Why is Christianity opposed to the theory of Evolution?

[Anonymous5372]

Because everyone has their own ideas, just because something can be seen, felt, and learned about does not mean we have to believe in it, some may call it ignorance but there are some people who do not believe in the things of this world and therefore cast off most of the things of this world in terms of the theory of evolution, and notice how they call it a "theory" which means it is not entirely true and proven, just a theory, plus the people say we are descendant from monkeys because of some similarities we have with them but we also have similarities with other animals, parrots mimic human voices, we experiment on lab rats because they are similar to humans, what we have in common with monkeys we may also have in common with other creatures as well, plus if we evolved from them then why are there still monkeys and animals like them around? When i would always read about dinosaurs i noticed how some species evolved into other ones and when that happened the species that they evolved from were extinct in a way because they had all evolved into the new species, if evolution was true then we would find that most to nearly all other monkeys or primates or whatever you want to call them would be similar to humans as far as nearly being like us and i am not talking about sign language and feelings and flipping off someone when they take a picture of them if you look at photos of them doing it. There are other creatures who have been on earth longer then we have and yet they are still living out in the wild or in zoos, dinosaurs lived on earth for millions of years and never evolved beyond giant reptiles killing each other and having movies made about them attacking people at amusement parks because Richard Attenborough thought it would be a good idea to make a theme park with them, so yes i hope that answers your question i have always wanted to debate evolution like this.

I have always wanted to get that out of me, not in any bad way but i have always had this on my mind about all this evolution stuff and wanted to say it.

 

[eclipsenow]

From a different perspective -- many ancient philosophies -- Egyptian and Greek, Eastern religions, and many Christians believe that an immortal soul inhabits the body. Only the body can die, we can never die.
Do we remain alive when our body is dead?

At man’s creation God ‘breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.’ Genesis 2:7
‘The soul that sins shall die.’ Ezekiel 18:4
'God alone has immortality.' 1 Timothy 6:16

Does that then mean that we are mortal?
While ever we have within us ‘the breath of life’ we are alive. When dead we are dead. Our only hope of eternal existence is in the resurrection where our entire being is resurrected.
http://lifefromgod.com/the-dead-are-dead/

Too simplistic: the bible doesn't necessarily divide a human up into 'mind' and 'body': that's more Greek gnosticism than Hebrew thinking. Hebrew thought presents the human being as thoroughly integrated. So when the bible discusses resurrection, it is always physical, in a new body that will never age and wear out. But this is all getting off the topic.

 

[Wonkyu]

People take the fact into their belief system. It is up to me or you what we choose to believe. You will never prove that dinosaurs had so much desire to fly, they would kill themselves off the cliff throwing their body into the cliff. After 17 billions of trials and death(probably even more), they were able to develop the adequate wings. To me, taking this scientific SyFi as a fact and put into your belief system is more much more absurd of me becoming a starchild.

Please keep on believing evolution then death will be your best friend and solution for all.

 

[Graham Lloyd Dull]

the bible doesn't necessarily divide a human up into 'mind' and 'body': that's more Greek gnosticism than Hebrew thinking. Hebrew thought presents the human being as thoroughly integrated.

Thank you. I totally agree with you. See link below.
http://lifefromgod.com/immortality-and-mortality/

 

[eclipsenow]

View attachment 164545
After 17 billions of trials and death(probably even more), they were able to develop the adequate wings. To me, taking this scientific SyFi as a fact and put into your belief system is more much more absurd of me becoming a starchild.

But that's not the theory at all! Way before flight there was the feather. Feathers add colour and patten to indicate health for breeding purposes, moulting feathers can help regulate body temperature for different seasons, and some feathers even keep dust out of eyes and add sensory information. But the development of flight? Well, it may have gradually developed by helping them run. We know this works. We see it in today's ostriches. Then, as survival advantages were handed down to ever faster proto-birds, they might gradually learn to hop and glide a little in the constant battle of 'fight or flight', the evolutionary arms race between predator and prey.

Various bonuses and benefits would have also come to animals that could not truly fly, but were very active. Long feathers on the arms might have helped with balance when running or climbing, and those who have seen ostriches run will know they can flight their wings right out to help them balance during right turns. While obviously feathers are pretty critical to powered flight for birds, precursors likely were capable of some form of gliding or at least controlled falling, and obviously feathers would be a massive help there producing a large surface area for relatively little commitment in mass. Finally, it is hypothesized that flight may have got started with non-avian dinosaurs running up tree trunks and using their feathers as proto-wings to generate some thrust and in particular, traction (i.e. effectively pushing themselves against the tree trunk). This may sound bizarre, but it is practiced by a number of birds, including juveniles that don't have full wings, or adult plumage.

Any and all of these would have been useful to non-avian dinosaurs. Even a few of the smallest feathers might have kept in a bit of warmth or allowed for a new colour pattern to help signal to mates etc., so tiny advantages would be present that would accrue as feathers grew in size, shape, complexity and coverage of the animal. Half a wing would in fact be incredibly useful in a lot of ways, if not for flight. But such an argument (or at least intended argument) relies on the incorrect assumption that feathers evolved only for flight and could only be used for flight. They are not now, and there is no reason to think they were then. Instead, use changed over time in response to evolutionary novelties (like the vane) and selective pressures, and wonderfully we can even see some evidence of that in the feathers themselves with, for example, wrist shape changing in conjunction with increasing feather sizes allowing for longer feathers to be folded out of the way, long before flight was possible but where big hand feathers would have helped shield eggs in a nest as seen by brooding dinosaur fossils. Feathers are the mark of birds in the modern world, but 100 million years ago a diverse range of non-avian dinosaurs spouted all manner of plumage, and like modern birds, doubtless made a great deal of use of them, even if they could not fly.​

http://www.theguardian.com/science/lost-worlds/2013/jun/05/dinosaurs-fossils

 

[JohnOfWoodGreen]

[QUOTE="joshua 1 9, post: 68751564, member: 376633"
Without sin or evil there can be no love and there can be no free will.[/QUOTE]
What do you mean, Joshua? In God there is no sin, but isn't He love? And are our wills free when we are slaves to sin? Surely Adam had free will BEFORE he sinned, not after.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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

The most obvious reason is that it fails to match any observations of the natural world.

Asian mates with African and produces an Afro-Asian (variation) within the species. Asian mates with Asian and produces an Asian. African mates with African and produces an African. Only minor variation exists within each infraspecific taxa of a species. It is when two infraspecific taxa mate that new infraspecific taxa appear in the record. Suddenly. In 9 months to be exact (depending on species). There are no missing links missing between the Asian and the Afro-Asian or the African and the Afro-Asian.

The entire fossil record has been incorrectly classified.

These:

are all merely infraspecific taxa within the same species, as are these:

And a few of them we know are actually babies and adults.

Creation proceeding by evolution afterwards would be more than acceptable - if it wasn't all just Fairie Dust (96% ad-hoc assumptions).

Just as a Big Bang proposed by a priest would be more than acceptable - if it too wasn't all just Fairie Dust (96% ad-hoc assumptions).

I don't need to play gap games with you because there were no gaps. I don't have to play find the missing link game with you because no links are missing. I don't have to double-talk to tell you that billion year old bacteria that never evolved proves evolution.

T-Rex remained T-Rex for the same reason an Asian remains an Asian or an African remains an African - until the two mate - then the offspring becomes a whole new infraspecific taxa, if they aren't all wiped out of existence. And we don't need evolution at all, just they stop ignoring the real world in favor of theory.

 

[MEK]

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 Christiants refuse to accept evolution as a reasonable explanation to our becoming if the data strongly suggests it?

 

[MEK]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I understand evolution is still just a theory, it has never been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. There is no empirical evidence of one species becoming another.

 

[Aman777]

Scripture is the claim You did not answer the question. Please answer yes or no. Will you write a paper outlining your claims and submit it for peer review in the relevant fields of study?

My "peers" are NOT your peers since my peers are Eternal Beings while your's are still dead to God, since they have REJECTED God's Holy Word.

Jon:>>The burden of proof belongs to you. You know this as you have been told on multiple occasions. It is dishonest to ask someone to prove a negative. Again, write your paper and see if you can pass it through peer review. Until then, your claims are easily dismissed.

So, go ahead and dismiss my claims (which agree in every way with Science and History) and when it comes time for your judgment, you are without excuse ole mortal man. Good luck and God Bless you.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

The entire fossil record has been incorrectly classified.

Are you willing to write a paper and have it peer reviewed in the relevant fields of study?

 

[GAPCanadianChristian]

Why do I get this asinine thread in my email? Is it because the powers that be on this website don't like that I, as a Christian, believe in atheistic evolution?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I understand evolution is still just a theory, it has never been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. There is no empirical evidence of one species becoming another.

Gravity is a theory, so is germ theory of disease. A scientific theory is a well substantiated explanation that explains some aspect of the natural world and is repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. Evolution takes place in populations not in individuals.

Tiktaalik Roseae

http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/meetTik.html

 

[justlookinla]

Gravity is a theory, so is germ theory of disease. A scientific theory is a well substantiated explanation that explains some aspect of the natural world and is repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. Evolution takes place in populations not in individuals.

Tiktaalik Roseae

http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/meetTik.html

I see gators like that just about every time I go fishin'.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

My "peers" are NOT your peers since my peers are Eternal Beings while your's are still dead to God, since they have REJECTED God's Holy Word.

So you are not willing to write a paper and submit it to experts in their field of study? That's what I thought.
There are biologists that are also Christians. Why do you feel the need to insult them by saying "They have rejected God's Holy Word"?

and when it comes time for your judgment, you are without excuse ole mortal man. Good luck

Oooooo spooky scary threats. Grow up.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

I see gators like that just about every time I go fishin'.

Well Tiktaalik has been extinct for quite some time. Alligators are reptiles, Tiktaalik is a fishapod (Part fish features and part amphibian features). Do these alligators you see have both gills and lungs? Do they also have half fins and half legs? Tiktaalik is an transitional species. Sorry, your observation that Tiktaalik is an alligator is very, very wrong.

 

[nuttypiglet]

Isn't evolution in a tight spot for time? If in nearly half a million years we haven't seen any evolution in Man, then how can he have evolved from a single cell in a couple of billion years? The speed of evolution must have been in real over drive but has now slowed right back down. Has anyone ever actually proved any of the Bible is wrong? I haven't. I've heard claims about Nathereth not existing etc, but after digging such statements are purely ridiculous. Nature doesnt understand colour, and yet so many life forms rely on a specific group of colours to work as a symbiotic relationship. How did plants discover photosynthesis? the information must have come from somewhere. Science has dug up fossils and assumes they link together to form a tree of life. Science discovered DNA and pretends to know all the functions of it, when they don't. It seems that when science learns something new, they come out with ridiculous statements about it. I read a post about the chimpanzee vs Man in dna. A 3% or 4% difference is massive "according to biologists" and it can't be assumed we are that closely related. Yet science keeps informing us we must have a common ancestor. A boy was in a room with a box of Lego and decided to make a lot of different animals. The boy made thousands of them and left the room. A Man walked in and saw all the animals and decided to analyse them. He wrote "because specie A and B have common bricks, they must be related". The boy in the other room heard the man, giggled and said "what a fool".

 

[eclipsenow]

Why do I get this asinine thread in my email? Is it because the powers that be on this website don't like that I, as a Christian, believe in atheistic evolution?

If you're a Christian you believe in Theistic Evolution. ;-) You're a TE.

 

[justlookinla]

Well Tiktaalik has been extinct for quite some time. Alligators are reptiles, Tiktaalik is a fishapod (Part fish features and part amphibian features). Do these alligators you see have both gills and lungs? Do they also have half fins and half legs? Tiktaalik is an transitional species. Sorry, your observation that Tiktaalik is an alligator is very, very wrong.

Same life forms. Move on folks, nothing new to see here.

 

[AV1611VET]

But I thought you believed that God was infinitely powerful? Why is He so 'weak' that He took 6 days? Why not a nano-second?

God took six days on purpose, so as to create a template for the work week, as stipulated in the Ten Commandments.

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

The mystery behind 6 days of 'work' had Philo so perplexed it was immediately an indicator to him that the text was metaphor, a creative narrative with theological intent. And this was 2000 years ago!

I have a feeling Philo was perplexed by a lot of things.

After all, wasn't Plato perplexed at shadows in a cave or something?

Wanna perplex a scientist today?

Put him in a round room and tell him the circumference of the building is 30 yards, and the diameter is 10 yards -- (but don't tell him the room has a narrow hallway around it outside).

He'll go nuts trying to prove you wrong.