Why is Christianity opposed to the theory of Evolution?

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I accept the literalism of the Bible. I reject your understanding of the Bible.

So, when the Bible says that liars will go to hell, what does it mean, literally?

 

[Cearbhall]

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

It's not opposed to the theory of evolution. Certain people who happen to be Christians either fail to understand the theory of evolution or were brainwashed into thinking that the Bible is a science/history textbook.

 

[bhsmte]

Quick note, JonFromMinnesota. The topic of this thread is not whether evolution is true, but "why is Christianity opposed to the theory?"

To sum up my post, macroevolution is pleasing to the pride and hubris of people who think they are wise, but are not. A child can correctly answer the classic question about finding a watch in the forest, but her college educated father gets lost in the mass of conjecture and confusion speculating about oxygen levels 300 million years ago and such, losing track of the simple fact that organization is deliberately created or it automatically degrades. Trying to be independent makes us stupid.

To be accurate, the thread title is very misleading, since the majority of Christians, accept evolution.

 

[Aman777]

So you're a really old Earth Creationist? You believe that the Earth was created before the Big Bang, nearly 14 billion years ago?

I've got to hand it to you, that's a new one on me.

Adam's Earth was made the 3rd Day Gen 1:10 and then Adam was made Gen 2:4-7 on the 3rd Day BEFORE the plants, herbs and rain.
The Big Bang of our Cosmos was later on the 3rd Day, Gen 2:4 which means that Adam, the first Human, lived BEFORE the first Stars lit up in our Cosmos, on the 4th Day. Gen 1:16

WMAP has identified the time between the Big Bang and the lighting of the first Stars at some 550 Million years, in Feb/2015. That is WHY I say that it was later on the 3rd Day when the Big Bang happened, since it was ONLY 550 million years of the appx. 4.5 BILLION years of man's time for each of God's Days/Ages.

Today remains the 6th Day until the prophecy of Gen 1:28-31 is fulfilled WHEN Jesus returns at the end of the present 6th Day. What is shows is that the Big Bang was 3 Days ago to God but 13.8 Billion years in man's time.

BTW, I am the youngest of the young earthers since they think it has been 6k years since the beginning. I show that it was less than 6 Days ago. Amen? God Bless you

 

[Aman777]

Fundies, say some crazy stuff, don't they?

Read my reply to his post and you will see that it is True, Scripturally, Scientifically, and Historically. Thanks for recognizing me for one of the believers in Christ who also believes in the fundamentals of the Faith. God Bless you

 

[Loudmouth]

I did not say ''evidence'' .. you're putting words in my mouth.


What I did say is "data that supports"..which there is for creation as well.

"Data that supports" is evidence. Also, you haven't shown any data that supports creationism.

Until there is irrefutable proof.. it's an opinion.

False. When you have data that supports a scientific theory you have the facts on your side. That is objective. It is not a subjective opinion.

 

[Loudmouth]

God is light, because light is energy.

That is a bare assertion with no evidence or observations to back it. Want to try again?

 

[Aman777]

Your claims, your burden of proof. You know this. Evidence for evolution has been presented to you on multiple occasions here. You reject it because it contradicts your world view.

Cool map. It doesn't support your claims though. You know this

I agree that the Map is overwhelming to the worshippers of the False ToE. They hand wave it away because they cannot refute it and it shows that the FIRST Human farming, city building, and EVERY other trait of modern Humans SUDDENLY began exactly where Noah arrived.

It shows HOW and WHEN prehistoric people INHERITED Adam's unique superior intelligence, which is like God's intelligence. Gen 3:22 I don't expect the believers in the False Religion of Evolutionism to agree with me. I just enjoy REFUTING their False Theory, Publicly. Thanks for helping. God Bless you

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Forgive me for my false accusation then... at what rate do we actually observe beneficial mutations in the human and ape genomes, and what would be an acceptable definition of "beneficial"?

In evolution theory, beneficial is always defined as that which provides for more offspring. Right now, the ability to digest milk as an adult is a beneficial mutation working its way into the human genome. I don't have any idea about what rate we are seeing beneficial mutations appear among humans.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I can't speak for everyone, only myself... my doubts stem from not seeing compelling evidence and some scientific questions.

My acceptance of evolution is from seeing compelling evidence. I can wiggle my ears . . . so ear wiggling muscles exist . . . there is no reasonable explanation for them to exist except as vestiges. I have a little toe. there is no reason for it to exist except as a vestige. I have must have vitamin c in my diet. Yet I share a broken vitamin c gene with other primates. There is no reasonable non-evolutionary explanation for this situation. Those are evidences that directly impact me. There are other compelling evidences that I cannot directly verify, but I accept them, such as the presence of genetic markers showing common descent across various species lines.

 

[Aman777]

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.

Sorry, but i've been calling scientists and evolutionists "godless" for many years. It's because they have REJECTED God's Truth in the Bible and made up an incomplete, provably false, Theory...as you know. Amen?

 

[Aman777]

That is a bare assertion with no evidence or observations to back it. Want to try again?

I have God's Word to confirm his view. God is Light and He lives in a light so terrible, no man can know.

1Ti 6:16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting.

He changed some of that light into matter in Gen 1:1. It took some 3k years for Albert Einstein to discover that light and matter are opposite sides of the same coin. Amen?

 

[Loudmouth]

Just because it comes from a peer-reviewed article does not add validation.

Ummm, yes it does. Peer reviewed articles are the gold standard for scientific references. Having a non-expert expound on his uninformed opinions on a creationist website is not a valid scientific reference.

Do you want to know why Christian scientists aren't getting published, or working in prestigious universities, or not getting peer-reviews? Because you have to first be recognized by your "peers" as an expert in your field.

That's completely made up. Students still in graduate school get published, and there is no box on the form for submitting your paper where you check your religious affiliation. They have no idea what your religious beliefs are.

On top of that, there are tons of Christian biologists. They aren't discriminated against at all. In fact, the head of the NIH, Dr. Francis Collins, is an outspoken Christian.

Secondly, the article then has to go through the scrutiny of the community before getting published. So by the time a Christian scientist's work has gone through the ringer, there's nothing left to publish.

Why would that be? If it is good science, your religious beliefs don't matter. In fact, I would dare you to read any scientific paper, and from that paper alone try to deduce the religious beliefs of the authors. I bet you couldn't do it.

Thus, why Christians like myself, have to go through sites that collect the great Christian minds like Creation.com to get sourcing and information that counters the big establishment of academia and how biased IT is.

Why is refusing to publish bad science a bias? Isn't that how it should be?

 

[Loudmouth]

Sorry, but i've been calling scientists and evolutionists "godless" for many years. It's because they have REJECTED God's Truth in the Bible and made up an incomplete, provably false, Theory...as you know. Amen?

Evolutionists are no more godless than heliocentrists.

 

[Loudmouth]

I can't speak for everyone, only myself... my doubts stem from not seeing compelling evidence and some scientific questions.

I doubt that you have ever tried to seriously look at the evidence.

Have you ever looked at the ERV evidence?

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/endogenous-retroviruses-and-human-evolution-v-2.7911273/

 

[iam13]

You know folks, I have always seemed to balk at the notion the planet is only 6000 years old, that is until I met the Grand Master of Creation. You see here is the thing, that our grand master of creation could have just as easily created the earth 6000 years ago but simply created it in its totality while the planet still had scientific evidence that suggested it was much older. In other words, he is so fluid in his mastery of all creation, he simply created the dinosaur bones, as well as all the other elements that make us believe the planet is older. Hell, having not actually been there for all we know the Egyptians never even happened, rather he placed it there to look so. Remember, in his role there is absolutely NOTHING he cannot do.

Spiritual Evolution is the process it takes us, humanity, to get back to the eternal spiritual plain. Our fall from grace is what split the thing into Physical (Deathly) and Spiritual (Eternally). It is our job to spiritually evolve to a point in which we again collapse the physical (Death) into the Spiritual (Eternal life).... and we are upon the cusp of seeing this challenge through now. The only thing stopping us from such eternal bliss, are our choices to do so.

Love, Light and Power.

 

[Loudmouth]

Forgive me for my false accusation then... at what rate do we actually observe beneficial mutations in the human and ape genomes, and what would be an acceptable definition of "beneficial"?

Humans and chimps are separated by 40 million mutations. If those mutations are split evenly, that is 20 million mutations per lineage. Keep in mind, most of these mutations are going to be neutral.

So, at what rate do mutations appear? As it turns out, each person is born with about 50 mutations. With a generation time of 25 years, a steady population of just 100,000 people, and 5 million years since common ancestry, that is 1 trillion mutations that have occurred in the human lineage. We only kept 20 million of them. Obviously, the rate of mutation is enough to produce the mutations we see in the human and chimp lineages.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

I agree that the Map is overwhelming to the worshippers of the False ToE.

The map you reference does not repeat your claims. In fact, the site you reference it from supports the theory of evolution.
You make it clear that you cannot accept any evidence that contradict your deeply held beliefs.

Sorry, but i've been calling scientists and evolutionists "godless" for many years

There are many scientists that are also Christians. Your argument falls flat.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, I mean tested. Your own source says: "At the time of the drug's development, scientists did not believe any drug taken by a pregnant woman could pass across the placental barrier and harm the developing foetus".

That is, IMO, a lie.

Heroin was known at the time to pass placental barriers, as children were being born addicted to it.

I can't believe they didn't know.

 

[justlookinla]

Laurie, believing in Genesis does NOT require that one reject the theory of evolution.

One rejects atheistic Darwinist evolution because it's no based on the scientific method. No Christian I know embraces Godless evolution, believing they're the product of only random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanisms acting on an alleged single life form (unknown) of long ago.