Why is Christianity opposed to the theory of Evolution?

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

If it hadn't been for this doosey:
... 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.

That you dismiss evidence that doesn't support what you would like to be true is not a surprise to me, so I don't know why you're posting it as if it's some devastating counter-argument. You admitting that your beliefs are unreasonable is not the slam-dunk rebuttal you seem to think it is.

I do find it somewhat ironic, though, that you are talking about science being culpable for dismissing and overlooking (on purpose) evidence in a post in which you're loudly trumpeting your habit of dismissing and overlooking (on purpose) evidence. And I suppose that it's rather redundant to point out that you're doing so on a computer in order to have an almost real-time conversation with someone hundreds of miles away from you.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

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.

Can you cite one scientific paper which sets out or utilises "the random theory"? Or are you, as I suspect, conflating the fact that evolution by natural selection relies on random mutations with the idea that the theory itself is entirely random?

 

[joshua 1 9]

If it hadn't been for this doosey:
... 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.

Actually the evidence they have supports the Bible and Creationism. I am glad that they work as hard as they do to gather the evidence that they have. Except as you say the fake, false, made up stuff that is not evidence at all. Along with their biases circular logic and all the rest of it. That is what Abraham was ALL about. Abraham was called to come out from among them. As adopted children of Abraham we are to come out from among them.

Revelation 18:4
Then I heard another voice from heaven say: "'Come out of her, my people,' so that you will not share in her sins, so that you will not receive any of her plagues;

 

[AV1611VET]

(that it created)

Did ... did you actually say 'created'!?

Not 'poofed'?

Not 'formed'?

'Created'!?

Wait until the scientists show up.

They'll have a field day with this.

All that aside, though, and for the record, communicating with (and worshipping) angels is forbidden.

That's why scientists will argue with you if you believe D&D and Parker Brother's Ouija Board are demonic.

What's off-limits to us, is ringing the dinner bell with them.

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually the evidence they have supports the Bible and Creationism.

Not the way they doctor it up though.

Scientists look at the Grand Canyon and see a wonderful piece of geological artwork.

Christians see the effects of sin on God's creation.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Can you cite one scientific paper which sets out or utilises "the random theory"? Or are you, as I suspect, conflating the fact that evolution by natural selection relies on random mutations with the idea that the theory itself is entirely random?

I JUST read a book about that written by Schroeder. Also Sir Fred Hoyle wrote a book about this back in the 80's.

God According to God: A Scientist Discovers We've Been Wrong About God All Along Paperback – May 4, 2010 by Gerald Schroeder (Author)

 

[joshua 1 9]

Can you cite one scientific paper which sets out or utilises "the random theory"? Or are you, as I suspect, conflating the fact that evolution by natural selection relies on random mutations with the idea that the theory itself is entirely random?

"In developing his argument that natural selection can explain the complex adaptations of organisms, Dawkins' first concern is to illustrate the difference between the potential for the development of complexity as a result of pure randomness, as opposed to that of randomness coupled with cumulative selection" wiki

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I JUST read a book about that written by Schroeder. Also Sir Fred Hoyle wrote a book about this back in the 80's.

Firstly, books are not scientific papers. Secondly, you seem to have provided references for books that presumably contain passages that you believe support your assertion about evolutionary scientists and "the random theory", rather than any evolutionary scientists actually using "the random theory". Thirdly, you have posted two citations for books written by physicists, not evolutionary biologists. Finally, evolutionary theory still has nothing to do with the origin of the universe.

You have claimed that "Some evolutionists do try to depend on various random theorys". Can you cite a single published scientific paper that backs this assertion up?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

"In developing his argument that natural selection can explain the complex adaptations of organisms, Dawkins' first concern is to illustrate the difference between the potential for the development of complexity as a result of pure randomness, as opposed to that of randomness coupled with cumulative selection" wiki

Okay, again, what is under discussion there is a popular science book aimed at the layman, not a scientific paper. Secondly, what you've quoted there (without attribution) is a passage specifically talking about how Dawkins illustrates that evolutionary theory is not random. I would like you to back up your assertion that "Some evolutionists do try to depend on various random theorys"

 

[Loudmouth]

Evolution & the Theory are two different subjects. Actually the way I understand it was, the theory of evolution was opposed to Creation! It was an effort to try refute Creation.

It was meant to refute creationism, the idea that species were separately created.

The theory, which has so many missing links, Even Darwin doubted it before death!

The "Lady of Hope" story is a lie that creationists have told for decades.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/ladyhope.html

There is difference between Micro & Macro evolution. An animal with certain characteristics surviving & adapting over years is not the same as a one growing feathers, wings & deciding to lay eggs!

Prove it. Show us how it isn't the same. Show us how the DNA differences between species could not have been produced by the accumulation of micro-evolutionary events.

Explain how can you adapt try to fly & lay eggs?

Explain how it can't happen, as you claim it can't happen.

It blows my mind people who can have faith in some theory with so many holes laugh at People for believing in a Creator.

Why would we need faith when we have evidence?

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Then find one who believes the story of the Flood literally.

Oh so if you wrote a paper you want someone bias and agreeing with your world view? Sorry, that's not how peer review works. Peer review is anonymous and the reviewers are not required to identify themselves.

God set a trap which catches all knowing evolutionists in His snare?

God deliberately deceives people? That would make him a liar.

It's because this Historically confirmed Truth totally destroys the incomplete and false Theory of Evolution.

Not even close.

 

[bhsmte]

This whole issue of why certain religious folks deny the evidence for evolution is simple:

Evolution is a direct threat, to their personal faith beliefs, which are very important to their individual psyche. Therefore, they will build defense mechanisms against it and protect it at all costs; denial, confirmation bias and selective reasoning. The theory of evolution and the abundance of evidence that supports it, along with the fact that most Christians agree with it, causes quite a bit of cognitive dissonance, in some.

 

[Loudmouth]

View attachment 164545
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.

Don't you mean to say that you will never accept the evolution of birds as true no matter what the evidence is?

Don't you mean to say that your religious dogma will always trump scientific evidence?

 

[Aman777]

Sorry, that's woefully simplistic.
First, Genesis 1 and 2 are creative narratives more like parables. They contradict the order of creation, the very sequence of plants and animals and mankind, right next to each other! I think that's just one literary cue we are given to understand these passages as theological in intent, not literal.

Second, I'm a TE: Theistic Evolutionist. I still believe God created the world. I don't deny that at all. We're just disagreeing on how because you don't know how to read early Genesis!

A theistic evolutionist changes into a creationist WHEN they understand that there is but ONE story of the creation and Gen 1 and two literally AGREE in every way IF you have the proper interpretation. Amen?

 

[Aman777]

The Earth didn't exist before the sun.

False, since Adam's Earth was made BEFORE the Big bang of our Cosmos. Gen 1:10 Also, it was almost 9 Billion years AFTER the Big Bang before our Sun lit up. Amen?

 

[Aman777]

There was no earth yet when that ball of fire formed.
Regardless of what you think your scripture tells you.

False, since the Star we call the Sun wasn't formed until some 9 Billion years AFTER the Big Bang. Adam's Earth was made BEFORE the Big Bang. Gen 1:3 Amen?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Firstly, books are not scientific papers. Secondly, you seem to have provided references for books that presumably contain passages that you believe support your assertion about evolutionary scientists and "the random theory", rather than any evolutionary scientists actually using "the random theory". Thirdly, you have posted two citations for books written by physicists, not evolutionary biologists. Finally, evolutionary theory still has nothing to do with the origin of the universe.

You have claimed that "Some evolutionists do try to depend on various random theorys". Can you cite a single published scientific paper that backs this assertion up?

Oh I see physicists know nothing about evolution and we should disregard whatever it is they have to say about it.

 

[Loudmouth]

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?

Please show that there has been no evolution in H. sapiens since their emergence 200k years ago, as you claim.

Nature doesnt understand colour, and yet so many life forms rely on a specific group of colours to work as a symbiotic relationship.

Why would it need to understand color in order for natural selection to work?

Science has dug up fossils and assumes they link together to form a tree of life.

It isn't an assumption. It is an objective conclusion based on data.

"The degree to which a given phylogeny displays a unique, well-supported, objective nested hierarchy can be rigorously quantified. Several different statistical tests have been developed for determining whether a phylogeny has a subjective or objective nested hierarchy, or whether a given nested hierarchy could have been generated by a chance process instead of a genealogical process (Swofford 1996, p. 504). These tests measure the degree of "cladistic hierarchical structure" (also known as the "phylogenetic signal") in a phylogeny, and phylogenies based upon true genealogical processes give high values of hierarchical structure, whereas subjective phylogenies that have only apparent hierarchical structure (like a phylogeny of cars, for example) give low values (Archie 1989; Faith and Cranston 1991; Farris 1989; Felsenstein 1985; Hillis 1991; Hillis and Huelsenbeck 1992; Huelsenbeck et al. 2001; Klassen et al. 1991)."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy

Science discovered DNA and pretends to know all the functions of it, when they don't.

We don't need to know the function of DNA in order to compare DNA sequences. We can take any two stretches of DNA and see how many bases they have in common without knowing if either DNA sequence has function.

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.

Chimps share more DNA with humans than they do with gorillas. Chimps are more closely related to humans than they are to another ape. There is no other species that shares more DNA with humans than chimps. That is what scientists mean by closely related because there are no other species that is more closely related to humans than chimps.

[qutoe]Yet science keeps informing us we must have a common ancestor.[/quote]

We keep pointing to the evidence for a common ancestor, which creationists ignore.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/endogenous-retroviruses-and-human-evolution-v-2.7911273/
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/creationist-arguments-against-ervs.7898737/

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".

Why would those Lego animals fall into a nested hierarchy? They wouldn't, would they. Only evolution produces a nested hierarchy.

 

[davedajobauk]

How is it the earth was populated with angiosperms before that giant ball of nuclear fire was ever in the sky?

The Earth didn't exist before the sun.

There was no earth yet when that ball of fire formed.
Regardless of what you think your scripture tells you.

Plainly, there is comparative evidence in the skies (?)
that solar bodies and their discs of planet-forming material, exist before the planets are formed
Again, I repeat my past mention...
that God's 'six days', are periods, that earlier humanity could understand and also the day of resting
(and accept)
and that it is, that LITERAL reading of texts
that associates (that text, with) days, that we know of (24 hours)
Those 'God's Days) could so easily have been millennia (and probably MANY)
misconstrued chronology ? who could know for-certain, but, God ?

 

[ViaCrucis]

This is fairly pointless. Christians have no reason to believe in evolution - it doesn't affect their daily life (well, at least the concept of it)

Only because of ignorance. Our understanding of evolution is absolutely crucial to much of the scientific--including medical--progress we've made in the last two hundred years. Things that absolutely are relevant--whether we are aware of it or not--to our daily lives.

and believing in it would contradict their interpretation of the Bible. They operate from the position "I already know the truth, I just have to find the evidence to back it up" and will read and quote all sorts of pseudo science from the web, written by other religious people with the same agenda, to support their belief, regardless whether it's true or not. In doing so, they will not realise the fact that evolution is accepted worldwide by 99% of people who are QUALIFIED to have a valid opinion on the topic.

It doesn't contradict the reading, interpretation, and role of Scripture for, arguably, most Christians on the planet. It is only problematic to a particularly vocal subset of Christians. For the rest of us there is no problem between science and Scripture because Scripture--and Christian dogma--doesn't have anything to say one way or the other about evolution. It's like saying there's a problem between Scripture and the topography of Nova Scotia.

This is why they are also quite fine with saying "No, I already believe in God, you have to prove to me why he's not real!" and never see a problem with this position.

Again, that's not a Christian thing. That's something some Christians do. Plenty of Christians are perfectly fine not trying to shift the burden of proof into proving a negative due to the fallacious nature of such a thing. We also don't necessarily see much need in trying to prove the existence of God because we don't regard the existence of God to be something that can be demonstrated or evidenced empirically. For example I don't believe God's existence or the tenets of my religion can be evidenced empirically, nor do I regard Christianity to be especially rational; my faith isn't predicated on such things. Conversely I think it's entirely foolish to play the fallacy of proving the negative--the non-believing have neither reason nor burden to demonstrate that God doesn't exist than they do that the invisible pink unicorn doesn't exist.

Non-religious people have no preconceived idea of what the truth is and are able to read about a topic from a multitude of unbiased sources and so are more likely to believe in something closer to the truth.

Let's be clear that religiosity or lack-thereof is hardly a determining factor on whether a person is capable of objectively approaching questions. I've seen just as many non-religious people acting and being just as irrational and making assertions based on preconceptions and presuppositions as I have religious people. The issue there is almost certainly a matter of psychology, not religiosity.

-CryptoLutheran