Why is Christianity opposed to the theory of Evolution?

That what evolutionist understand the life, being faster and stronger so that weak spices have better chance to escape from their predators. But they will never escape from death which you believe through which they were stronger and faster.

Evolutionists will never mention the role of death when they praise the superiority of their theory to the creation in the bible. You will have to honest and be personal when you accept either one as your critical thinking system. Probably you are facing many issues in your life and God seems be distant to you, God as a being of indifferent to your life, he will let your offspring be faster and stronger and even smarter. But You will have to pay the price, your death, and death of your parents. or even death of your children. It's all up to you who you want to believe. You say it is evident that Evolution is true because there's so many evidence. My question: Is it evident that God wouldn't use "death" of your child as part of his plan to make your grand children, stronger, prettier, heavier(or thinner)? It's all up to you; To believe in God of love or to accept the evolution with its mater "death".

Hattington said:

That still doesn't answer my question. I highly doubt millions of people oppose evolution because two men disagreed hundreds of years ago.
My question is: why do some Christians refuse to accept evolution as a reasonable explanation to our becoming if the data strongly suggests it?

Click to expand...

It is really quite simple. Evolution and God's word are diametrically opposed to each other so one is right and one is wrong. In Genesis it says and I quote......

Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth sprout tender sprouts, the plant seeding seed, the fruit tree producing fruit according to its kind, whichever seed is in it on the earth. And it was so.

Gen 1:12 And the earth bore tender sprouts, the plant seeding seed according to its kind, and the fruit tree producing fruit according to its kind, whichever seed is in it. And God saw that it was good.

Gen 1:21 And God created the great sea animals, and all that creeps, having a living soul, which swarmed the waters, according to its kind; and every bird with wing according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the soul of life according to its kind: cattle, and creepers, and its beasts of the earth, according to its kind. And it was so.

Gen 1:25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to its kind, and cattle according to its kind, and all creepers of the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Note that in every aspect of creation God produce everything after ITS OWN KIND. To put that simply my son was produced after his own kind. His mother and father. He wasn't the product of a monkey and that is obvious because he looks like me (is that a cue for a few jokes?)

Whereas, evolutionists tell us that we were not created after our own kind. We were created after whatever creature was evolving at the time. So you might be one of the unlucky ones that evolved from a rat or a monkey or a snake or......

The thing about evolution is that to be evolution it has to be changing ALL the time so it is anyone's guess what we will all be in a hundred years. I actually asked an evolutionists if evolution was real, why is it that since Darwin pronounced it as the way to go, nothing has evolved? His reply was it was happening, you just don't see it.

What I want to know is, if you can't see it happening, how can you prove it is happening? After all, humans were humans when Darwin pronounced that evolution was the way to go and today humans are still humans so there is no evidence for evolution.

Since then, I have been told that evolutionists have back tracked and now say that evolution is adaptation, which no one disputes. In other words, evolution as a theory has no mandate (or womandate) in actual fact because if it had they would not have changed it like they have.

So the bottom line is that evolution is a hoax like their Piltdown Man was, and God creating everything after its own kind is the truth.

JonFromMinnesota said:

If you think it's wrong, write a paper demonstrating your evidence that it's wrong and submit it to relevant fields of study. Science loves to be proved wrong in order to gain a better understanding of the natural world. If you think you're right, you have to put it through the same process all scientific discoveries are subject to. Otherwise you're just blowing smoke.



There are more hominid fossils than there are T-Rex fossils. Thousands compared to less than 100 T-Rex fossils.
Homo Naledi says hello . Ape and human like features. Like all fossils that are found, it is a transitional.

You should really read the rest of the site instead of quote mining it to support your position. This seems to be a common theme in your posts.


Would you bring your car to be looked at by your dentist? How about you write a paper, submit it to relevant fields of study and if it gets unfairly rejected, come back here and demonstrate why it was unfairly rejected. I'm confident you aren't willing to do this.


Science changing based on newly available evidence is a strength not a weakness. If you think they are in error, write your paper. You are recognizing that science changes based on new evidence. If you think they are wrong, prove it. Or you're just blowing smoke.

Click to expand...

Looks like just another infraspecific taxa of ape to me.

Why don't you try to defend your religious beliefs instead of asking others too? If they have a problem they are welcome to come here. They are not opposing it, you are. So it is up to you to refute - not them.

You have yet to answer why I should trust those that won't admit to a mistake in classification right in front of their eyes? It's such a simple thing. So simple that even Darwin understood what mating pairs meant. He just erroneously believed they didn't. So we know the classification is wrong but won't change it because they are our claim to speciation. And you wonder why not one single evolutionist can be trusted with the truth. Because when the mistake is right in front of your eyes, you refuse to do anything about it. It's not up to them to change anything - it's up to the people that blindly follow them and pay their bills for them. Why should they correct their beliefs, when you'll swallow it hook, line and sinker without pause - even if it's falsification is right in front of your eyes?

GAPCanadianChristian said:

No, I don't believe that God messed around with it.

Click to expand...

If you're a Christian, you believe God is always in control of this world, sustaining it, giving every sub-atomic particle its existence moment by moment. "Messed around" with it might mean you are saying He didn't jump in and break the laws of nature to achieve certain evolutionary ends. That's one distinction. But don't lose the bigger picture that God upholds existence itself moment by moment.

As I was saying said:

Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth sprout tender sprouts, the plant seeding seed, the fruit tree producing fruit according to its kind, whichever seed is in it on the earth. And it was so.

Click to expand...

In the short term, this is absolutely true. The bible was celebrating the beauty and diversity of God's creation here. It was not commenting on the longer term evolutionary mechanisms, but on what we see today from our human perspective of year in, year out biological systems. Not multi-million year evolutionary systems.

" Is it because it refutes the idea of Adam and Eve, original sin, and coming of Jesus?
Or are there any other reasons?"

******************

In my humble opinion , there are many " other reasons ".

In my opinion the # 1 reason is the Scriptures tell believers to do that , read and BELIEVE , The Word of Elohim as delivered by The Saints in Scripture . Because I'm a believer in The Hebrew monotheistic omnipotent etc etc , Deity Elohim YAHweh . It's part of my reason also , but not just blind faith .

I wrestled with this question for three decades , trying to get the writing in stone to fit our Elohim's words to no avail . From fifth grade to the mid eighties I tried to pound this round peg into that square whole of evolutionary theory .
One afternoon of thought provoking prayer & deep mediation of all possible conclusions , the answer filled my head . For me , the forest that was hiding all those trees .
Scripture claims our Elohim Created ALL there is in six nights & six days . I think most Scripture believers , hold this as truth . For many folks this is to large a bit to swallow , others see it as exercising faith in Elohim's written word . If the six nights & days are accurate , what would stop "
The Hebrew monotheistic omnipotent etc etc , Deity Elohim YAHweh ." from cranking in a history to separate the believers 'with faith' from the nonbelievers 'the wise in there own eyes , faithless ' ? Correct or incorrect , this works for me .

"
3But I am afraid, lest, as the serpent deceived Ḥawwah by his trickery, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Messiah.

4For, indeed, if he who is coming proclaims another יהושע, whom we have not proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different Good News which you have not accepted, you put up with it well enough!

5For I reckon that I am not inferior to the most eminent emissaries.

6But even if I am unskilled in word, yet not in knowledge. Indeed, in every way we have been manifested among you in all matters. "

Hallelu-YAH .

An example of the implausibility of evolution is the eye. Either the eye works from day one or it doesn't work at all. Half an eye or some fraction of the eye will not allow a creature to see or even survive. Darwin himself said in the Origin of the Species " To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different differences, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree" (p181).

I realise that he was committed to his theories on personal and philosophical grounds and nothing could dissuade him from it, not even his own confession and common sense so that tells me he was backing a philosophical argument not a scientific one, intended to get God out of the picture which he freely admits to because as he claims God allowed Annie, his favourite child to die before she reached her teens.

Justatruthseeker said:

Looks like just another infraspecific taxa of ape to me.

Click to expand...

Humans are apes. We're part of the hominidae family or "great apes". A mixture of features is exactly what evolution tells us we should find. What is your definition of a transitional species? What should it look like to you? Don't dodge this question. I am genuinely interested what you think a transitional species should look like.

Why don't you try to defend your religious beliefs instead of asking others too? If they have a problem they are welcome to come here. They are not opposing it, you are. So it is up to you to refute - not them.

Click to expand...

You're the one making the claim that experts who have dedicated their careers to a specific field of study are wrong. The burden of proof is on you.

I don't hold any religious beliefs. Evolution is supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence from several different lines of study. If you are claiming they are in error, the burden of proof is on you. Don't try to shift that burden. That would be dishonest.

You have yet to answer why I should trust those that won't admit to a mistake in classification right in front of their eyes? It's such a simple thing.

Click to expand...

You acknowledge that science corrects themselves when they are in error. If you think they are in error, write your paper.

Why should they correct their beliefs, when you'll swallow it hook, line and sinker without pause

Click to expand...

Evolution is supported by evidence. It is not blindly believed. That would be your position. So you should be asking this question to yourself.

eclipsenow said:

In the short term, this is absolutely true. The bible was celebrating the beauty and diversity of God's creation here. It was not commenting on the longer term evolutionary mechanisms, but on what we see today from our human perspective of year in, year out biological systems. Not multi-million year evolutionary systems.

Click to expand...

Let the bible be its own interpreter. Since those words were written, not one verse has been written to countermand them. If in fact they were only for a specific time period, I am sure God would not have left us guessing and hypothesising and said something about it in his word. The fact that he didn't is enough evidence for me that what has been written in Genesis one is still valid today.

That means I don't have to indulge in speculation as to what could have been or not been and I say this because the bible says that God is his word so that means he doesn't lie.

As I was saying said:

An example of the implausibility of evolution is the eye. Either the eye works from day one or it doesn't work at all. Half an eye or some fraction of the eye will not allow a creature to see or even survive. Darwin himself said in the Origin of the Species " To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different differences, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree" (p181).

Click to expand...

There are creationists sites that tell you to avoid this argument. You should take their advice. Why is quote mining the go to fallacy of creationists? You should have kept reading:

"Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."

Darwin is saying that even if he can't explain the eye, it could happen by natural selection. Guess what? It was eventually explained!
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

Wonkyu said:

said

Click to expand...

In a nutshell, you're worried that a good God should not use death as tool to make the world? If you're interested in learning what TE's believe, Moore College Lecturer Mark Baddeley is a good start.
Animal death
http://reflectionsinexile.blogspot.com.au/2007/11/problems-with-creation-science-iv-when.html
A naturally unnatural death
http://reflectionsinexile.blogspot.com.au/2007/11/problems-with-creation-science-iv.html
A good God who uses death in a good creation, Part 1
http://reflectionsinexile.blogspot.com.au/2007/11/problems-with-creation-science-v-god.html
A good God who uses death in a good creation, Part 2
http://reflectionsinexile.blogspot.com.au/2007/11/problems-with-creation-science-v-god_30.html

JonFromMinnesota said:

There are creationists sites that tell you to avoid this argument. You should take their advice. Why is quote mining the go to fallacy of creationists? You should have kept reading:

"Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."

Darwin is saying that even if he can't explain the eye, it could happen by natural selection. Guess what? It was eventually explained!
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

Click to expand...

I don't take my lead from creationist sites. I do my own research.

Thankyou for your mined quote.

if you believe hypothesising, the word used in the article, is an explanation be my guest. I will stick to the tried and true which has no hypothesising. The scripture says that God is not a man that he can lie. Therefore what he says is the truth. not a hypothesis.

As I was saying said:

Let the bible be its own interpreter.

Click to expand...

No, you're interpreting them in the light of a scientific theory that arrived about 4000 years after they were written. Don't pretend you're not!

Since those words were written, not one verse has been written to countermand them.

Click to expand...

And they still mean what they meant then, that as far as we can see in our experience, like gives birth to like. Are we good on that?

If in fact they were only for a specific time period, I am sure God would not have left us guessing and hypothesising and said something about it in his word.

Click to expand...

Why are you so sure about this? There are a billion things God never spoke about, like E=MC2, nuclear power, nuclear bombs, relativity, time slowing down around black holes, time slowing down as something reaches near the speed of light, vaccines, microwaves, this internet thing we're communicating on, the theory of electricity...

The fact that he didn't is enough evidence for me that what has been written in Genesis one is still valid today.

Click to expand...

In my interpretation, it is! You're the one stretching it to breaking point to reject a scientific theory that would not arrive on the scene for 4000 years!

That means I don't have to indulge in speculation as to what could have been or not been and I say this because the bible says that God is his word so that means he doesn't lie.

Click to expand...

I agree in the Sufficiency of Scripture to give us eternal life in Christ Jesus and as the most authoritative guide on our spiritual life. I do NOT agree that it teaches us anything about the theory of evolution!

Wonkyu said:

Evolutionists will never mention the role of death when they praise the superiority of their theory to the creation in the bible.

Click to expand...

I've read plenty of writings by people who accept evolution which emphasise the essential role that death plays in the theory.

Hattington said:

Is it because it refutes the idea of Adam and Eve, original sin, and coming of Jesus?
Or are there any other reasons?

Click to expand...

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.



Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, (Job 38:1)

Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? (Job 38:2)

Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. (Job 38:3)

Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. (Job 38:4)

Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? (Job 38:5)

Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; (Job 38:6)

When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38:7)

Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb? (Job 38:8)

When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it, (Job 38:9)

And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors, (Job 38:10)

And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed? (Job 38:11)

Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place; (Job 38:12)

That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (Job 38:13)

It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment. (Job 38:14)

And from the wicked their light is withholden, and the high arm shall be broken. (Job 38:15)

Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth? (Job 38:16)

Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death? (Job 38:17)

Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? declare if thou knowest it all. (Job 38:18)

Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof, (Job 38:19)

That thou shouldest take it to the bound thereof, and that thou shouldest know the paths to the house thereof? (Job 38:20)

Knowest thou it, because thou wast then born? or because the number of thy days is great? (Job 38:21)

Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail, (Job 38:22)

Which I have reserved against the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war? (Job 38:23)

By what way is the light parted, which scattereth the east wind upon the earth? (Job 38:24)

Who hath divided a watercourse for the overflowing of waters, or a way for the lightning of thunder; (Job 38:25)

To cause it to rain on the earth, where no man is; on the wilderness, wherein there is no man; (Job 38:26)

To satisfy the desolate and waste ground; and to cause the bud of the tender herb to spring forth? (Job 38:27)

Hath the rain a father? or who hath begotten the drops of dew? (Job 38:28)

Out of whose womb came the ice? and the hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it? (Job 38:29)

The waters are hid as with a stone, and the face of the deep is frozen. (Job 38:30)

Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion? (Job 38:31)

Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons? (Job 38:32)

Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth? (Job 38:33)

Canst thou lift up thy voice to the clouds, that abundance of waters may cover thee? (Job 38:34)

Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, Here we are? (Job 38:35)

Who hath put wisdom in the inward parts? or who hath given understanding to the heart? (Job 38:36)

Who can number the clouds in wisdom? or who can stay the bottles of heaven, (Job 38:37)

When the dust groweth into hardness, and the clods cleave fast together? (Job 38:38)

Wilt thou hunt the prey for the lion? or fill the appetite of the young lions, (Job 38:39)

When they couch in their dens, and abide in the covert to lie in wait? (Job 38:40)

Who provideth for the raven his food? when his young ones cry unto God, they wander for lack of meat. (Job 38:41)

As I was saying said:

Whereas, evolutionists tell us that we were not created after our own kind.

Click to expand...

"Kind" is not a scientific term at all. The theory of evolution has nothing whatsoever to say about "kinds".

We were created after whatever creature was evolving at the time.

Click to expand...

What is actually said is that modern humans evolved from an ancestor that was very much, but not quite, like modern humans.

So you might be one of the unlucky ones that evolved from a rat or a monkey or a snake or......

Click to expand...

This is nonsense which has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

The thing about evolution is that to be evolution it has to be changing ALL the time so it is anyone's guess what we will all be in a hundred years.

Click to expand...

Given the relatively slow pace of human generations, in 100 years we will not noticeably be any different to how we are now.

I actually asked an evolutionists if evolution was real, why is it that since Darwin pronounced it as the way to go, nothing has evolved?

Click to expand...

There are several experiments which have demonstrated evolution in the lab. There are also organisms which have evolved in nature since the advent of humankind. Bacteria which are now immune to antibacterials are one example. The Nylon-eating bacteria is another.

It's about you who will be honest between the death of your parents and your children. Please keep them into your own words. It will be only you who will be facing their death. Mr. Baddeley won't attend your children's or your parents funeral. If you want to take the path of 0.000000000001% of biological difference between you your children, or your father, by going through the unproven evolution and accept it as a natural path of life, pleas do so. It's up to you. Le death rule your life and live accordingly.

eclipsenow said:

No, you're interpreting them in the light of a scientific theory that arrived about 4000 years after they were written. Don't pretend you're not!

Why are you so sure about this? There are a billion things God never spoke about, like E=MC2, nuclear power, nuclear bombs, relativity, time slowing down around black holes, time slowing down as something reaches near the speed of light, vaccines, microwaves, this internet thing we're communicating on, the theory of electricity...

I do NOT agree that it teaches us anything about the theory of evolution!

Click to expand...

I quoted Genesis one, I did not interpret it as "after its own kind" does not need interpreting.

Yes, there are many things God did not talk about in his word, but when he did talk about them they are valid yesterday, today and forever.

Genesis one teaches about evolution by what it does not say. That is a common way to do exegesis. For example, If I asked my son to go out and buy me a Ford car I am not saying buying me any car that looks good. I am saying don't buy me any car but a Ford even though I have not used those words.

My son knows me well enough to not buy any other car but Ford. God intended that he would redeem a family of people that would understand his ways and know his voice.

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.

Squeegee Beckenheim said:

"Kind" is not a scientific term at all. The theory of evolution has nothing whatsoever to say about "kinds".

What is actually said is that modern humans evolved from an ancestor that was very much, but not quite, like modern humans.

This is nonsense which has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

Given the relatively slow pace of human generations, in 100 years we will not noticeably be any different to how we are now.

There are several experiments which have demonstrated evolution in the lab. There are also organisms which have evolved in nature since the advent of humankind. Bacteria which are now immune to antibacterials are one example. The Nylon-eating bacteria is another.

Click to expand...

I never said "kind" was a scientific theory. i said it was a statement of fact.

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.

It is nonsense because the theory of evolution is nonsense.

My theory and I note that evolutionists are hot on theory but light on fact, is that we shall all be changed in a twinkling of an eye as the scripture says.

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