Why is Christianity opposed to the theory of Evolution?

[AV1611VET]

There was no earth yet when that ball of fire formed.

"Formed"?

Is this the barrier that keeps us from agreeing?

 

[AV1611VET]

Perhaps you'd be so kind as to link to the empirical evidence that supports the Earth having formed before the sun?

The earth didn't "form" before the sun.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Do you know the difference between "formed" and "created"?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The earth didn't "form" before the sun.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Do you know the difference between "formed" and "created"?

Whatever terminology you choose, I'd still appreciate some empirical evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is difficult for Christians believing in evolution to take into account without turning the book into a fairy tale.

That's their job, though.

To sterilize as much jots & tittles of the Bible, so that when the Antichrist shows up, he won't have much resistance from the Scriptures.

The Christians who sterilized them won't be here, of course, but enough damage will have been done, so that those left behind will be left behind in confusion, sans a moral compass to guide them into the Truth.

 

[AV1611VET]

Whatever terminology you choose,

I didn't choose it, chief.

The King James writers chose it.

I'd still appreciate some empirical evidence.

I know you would.

 

[DogmaHunter]

"Formed"?

Yes. Gravity and all that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System

Is this the barrier that keeps us from agreeing?

No, the barrier that keeps us from agreeing is your faith-based dogmatic commitment to a bronze age story.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, the barrier that keeps us from agreeing is your faith-based dogmatic commitment to a bronze age story.

That story was written in the bronze age, was it?

You pile one mistake on top of another ... then try and present them to me as my "dogmatic commitment"?

No, thanks.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I didn't choose it, chief.

The King James writers chose it.

Well, if you're going to be picky, then it was the people who translated the King James Bible who chose it, not those who wrote it.

I know you would.

For the record, what you named a "bold statement" has been backed up with empirical evidence. You are unwilling to provide even that level of evidence for your statement.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, if you're going to be picky, then it was the people who translated the King James Bible who chose it, not those who wrote it.

And it's you who don't understand where I'm coming from.

For the record, what you named a "bold statement" has been backed up with empirical evidence.

So was Thalidomide.

You are unwilling to provide even that level of evidence for your statement.

The creation events did not generate any evidence -- only products.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That story was written in the bronze age, was it?
You pile one mistake on top of another ... then try and present them to me as my "dogmatic commitment"?
No, thanks.

Are you really going to challenge the idea that you hold on dogmatically to your religious beliefs?

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you really going to challenge the idea that you hold on dogmatically to your religious beliefs?

I'm a dogma finder.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

And it's you who don't understand where I'm coming from.

I do understand where you're coming from - a position where you're unable to back up your statements with evidence, yet you would like to retain the freedom to dismiss any statements that you would rather not be true as un-evidenced, even if they actually have a fair bit of evidence supporting them.

So was Thalidomide.

Firstly, I don't see the connection between Thalidomide and the formation of the solar system.

Secondly, one of the main problems with Thalidomide was that it didn't have the necessary empirical data. There was no evidence about whether or not the drug could cross the placenta barrier, as it had never been tested on any pregnant animals. That's one of the main reasons why the FDA never approved the drug in the US, and what led to a reformation of the drug testing and approval laws.

You seem to have intended this as a weird cheap anti-empiricism jibe, but have instead referenced a superlative example of exactly why empirical data is important.

The creation events did not generate any evidence -- only products.

If there is no evidence for them, then there is no reason to believe that they happened.

 

[joshua 1 9]

No, because all the data supports evolution.
There is no data that falsifies it.

So that means if evolution is true then his statement is false. You can not have your cake and eat it to. His statement contradicts evolution.

 

[Aman777]

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? 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!
http://www.iscast.org/journal/articlespage/Dickson_J_2008-03_Genesis_Of_Everything

Because God's Creation continues at the end of the present 6th Day/Age of the Creation of the perfect 3rd Heaven. We live today at Gen 1:27 because God is STILL creating people in His Image which is being born again, in Christ Spiritually. We will not advance to the prophecy of Gen 1:28-31 until AFTER Jesus returns. That is God's Literal Truth which NO godless scientist can refute. Amen?

 

[DogmaHunter]

So that means if evolution is true then his statement is false. You can not have your cake and eat it to. His statement contradicts evolution.

What statement? What are you talking about?

The point was about how scientific knowledge is changed as new evidence comes in.
You said that if that were true, evolution would be false.

I then said that there is no data to suggest it being false and that instead the data only supports the theory.

You then came back with the above quote and I have no idea what you are talking about...

 

[joshua 1 9]

What statement? What are you talking about?

Your statement was that Science evolves but Religion does not evolve. According to the theory of evolution: "everything evolves or else it perishes". Religion is alive and well and growing here on planet earth. If it was not evolving then according to the theory of evolution it would have perished a long time ago.

 

[Aman777]

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"?

Then find one who believes the story of the Flood literally. Compromisers change God's Holy Word into fable, myth, fiction and claim that God's Word is NOT literally true. God set a trap which catches all knowing evolutionists in His snare He set with the flood. In the last days Scoffers/evolutionists will be "willingly ignorant" that Adam's world was totally destroyed in the Flood. It's because this Historically confirmed Truth totally destroys the incomplete and false Theory of Evolution. ll Peter 3:3-7 Amen?

 

[AV1611VET]

If it hadn't been for this doosey:

yet you would like to retain the freedom to dismiss any statements that you would rather not be true as un-evidenced, even if they actually have a fair bit of evidence supporting them.

... I would have stopped spinning my wheels with you.

But since you said this, I'll respond.

I have over 17,869 times the messages you have.

And unless you have another account here, I would say you have no idea how wrong your remark is.

I'm second to none here in saying EVIDENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE.

When it comes to the EVIDENCE DEPARTMENT, you guys have 10,000 x 10,000 more evidence than we do.

But the evidence, in my opinion, is:

1. fake
2. false
3. made up
4. incomplete
   
5. made by rigged voting
6. lies
7. computer generated and sustained
8. hit and miss
9. trial and error
10. assumed
11. supposed
12. theorized
13. crunched, force fit, made to accommodate your biases
14. sustained by circular logic
15. machine generated by calibrated equipment
16. etc.

I could go on about other evidence being dismissed, overlooked (on purpose), hidden, etc., but I won't.

Yes, I contend that our evidence for the existence of God is the same kind of evidence you guys use for knowing how gravity exists; but I'm willing to forfeit that in favor of saying you guys have much more evidence against God, than we do for God, for the sake of arguing.

But for the record, I don't believe it.

In my view, all it takes is one sentence, yea, one word from the Scriptures, and all your 10,000 x 10,000 pieces of evidence can take a hike.

 

[Martin Moe]

Evolution is just the very tip of the iceberg. If one is a “true believer” in the fundamental tenets of almost any religion that has a basis in the unquestioned existence of a supernatural world inhabited by supernatural beings (usually with one of these beings as the creator and controller of everything); then one must also believe that our world, our civilizations, our societies, or very being, is, to use an appropriate expression, infested with good and evil entities whose only purpose (as far as we know) is to war between themselves and with the the human species. And that they try mightily to convince a human intelligence that they actually exist and that they represent a particular vision of life after death that is the absolute truth and that is available to all humans that truly believe in the stories and purported history of the religion that they represent. To a “true believer”, the one god and its angels, jinns, cherubs, devils, demons, saints, and spirits are real entities that must be believed, acknowledged, worshiped, and even prayed to if they are to fulfill their responsibilities as creations of a creator who demands, upon the pain of eternal damnation as punishment. that they believe and follow the true religion.

To a “true believer” a dinosaur skull and the science of genetics is not proof that biological life has a long and complex evolutionary history upon our Earth, no, it is simply proof that god demands a belief that it exists despite the efforts of the nefarious supernatural beings (that it created) that spare no effort to use “things of the world” to subvert the supernatural truth of their existence and the true purpose of human life. Physical evidence and reason are simple tools of the devil. True religious conviction is immune to reason.

 

[joshua 1 9]

The theory of evolution has nothing whatsoever to say about the origin of the universe.

Yes I am talking more about the random theory which a lot of evolutionists reject. They are esp fast to claim that natural selection is not random. Some evolutionists do try to depend on various random theorys though.