Why are some Christians anti Evolution?

[Bradskii]

No, there'll just be a brief recollection and a momentary, concise point of refinement.

Point: Orlando Patterson - "Freedom, " Chapter 16: 'Jesus and the Jesus Movement.​

The Jesus Movement? Surely not the long hair, beads, cheesecloth shirt and face painting? Gee, I don't know how old you are but I was there. Been there, done that and have the t-shirt (and I actually might have one in the back of the wardrobe).

If that's what Orlando was talking about then that has nothing to do with Jesus getting credit for the moral and ethical direction of society. The movement might have prompted some execrable musicals (Godspell...ye gods...) but nothing more.

I hope that's not what you mean by the Jesus Movement. I hope you have something more concrete than Day By Day (watch it if you dare):

 

[Astrid]

The Jesus Movement? Surely not the long hair, beads, cheesecloth shirt and face painting? Gee, I don't know how old you are but I was there. Been there, done that and have the t-shirt (and I actually might have one in the back of the wardrobe).

If that's what Orlando was talking about then that has nothing to do with Jesus getting credit for the moral and ethical direction of society. The movement might have prompted some execrable musicals (Godspell...ye gods...) but nothing more.

I hope that's not what you mean by the Jesus Movement. I hope you have something more concrete than Day By Day (watch it if you dare):

Ugh

 

[sjastro]

The Jesus Movement? Surely not the long hair, beads, cheesecloth shirt and face painting? Gee, I don't know how old you are but I was there. Been there, done that and have the t-shirt (and I actually might have one in the back of the wardrobe).

If that's what Orlando was talking about then that has nothing to do with Jesus getting credit for the moral and ethical direction of society. The movement might have prompted some execrable musicals (Godspell...ye gods...) but nothing more.

I hope that's not what you mean by the Jesus Movement. I hope you have something more concrete than Day By Day (watch it if you dare):

I prefer the Colleen Hewitt version.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The Jesus Movement? Surely not the long hair, beads, cheesecloth shirt and face painting? Gee, I don't know how old you are but I was there. Been there, done that and have the t-shirt (and I actually might have one in the back of the wardrobe).

If that's what Orlando was talking about then that has nothing to do with Jesus getting credit for the moral and ethical direction of society. The movement might have prompted some execrable musicals (Godspell...ye gods...) but nothing more.

I hope that's not what you mean by the Jesus Movement. I hope you have something more concrete than Day By Day (watch it if you dare):
​

No, I don't have anything more concrete ... to report. Yet.

 

[Bradskii]

I prefer the Colleen Hewitt version.

Certainly a lot less twee. Much preferable.

 

[eleos1954]

I'm not up on Christian beliefs, I understand that Christian is a vast umbrella term and so there are many people within this vast group and these people have differing beliefs.
But, for those Christians that are hell bent on fighting against evolution, what is the root of this resistance?

It really seems that with their arguments they are just reaching for excuses to shoot down evolution.

My thoughts, which could be wrong because of my poor understanding of Christian beliefs. But here they are:

1. Humans are special (god's children, made in god's image) therefore we can't possibly be animals, or apes. Perhaps these people feel uncomfortable about being part of the animal kingdom.
2. All of existence was made as a playground for humans. If humans evolved randomly then it was just chance that we came to be, and then what would be the purpose for the universe existing if humans weren't destined to be? Perhaps these people feel uncomfortable that a universe wasn't destined to have humans, and without humans at the centre of it would be purposeless and therefore goes against the core belief that god created everything for us.

Am I on track here? Or are there other reasons?
The ones above seem incredibly self centred.

A few non-religious reasons ....

No empirical proof exists that macro-evolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another) is occurring at present, or has ever happened in the past. No one, throughout recorded history, has ever seen it.

No transitional fossils. If evolution had taken place there should have been a great many transitional structures preserved in fossilised form recording the stages of development from one type of organism to another type.

There is no evidence of evolution at the molecular level. Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination.

Evolution ignores laws of physics. The supposed evolutionary process breaks the most universal and best-proved law of physics, the law of increasing entropy, known as the second law of thermodynamics.

It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems, in fact all systems, without exception. The law stipulates that all systems tend to lose order. They go towards disorganisation and loss of complexity.

Our world and it's inhabitants and the universe is VERY complex .... it's takes too much faith to believe that blind particles over billions and billions of years could randomly come together to produce what we see today .... the mathematical probably is astronomical.

design - or happen chance

What we really see? Life comes from life.

What came first ... the chicken or the egg?

 

[Astrid]

A few non-religious reasons ....

No empirical proof exists that macro-evolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another) is occurring at present, or has ever happened in the past. No one, throughout recorded history, has ever seen it.

No transitional fossils. If evolution had taken place there should have been a great many transitional structures preserved in fossilised form recording the stages of development from one type of organism to another type.

There is no evidence of evolution at the molecular level. Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination.

Evolution ignores laws of physics. The supposed evolutionary process breaks the most universal and best-proved law of physics, the law of increasing entropy, known as the second law of thermodynamics.

It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems, in fact all systems, without exception. The law stipulates that all systems tend to lose order. They go towards disorganisation and loss of complexity.

Our world and it's inhabitants and the universe is VERY complex .... it's takes too much faith to believe that blind particles over billions and billions of years could randomly come together to produce what we see today .... the mathematical probably is astronomical.

design - or happen chance

What we really see? Life comes from life.

What came first ... the chicken or the egg?

So a gish. Pick your best one.

 

[Hans Blaster]

A few non-religious reasons ....

All of which have been shown false in numerous articles, posts, etc. Here's a few quick takes.

No empirical proof exists that macro-evolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another) is occurring at present, or has ever happened in the past. No one, throughout recorded history, has ever seen it.

Macro-evolution is poorly defined (and "kinds" even more so -- so much for the "non-religious" parts as "kinds" are a thing only in the bible.)

Depending on your definition of macroevolution, it definitely has occurred and been witnessed by modern humans.

No transitional fossils. If evolution had taken place there should have been a great many transitional structures preserved in fossilised form recording the stages of development from one type of organism to another type.

There are gobs of transitional fossils if you just bother to find out about them.

There is no evidence of evolution at the molecular level. Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination.

Evolution at the molecular level is widely observed and the easiest to directly demonstrate in laboratories. (More so than most of the "macro-evolution" targets people put forth.)

There is gobs of evidence in the DNA sequences of various creatures. It only needs that you don't refuse to consider it.

Evolution ignores laws of physics. The supposed evolutionary process breaks the most universal and best-proved law of physics, the law of increasing entropy, known as the second law of thermodynamics.

It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems, in fact all systems, without exception. The law stipulates that all systems tend to lose order. They go towards disorganisation and loss of complexity.

Our world and it's inhabitants and the universe is VERY complex .... it's takes too much faith to believe that blind particles over billions and billions of years could randomly come together to produce what we see today .... the mathematical probably is astronomical.

OK, I get it. You don't understand thermodynamics, or several other branches of physics.

Self-organization, including that which *reduces* local entropy and generates complexity, is wide-spread in nature. Stars, planets, galaxies all condense into more organized forms from gas clouds spontaneously. As do crystals and certain chemical systems too numerous to mention.

design - or happen chance

What we really see? Life comes from life.

What came first ... the chicken or the egg?

Eggs. The ancestors of chickens (or rather the ancestors of the wild birds we domesticated to create chickens) were laying eggs long before there were chickens.

 

[stevil]

A few non-religious reasons ....

All of what you subsequently posted are just excuses rather than reasons.
Only a person with no interest in science would claim there is any truth to what you have posted here. All of this is bunk.

No empirical proof exists that macro-evolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another) is occurring at present, or has ever happened in the past. No one, throughout recorded history, has ever seen it.

Of course an individual person hasn't seen an organism of a "kind" have offspring of a different "kind"
If this happened, it would disprove evolution, it would in fact be more supportive of a Creationism explanation.
But there is a massive preponderance of evidence in support of macro-evolution.

No transitional fossils. If evolution had taken place there should have been a great many transitional structures preserved in fossilised form recording the stages of development from one type of organism to another type.

Depends on your definition of transitional fossils. The fossil record clearly shows that organisms have been changing quite significantly over time and progressing from one form to another.

There is no evidence of evolution at the molecular level. Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination.

This is utter nonsense.

Evolution ignores laws of physics. The supposed evolutionary process breaks the most universal and best-proved law of physics, the law of increasing entropy, known as the second law of thermodynamics.

The sun is an outside energy source.

It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems, in fact all systems, without exception. The law stipulates that all systems tend to lose order. They go towards disorganisation and loss of complexity.

In a closed system, however "the Sun" big bright flaming ball in the daytime sky providing masses amounts of energy thrown at Earth. Don't look up!

Our world and it's inhabitants and the universe is VERY complex .... it's takes too much faith to believe that blind particles over billions and billions of years could randomly come together to produce what we see today .... the mathematical probably is astronomical.

I agree.
But natural selection isn't random.

design - or happen chance

Evolution isn't either of the above, you presented a false dichotomy here.
I'm open to the "design" option. What is the evidence for that?

What came first ... the chicken or the egg?

Fish lay eggs and fish are not descended from chickens.
Chickens are descended from fish, therefore the egg quite clearly came first.

 

[eleos1954]

All of which have been shown false in numerous articles, posts, etc. Here's a few quick takes.

Macro-evolution is poorly defined (and "kinds" even more so -- so much for the "non-religious" parts as "kinds" are a thing only in the bible.)

Depending on your definition of macroevolution, it definitely has occurred and been witnessed by modern humans.

WHERE?

There are gobs of transitional fossils if you just bother to find out about them.

WHERE?

Evolution at the molecular level is widely observed and the easiest to directly demonstrate in laboratories. (More so than most of the "macro-evolution" targets people put forth.)

So you say .... WHERE? ... In a laboratory with someone manipulating things (controlling) things to happen.

There is gobs of evidence in the DNA sequences of various creatures. It only needs that you don't refuse to consider it.

Sure God created the sequences to be variable the code is already there however.


OK, I get it. You don't understand thermodynamics, or several other branches of physics.

Self-organization, including that which *reduces* local entropy and generates complexity, is wide-spread in nature. Stars, planets, galaxies all condense into more organized forms from gas clouds spontaneously. As do crystals and certain chemical systems too numerous to mention.

Fact ... or theory?

Astronomers aren’t certain exactly how galaxies formed. After the Big Bang (assumption), space was made up almost entirely of hydrogen and helium (assumption). Some astronomers think that gravity pulled dust and gas together (assumption) to form individual stars (assumption), and those stars drew closer together (assumption) into collections that ultimately became galaxies (assumption). Others think (assume) that the mass of what would become galaxies drew together (assumption) before the stars (assumption) within them were created.”

entropy

1. a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system.
   "the second law of thermodynamics says that entropy always increases with time"
   
   
2. lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder.
   "a marketplace where entropy reigns supreme"

Eggs. The ancestors of chickens (or rather the ancestors of the wild birds we domesticated to create chickens) were laying eggs long before there were chickens.

Early life forms are very vulnerable (chickens or otherwise) .... how is it possible for them to just "happen" (facts .. not theory)? How were/are they able to form and survive without the aid of a "parent" ?

Lots of different theories out there about many things

 

[eleos1954]

All of what you subsequently posted are just excuses rather than reasons.
Only a person with no interest in science would claim there is any truth to what you have posted here. All of this is bunk.


Of course an individual person hasn't seen an organism of a "kind" have offspring of a different "kind"
If this happened, it would disprove evolution, it would in fact be more supportive of a Creationism explanation.
But there is a massive preponderance of evidence in support of macro-evolution.


Depends on your definition of transitional fossils. The fossil record clearly shows that organisms have been changing quite significantly over time and progressing from one form to another.


This is utter nonsense.


The sun is an outside energy source.


In a closed system, however "the Sun" big bright flaming ball in the daytime sky providing masses amounts of energy thrown at Earth. Don't look up!


I agree.
But natural selection isn't random.


Evolution isn't either of the above, you presented a false dichotomy here.
I'm open to the "design" option. What is the evidence for that?

Fish lay eggs and fish are not descended from chickens.
Chickens are descended from fish, therefore the egg quite clearly came first.

Fish (fully formed) lay eggs .... chickens (fully formed) lay eggs .... where are there any eggs that form and survive without a "parent" to protect and nurture it?

How are eggs blindly formed in the first place .... and how are they capable of surviving.

Where are the transitions (on the macro level)?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Fish (fully formed) lay eggs .... chickens (fully formed) lay eggs .... where are there any eggs that form and survive without a "parent" to protect and nurture it?

Sea turtles.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Sea turtles.

And, roe. Billions and billions of roe.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Early life forms are very vulnerable (chickens or otherwise) .... how is it possible for them to just "happen" (facts .. not theory)? How were/are they able to form and survive without the aid of a "parent" ?

Lots of different theories out there about many things

Your ignorance is so extensive, I cannot make heads-or-tails of you question. Others seem to think this is about rearing young in existing animals, but I have a hard time thinking you are so unaware of modern creatures to not realize that many animals leave their young unattended after laying eggs and leaving them be.

 

[stevil]

Fish (fully formed) lay eggs .... chickens (fully formed) lay eggs .... where are there any eggs that form and survive without a "parent" to protect and nurture it?

Turtles lay their eggs and abandon them.

To Egg or Not to Egg: That is the Evolutionary Question

 

[Subduction Zone]

Fish (fully formed) lay eggs .... chickens (fully formed) lay eggs .... where are there any eggs that form and survive without a "parent" to protect and nurture it?

How are eggs blindly formed in the first place .... and how are they capable of surviving.

Where are the transitions (on the macro level)?

All life is "fully formed". Anyone that uses that phrase has already lost the debate. And the transitions are everywhere. You might want to learn what a transitional species is. But almost all fossils are transitional fossils. The hard thing about fossils today is not "show me a transitional form". The hard part is "show me a fossil that is not transitional".

You might want to try to ask some more basic questions. I can even help you with the questions you should be asking and how to ask them so that they make sense.

 

[Astrid]

Fish (fully formed) lay eggs .... chickens (fully formed) lay eggs .... where are there any eggs that form and survive without a "parent" to protect and nurture it?

How are eggs blindly formed in the first place .... and how are they capable of surviving.

Where are the transitions (on the macro level)?

I wonder if you could explain whatva not- fully- formed creature might be.

In the event, early / simple forms are microscopic,
and certainly produce no eggs.
Egg- like ( or seed like, proto- eggs, seeds), things like
spores, deeply predate eggs. Or seeds.
It was a very long developmental process- nothing just
suddenly appeared. Or " blindly formed".

Transitional forms ofv many sorts,exist in great abundance,
but its too much for a paragraph, too much to take in
and understand without you are willing to put in a lot of study.

I will give you one example of a transitional form.

Leaves are green, right?
But do you know, flower petals are modified ( evolved) leaves?

How so, you may ask.
Regard the flower of a " peace lilly". One slightly modified leaf
that later turns green.

I know this isnt " eggs" . Its justnan illustration of the observable
fact that transitional or intermediate forms are everywhere.

Google Image Result for https://www.gardeningknowhow.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/peace-lily-1.jpg

 

[eleos1954]

Sea turtles.

it takes a FERTILIZED egg to produce offspring ... how does a egg fertilize itself?

 

[eleos1954]

Your ignorance is so extensive, I cannot make heads-or-tails of you question. Others seem to think this is about rearing young in existing animals, but I have a hard time thinking you are so unaware of modern creatures to not realize that many animals leave their young unattended after laying eggs and leaving them be.

how does fertilization take place on it's own?

 

[eleos1954]

Turtles lay their eggs and abandon them.

To Egg or Not to Egg: That is the Evolutionary Question

how does fertilization take place on its own?