Why is Christianity opposed to the theory of Evolution?

[JonFromMinnesota]

What you just said can be easily be refuted. I won't go down that path because all will happen is you will get evidence you believe ..then I would and on and on.

Or is it because you don't have any verifiable or testable evidence? If you think you can falsify the theory of evolution you should write a paper and have it peer reviewed! Collect your Nobel Prize and become rich and famous from the ridiculous speaking fees you'll be able to charge. Are you willing to write the paper?

It says in the Bible that man will never find indisputable proof (scientific) of His existence or non existence.

I care about evidence. I care about logic and reason. I care about what is true. If you cannot demonstrate with verifiable and testable evidence, I have no good reason to believe any of it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Because you ignore observations of the natural world. Asian mates with Asian and produces an Asian (with small variation). Asian mates with African and Produces an Afro-Asian (with large variation).

Asians and Africans are not H. erectus, nor are they the common ancestor of H. sapiens and P. troglodytes. Why do you keep using them as examples?

Now the virus is the same as the Asian's in this scenario - because unlike humans - have both strands of chromosomes capable of being passed on. So they like humans vary naturally every time those DNA strands are copied - either in bacteria both together copied into new strands, or humans copied one from each into new strands.

You don't even understand what you are talking about. It is the placement of the viral insertion in the host genome that makes them useful for testing common ancestry.

In most cases you mistake dominant and recessive as a mutation, because we now call a mutation any permanent change. Yet these occur naturally. Mutations are damage.

Mutations just happen like anything else. They can be harmful, neutral, or beneficial.

So why you think bacteria and viruses will not show the variation we see among infraspecific taxa of a species - is beyond me?

It has nothing to do with the variation of bacterial or viral genomes.

It's a natural occurrence we observe with every birth, unrelated to mutations which are damage. But we all understand they are still the same species. Just as E coli mutated billions of times over billions of generations leads in the end to E coli.

Please show that all of the ancestors of modern E. coli were E. coli.

Just E coli with new dominant and recessive traits . . . .

You have just proven that you have no standing talking about genetics. Bacteria don't have dominant and recessive alleles.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I am using physical characteristics, and I am putting them in separate species from living species, human or ape. I base this on the criteria that they don't fall within the observed variation of those living species.

What species are you putting them in, and why?

So then they are neither descended from apes or humans or us from them?

I certainly agree to that.

 

[Loudmouth]

So then they are neither descended from apes or humans or us from them?

They are not descended from modern ape or human species because that would require a time machine. You do know what a descendent is, don't you?

What we do know is that they are not the same species as any living ape or human species. Where you draw the line between ape and human is rather arbitrary, especially given the number of transitional species we have now.

We also can't determine if any living organism is the descendant of any fossil. We need DNA for that.

What we can determine is that fossils have a mixture of features found in living species. This makes them transitional, and a species unto themselves. It is evidence for evolution since these are the transitionals we would expect to see if evolution is true.

 

[justlookinla]

Biologos does not support your position.

"In recent decades, scientists have discovered more about the beginnings of humanity. The fossil record shows a gradual transition over 5 million years ago from chimpanzee-size creatures to hominids with larger brains who walked on two legs. Later hominids used fire and stone tools and had brains as large as modern humans. Fossils of homo sapiens in east Africa date back nearly 200,000 years. Humans developed hearths for fire, stone points for spears and arrows, and cave paintings by 30,000 years ago. By 10,000 years ago, humans had spread throughout the globe. Genetic studies support the same picture. Humans share more DNA with chimpanzees than with any other animal, suggesting that humans and chimps share a relatively recent common ancestor. Also, the same defective genes appear in both humans and chimps, at the same locations in the genome—an observation difficult to explain except by common ancestry"

https://biologos.org/common-questio...c-evidence-do-we-have-about-the-first-humans/

BioLogos does not support the Godless Darwinist position.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

BioLogos does not support the Godless Darwinist position.

There is no such thing as "Godless Darwinist" position. That is something you made up in your head to protect your deeply held beliefs. The quotation above is acknowledgment for the part of evolution you do not accept. You should get a gold medal for how many back flips you're willing to do when you're shown to be wrong.

 

[justlookinla]

There is no such thing as "Godless Darwinist" position. That is something you made up in your head to protect your deeply held beliefs. The quotation above is acknowledgment for the part of evolution you do not accept. You should get a gold medal for how many back flips you're willing to do when you're shown to be wrong.

Sure there's Godless Darwinist evolution. One need only to peruse the UC-Berkeley website on evolution to find it.

Mankind, as well as all life we observe today, is the result of random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanisms acting on an alleged single life form (unknown) of long ago. This is the faith-based worldview of Darwinist evolution in a nutshell.

 

[Loudmouth]

There is no such thing as "Godless Darwinist" position.

I find it strange that they also don't use terms like "Godless Newtonian gravity" or "Godless thermodynamics". Those theories fail to include God in the same way that evolution does.

 

[justlookinla]

I find it strange that they also don't use terms like "Godless Newtonian gravity" or "Godless thermodynamics". Those theories fail to include God in the same way that evolution does.

I find it strange (not really) that folks don't realize gravity didn't produce all life we observe today.

 

[bhsmte]

I find it strange that they also don't use terms like "Godless Newtonian gravity" or "Godless thermodynamics". Those theories fail to include God in the same way that evolution does.

Those theories are not as threatening though, so they don't give them a second thought. Evolution though, is like the boogy man to fundies.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Sure there's Godless Darwinist evolution.

Cite on your go to site biologos (Even though it clearly doesn't agree with you) where they use the term "Godless Darwinist Evolution" This is a made up term you thought up in your head to protect your beliefs. It's nonsense.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Asians and Africans are not H. erectus, nor are they the common ancestor of H. sapiens and P. troglodytes. Why do you keep using them as examples?

You still can't see can you? Have they done such a good job of indoctrination?

Asians are no more H erectus than Africans are Asians. Than a Husky is a Mastiff. Why the strawmen Loud? Show me where I have ever claimed any infraspecific taxa was the same as another infraspecific taxa??????? Why do you keep ignoring real life? That's why I keep mentioning them. H erectus is just another infraspecific taxa among the human species as is Asians and Neanderthal. But then you start trying to throw in the monkey bones and make your Piltdown men.

You don't even understand what you are talking about. It is the placement of the viral insertion in the host genome that makes them useful for testing common ancestry.

No, just useful for letting us know when that foreign DNA was transferred by Horizontal Gene Transfer after the virus that carried it inserted itself. You got the foreign virus insertion part correct, now just stop ignoring the rest..

Mutations just happen like anything else. They can be harmful, neutral, or beneficial.

Only you really believe that.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1871816/

"Our analysis suggests that ≈95% of all nonsynonymous mutations that could contribute to polymorphism or divergence are deleterious, and that the average proportion of deleterious amino acid polymorphisms in samples is ≈70%. On the other hand, ≈95% of fixed differences between species are positively selected, although the scaled selection coefficient (Nes) is very small. We estimate that ≈46% of amino acid replacements have Nes < 2, ≈84% have Nes < 4, and ≈99% have Nes < 7. Although positive selection among amino acid differences between species seems pervasive, most of the selective effects could be regarded as nearly neutral."

Again - no one is claiming mutations do not happen.

It has nothing to do with the variation of bacterial or viral genomes.

Yah I know, it's magic in your fantasy land.

Please show that all of the ancestors of modern E. coli were E. coli.

Please show any that were not and I'll show you the wrong ancestor.

You have just proven that you have no standing talking about genetics. Bacteria don't have dominant and recessive alleles.

So they never mutate? You can't have it both ways during that copying process. Either they can change allies dominant and recessiveness - or they can not change at all. And so then we wouldn't need to keep testing rats.

 

[bhsmte]

Cite on your go to site biologos (Even though it clearly doesn't agree with you) where they use the term "Godless Darwinist Evolution" This is a made up term you thought up in your head to protect your beliefs. It's nonsense.

He desperately clings to this manufactured term though, like a child does their favorite blanket.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I find it strange that they also don't use terms like "Godless Newtonian gravity" or "Godless thermodynamics". Those theories fail to include God in the same way that evolution does.

Why?

I already agreed that gravitational theory applies to 1% of the universe (solids, liquids and gasses - planetary systems) as I agree evolution applies to about 1% of what we observe. And since God set all the natural laws in motion - why would those forces exclude Him?

I hope you keep looking deeper and deeper!!!!

"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made," just not sure what you think God would be if He existed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

Because we know what everything comes from and returns to - and is quite invisible - even as that energy courses through your brain giving you thought. Without that "image" you'd be dust.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

He desperately clings to this manufactured term though, like a child does their favorite blanket.

Gold medal worthy mental gymnastics and a severe case of cognitive dissonance. Debates with these types are futile. I don't know why I bother.

 

[bhsmte]

Gold medal worthy mental gymnastics and a severe case of cognitive dissonance. Debates with these types are futile. I don't know why I bother.

Oh yea, it is all of that and more.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Gold medal worthy mental gymnastics and a severe case of cognitive dissonance. Debates with these types are futile. I don't know why I bother.

I haven't seen you debate yet, just make snide comments every post. You are just lucky hes nice and doesn't report every single one of your posts or you wouldn't have to worry about figuring out why you bother.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why?

I already agreed that gravitational theory applies to 1% of the universe (solids, liquids and gasses - planetary systems) as I agree evolution applies to about 1% of what we observe. And since God set all the natural laws in motion - why would those forces exclude Him?

Please show us where in the scientific theories God does anything that is detectable or testable. You could do it for plasma physics if you want. How does God cause plasma to redshift light? How is God a part of the process of absorbance and emission?

"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made," just not sure what you think God would be if He existed?

In other words, you have no evidence.

 

[justlookinla]

Cite on your go to site biologos (Even though it clearly doesn't agree with you) where they use the term "Godless Darwinist Evolution" This is a made up term you thought up in your head to protect your beliefs. It's nonsense.

Biologos certainly opposes the evolutionary position of Godless Darwinist evolution. Simply go to the 'about us' section of the site to read about their position. Posting from my phone, but if you wish I'll copy and paste their position about Godless evolution when I get back to my computer.

 

[Skala]

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

Because the theory of evolution is a fairy tale. Not once, not ONCE, have we seen a kind of animal turn into another kind of animal.

A mosquito becoming more resistant to bug spray is not proof of molecule-to-man evolution.