Why is Christianity opposed to the theory of Evolution?

[JonFromMinnesota]

The complete absence of God as part of the process and the complete claim that only naturalistic mechanisms created all life we observe today (and also the extinct life forms) is the evidence for God not wanted, needed or allowed.

Science cannot test the supernatural, therefore it has nothing to say about it. It does not mention God but it also does not deny the existence of God. Again, I ask you to quote from Berkeley's site that states that they do not want God and that God is not allowed.

 

[justlookinla]

That is correct. The somehow is called evolution.

Life forms don't always produce the same life form, thus mammals will not produce mammals in the future but will produce non-mammal life forms.

 

[justlookinla]

Science cannot test the supernatural, therefore it has nothing to say about it. It does not mention God but it also does not deny the existence of God. Again, I ask you to quote from Berkeley's site that states that they do not want God and that God is not allowed.

And I answer again, the Berkeley site claims that only random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanisms produced all life we observe today. That produces an evolutionary view in which God is not needed, wanted or allowed.

 

[Meowzltov]

The claim that only random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanisms produced all life we observe today has absolutely nothing to do with developing the flu shot. You can bet that when the flu vaccine was developed, it wasn't by willy-nilly Darwinist evolutionary methods.

You are avoiding the reason why you need a new flu vaccine each year.

 

[Meowzltov]

The point is, a non-mammal produced a mammal.....allegedly.

Not if "mammal" isn't a real category.

 

[Meowzltov]

And I answer again, the Berkeley site claims that only random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanisms produced all life we observe today. That produces an evolutionary view in which God is not needed, wanted or allowed.

God created the natural world. Naturalism doesn't have to be Godless.

 

[justlookinla]

You are avoiding the reason why you need a new flu vaccine each year.

You're avoiding the fact that flu vaccine development has nothing to do with the willy-nilly process of Darwinist evolution.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

And I answer again, the Berkeley site claims that only random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanisms produced all life we observe today. That produces an evolutionary view in which God is not needed, wanted or allowed.

Can you provide a quote from their site that specifically uses the words mindless, meaningless, purposeless, goalless?

 

[justlookinla]

God created the natural world. Naturalism doesn't have to be Godless.

UC-Berkeley certainly promotes the view that God isn't wanted, needed or allowed.

 

[Meowzltov]

Life forms don't always produce the same life form, thus mammals will not produce mammals in the future but will produce non-mammal life forms.

Again, "mammal" is an arbitrary label. It's not real. In the real world there are no categories.

 

[justlookinla]

Can you provide a quote from their site that specifically uses the words mindless, meaningless, purposeless, goalless?

I can't find anywhere on the site that their view of Darwinist evolutionary 'creation' is anything but mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless.

That's the gist of their faith-based evolutionary worldview.

 

[Meowzltov]

You're avoiding the fact that flu vaccine development has nothing to do with the willy-nilly process of Darwinist evolution.

You are trying to change the subject to squirm out of a very uncomfortable position in order to say stuff that is superfluous.

 

[Meowzltov]

UC-Berkeley certainly promotes the view that God isn't wanted, needed or allowed.

That website said nothing about God at all, insinuated nothing about God at all, implied nothing about God at all.

 

[Meowzltov]

I can't find anywhere on the site that their view of Darwinist evolutionary 'creation' is anything but mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless.

Now you are just making things up.

 

[justlookinla]

Again, "mammal" is an arbitrary label. It's not real. In the real world there are no categories.

There's some sort of distinction between the life form known as pine tree and the life form known as a whale.

 

[mickiio]

The "guess" is suported by the facts and the laws of biology.

Homo sapien Homo is the genus. Sapien is the species. Depending upon your classification system chosen, you will have some grouped with monkeys or "apes" as you like to call them and some not. I vote for the "not" camp, because we are closer to the pig in some aspects; skin is closer and the heart is currently used in transplants - after all these are groupings in "like" characteristics...are they not? *waits for the "uneducated , ignorant" name calling *

You are avoiding the reason why you need a new flu vaccine each year.

We don't.

 

[justlookinla]

That website said nothing about God at all, insinuated nothing about God at all, implied nothing about God at all.

The website claims only naturalistic mechanisms 'created' all life we observe today. This automatically dismisses God as not wanted, needed or allowed.

 

[Meowzltov]

There's some sort of distinction between the life form known as pine tree and the life form known as a whale.

They are different branches in the same tree.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

I can't find anywhere on the site that their view of Darwinist evolutionary 'creation' is anything but mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless.

I asked you a question: Can you quote directly from their site where it specifically says "mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless"
Stop making things up.

 

[justlookinla]

Now you are just making things up.

If you can find anywhere on the site that their view of Darwinist evolutionary 'creation' is not random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless, I'd appreciate a link with associated content supporting that claim.