Why is Christianity opposed to the theory of Evolution?

Open Heart said:

Not at all. It's backed by evidence in any number of sciences, from genetics to geology.

Click to expand...

No it's not. There's not a single solitary bit of evidence, based on the scientific method, that all of life we observe today is the product of only naturalistic mechanisms acting on an alleged single life form (unknown) of long ago.

I have a question for you. Is homo habilus a man or an ape? You should know that the genus homo does refer to man. But what is your own personal opinion after reading up on the species?

Click to expand...

Humanity, you and I, are creations of God unlike any of His other creations. Nothing compares to us, nothing equals us.

We're much more than an ape.

JonFromMinnesota said:

Ah the blind watchmaker argument. A watch is not a living thing. Nonliving things don't evolve, living things do. I can do research to find out where the watch came from and who made it.

Click to expand...

Find out who made this....assuming you believe it's a designed machine.....

bhsmte said:

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

Click to expand...

Not atheistic Darwinist evolution. Your claim is misleading.

justlookinla said:

Find out who made this....assuming you believe it's a designed machine.....

Click to expand...

Is an astronomical calculator a living thing?
Again. Living things evolve, non living things do not. The watchmaker argument does not hold.

JonFromMinnesota said:

Is an astronomical calculator a living thing?
Again. Living things evolve, non living things do not. The watchmaker argument does not hold.

Click to expand...

Designed things require a designer.

GraceSeeker said:

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

Click to expand...

Sure it does since Genesis 2:7 shows that Adam, the first Human, was made on the 3rd Day. Every other living creature was created and brought forth from the water, on the 5th Day. Gen 1:21 This makes it IMPOSSIBLE that Humans could have evolved from ANY other creature including Apes. Amen?

JonFromMinnesota said:

Are you saying that even though your DNA is similar to your great, great, great, great grandfather, it doesn't necessarily mean you are related? And we don't "Come from" monkeys. We share a common ancestor. Our closest cousins are chimpanzees and bonobos.

Click to expand...

Speak for yourself ole preacher of Apeism. I've told you that Human blood was contaminated with the blood of prehistoric people and you have found it impossible to refute that idea. You have offered NO evidence to support your idea that Humans magically evolved from prehistoric people in Violation of the Historic evidence given you.

Your message is provable wrong and you have not been able to defend your False ToE. Now, you seem to be seeking to fool others with your unsupportable view of evolutionism. Have you no shame?

Hattington said:

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

Click to expand...

I didn't see anyone answer your question really (but I didn't read all 30 pages lol)....
#1 someone who believes in evolution does not believe Gods word is true, which is a problem if you call yourself a Christian since Christian means follower of Christ, Christ is the word of God and He is always true.
#2 God never goes against TRUE science, evolution is not true, there has been A LOT of science to back this up which the majority of evolutionists tend to ignore or refute with more unproven claims...please note evolution is a theory not fact.
#3 it totally twists prophecy...if one assumes God's word is true and looks at it from that perspective prophecy unfolds very nicely without twisting anything or making wild assumptions (scripture ALWAYS backs up itself)....if one doesn't all kinds of wild theories come out which leads people astray, hence why in the last days there will be scoffers...
#4 which brings me to number 4, evolutionists are generally also scoffers at God's word which also ties back into number 1
#5 which leads to number 5, it makes other scripture hard to understand or taken inappropriately
#6 it can hinder people's relationship with their creator and each other
#7 it also leads to more selfishness (survival of the fittest mentality, etc) which is also a sign of the end times as it says in 2 Tim 3 ...note it is specifically talking about people who think they are Christians, not pagans, because they have a "form" of godliness but deny it's power and reject truth......
I am sure there are many more reasons but those are what came to mind at the top of my head. If you want more I suggest praying and submitting to the Holy Spirit, surrendering any preconceived beliefs and then letting Him guide you through His word and confirming it for you so that you can have a solid foundation on which to stand.

Aman777 said:

Speak for yourself ole preacher of Apeism. I've told you that Human blood was contaminated with the blood of prehistoric people and you have found it impossible to refute that idea.

Click to expand...

This is your claim. The burden of proof belongs to you. It is a fallacy to ask someone to prove a negative.

You have offered NO evidence to support your idea that Humans magically evolved from prehistoric people in Violation of the Historic evidence given you.

Click to expand...

Evolution by natural selection isn't magic. I never claimed a magical process. You're building a strawman.

Your message is provable wrong and you have not been able to defend your False ToE?

Click to expand...

Several lines of evidence have been provided to you. You cannot address it because it conflicts with your deeply held beliefs.

justlookinla said:

Designed things require a designer.

Click to expand...

What about snowflakes? We know the natural process of how a snowflake forms. Just as we know the natural process of evolution.
Your argument falls short.

JonFromMinnesota said:

What about snowflakes? We know the natural process of how a snowflake forms.
Your argument falls short.

Click to expand...

Are snowflakes machines?

ZooGal said:

I didn't see anyone answer your question really (but I didn't read all 30 pages lol)....
#1 someone who believes in evolution does not believe Gods word is true, which is a problem if you call yourself a Christian since Christian means follower of Christ, Christ is the word of God and He is always true.

Click to expand...

The same used to be said for someone who believes the Earth moves about the Sun.

"First, . . . to want to affirm that in reality the sun is at the center of the world and only turns on itself without moving from east to west, and the earth . . . revolves with great speed about the sun . . . is a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false."--Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615

#2 God never goes against TRUE science, evolution is not true, there has been A LOT of science to back this up which the majority of evolutionists tend to ignore or refute with more unproven claims...please note evolution is a theory not fact.

Click to expand...

You have to present this evidence before you can claim we ignore it.

#3 it totally twists prophecy...if one assumes God's word is true and looks at it from that perspective prophecy unfolds very nicely without twisting anything or making wild assumptions (scripture ALWAYS backs up itself)....if one doesn't all kinds of wild theories come out which leads people astray, hence why in the last days there will be scoffers...

Click to expand...

See #1

#4 which brings me to number 4, evolutionists are generally also scoffers at God's word which also ties back into number 1

Click to expand...

"God who is not limited in space or time, who created the universe, chose the remarkable mechanism of evolution to create plants and animals of all sorts. (By the way, notice in Genesis how plants appear before animals and fish before birds— which is precisely what science tells us.) Most importantly God chose this means in full knowledge that it would ultimately give rise to creatures with whom he could have fellowship and relationship, whom he would imbue with the moral law and a longing to seek him, to whom he would ultimately reach out to by himself becoming flesh and walking amongst us."--Dr. Francis Collins, "Faith and the Human Genome"

#5 which leads to number 5, it makes other scripture hard to understand or taken inappropriately
#6 it can hinder people's relationship with their creator and each other
#7 it also leads to more selfishness (survival of the fittest mentality, etc) which is also a sign of the end times as it says in 2 Tim 3 ...note it is specifically talking about people who think they are Christians, not pagans, because they have a "form" of godliness but deny it's power and reject truth......
I am sure there are many more reasons but those are what came to mind at the top of my head. If you want more I suggest praying and submitting to the Holy Spirit, surrendering any preconceived beliefs and then letting Him guide you through His word and confirming it for you so that you can have a solid foundation on which to stand.

Click to expand...

All the same things can be said of heliocentrism.

JonFromMinnesota said:

What about snowflakes? We know the natural process of how a snowflake forms. Just as we know the natural process of evolution.
Your argument falls short.

Click to expand...

At some point, you will see this reality; when dealing with fundies, if you have read one of their posts, you have read them all.

The defense mechanisms have them in constant denial and intellectually honest discussion is not possible. This is where the ignore feature comes in handy.

AV1611VET said:

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.

Click to expand...

I think you misunderstand how the whole thing happened. This is before there was such a thing as rigorous medical testing.

The drug was tested on animals and found to be safe. It was not tested on pregnant animals at all. So it was released for use on the general public as a sedative. Doctors also prescribed it off-label as an anti-emetic, which means they prescribed it mostly for pregnant women.

It was this prescribing the drug to the general public that was the human testing. That's how things were done before there was proper and rigorous testing of drugs, because science-based medicine was still a relatively new field and there was a strong belief amongst both the general population and within the medical field that drugs were incredibly beneficial and would cure all ailments within the next few decades. There was huge, blind enthusiasm for science-based medicine at the time.

The fact that it had been given to the general public was exacerbated because the doctors who were trialling it on their patients mostly didn't follow up up their patients. This means that when problems were starting to be found, when the first babies were delivered, how widespread the problem was wasn't realised straight away.

The story of Thalidomide is not a cautionary tale about how scientific evidence is often wrong. It's a cautionary tale about acting without enough scientific evidence. It's because of Thalidomide that we now have the rigorous approval process that exists for drugs.

The mistake was not in trusting the evidence, the mistake was in not gathering enough evidence. That's the lesson that needed to be learnt, and that is the lesson that was learnt.

I explained all of this to you yesterday. You ignoring it and then using Thalidomide as the cheap shot that you used it as yesterday, is dishonest. I'm sorry, but it is. Rather than trying to take dishonest cheap shots, you should concentrate on making intelligent, informed arguments, backed up by actual facts. If you can do that, then not only with the quality of your debating improve, but you'll be more likely to end up where you want to go.

And if you can't do that, then the only honest course of action is to re-examine your conclusions. If you have to lie in order to make your conclusions seem true, then you must not have that much faith in your conclusions.

And, also, why would you link to a source that you thought contained lies? That's also dishonest, isn't it?

justlookinla said:

Humanity, you and I, are creations of God unlike any of His other creations. Nothing compares to us, nothing equals us.

We're much more than an ape.

Click to expand...

Still waiting for you to give your opinion on whether homo habilus is man or ape... Your answer will be either "man" or "ape" to be clear.

Loudmouth said:

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

Click to expand...

Care to disprove it?

1 John 1:5 This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all."

They tried to tell you this long ago - you just could never comprehend it and still can't apparently.

Justatruthseeker said:

Care to disprove it?

Click to expand...

You made the claim. Burden of proof lies with you.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

Open Heart said:

Still waiting for you to give your opinion on whether homo habilus is man or ape... Your answer will be either "man" or "ape" to be clear.

Click to expand...

It is neither man or ape. It is a separate infraspecific taxa among the ape species.

But first we all need to understtand that there is not even agreement among the claimed experts, although everyone always presents it as settled in their PR Fairie Dust.

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

"In its appearance and morphology, H. habilis is the least similar to modern humans of all species in the genus Homo (except the equally controversial H. rudolfensis), and its classification as Homo has been the subject of controversial debate since its first proposal in the 1960s."

And are coing to recognize it shouldn't be in the line of homo at all.

"There has been scholarly debate regarding its placement in the genus Homo rather than the genus Australopithecus.[2][3] The small size and rather primitive attributes have led some experts (Richard Leakey among them) to propose excluding H. habilis from the genus Homo and placing them instead in Australopithecus as Australopithecus habilis."

So just admit what everyone knows already - it is merely another infraspecific taxa of ape.

Loudmouth said:

You made the claim. Burden of proof lies with you.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

Click to expand...

And to counter you are going to use what - claims of a neutral universe in which you had to add 96% more energy to make anything even begin to fit a semblance of reality? Instead of just correcting your false beliefs????

Justatruthseeker said:

It is neither man or ape. It is a separate infraspecific taxa among the ape species.

Click to expand...

So it isn't an ape, but it is an ape species?

Can you please tell us the difference between the two?

But first we all need to understtand that there is not even agreement among the claimed experts, although everyone always presents it as settled in their PR Fairie Dust.

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

"In its appearance and morphology, H. habilis is the least similar to modern humans of all species in the genus Homo (except the equally controversial H. rudolfensis), and its classification as Homo has been the subject of controversial debate since its first proposal in the 1960s."

And are coing to recognize it shouldn't be in the line of homo at all.

Click to expand...

They all agree that they aren't H. sapiens, and they all agree that they are transitional. Whether you lump them in one group or split them into different groups is irrelevant.