapsid. If you want to know, check the literature. I cant keep all the worlds knowledge in my head.

 

[justlookinla]

The point is simple. At some point in time there existed a species that can't really be classified as either mammal or non-mammal. It would have to ARBITRARILY be put into one group or the other.

If the life form isn't a mammal, it's a non-mammal. Something which wasn't a mammal produced a mammal.....allegedly.