Why is Christianity opposed to the theory of Evolution?

[bhsmte]

More like they have been divinely designed. Natural Selection can, over time, transform an organism into a more specialized species of an organism. It is more like a bush then a tree.

Do you have a scientific definition of design?

Do you have a falsifiable test, to determine when design is present?

 

[Blue Wren]

Is there any creationist responding to this thread, who isn't from North America? I wondering, also, about their education & profession.

 

[In situ]

It's within the mammal world. You have mammals that lay eggs, and mammals that give live birth.

It is irrelevant when some synapsids specialized into stop laying egg, both for reason you mention (i.e. they never stopped lay eggs) but also for the reason that egg laying per se has nothing to do with the fact that a mammal is a synapsid. The question was if there existed a non-mammal that can make mammals, and the answer is yes; the synapsids.

So the question of when synapsids "stopped" lay egg (we never did) and produce live youngs is a red herring.

The reason this red herring is brought up is because otherwise justlookinla must confront the uncomfortable conclusion that mammalian synapsids is just specialized synapsids that make more specialized synapsids. Just like Irish setter is a special dog that makes more specialized dogs, you don't need to know anything about fossils in order to know an Irish setters is a dogs that makes more dog, or at a higher level a very, very very specialized synapsid that makes more
very, very very specialized synapsids.

Dogs makes more dogs, mammals makes more mammals. Synapsids makes more synapsids, life makes more life.

That is what life is about; make more of the same.

As a side note, since some mammalian synapsids still lays eggs - where do we draw the line of "when" mammals stopped lay egg? In my opinion all mamalian synapsids still lays egg, since all mammals still makes eggs.

 

[Meowzltov]

Any alleged process which created humanity which is random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless is inherently atheistic.

Again, you aren't SHOWING that its random, mindless, etc. You are simply inserting your own ideas in there. Lots and lots of people believe that God designed evolution, and that it's not random or mindless or meaningless or purposless or goaless.

You keep saying, if it's A then it's B. Well, it's not A.

 

[bhsmte]

Again, you aren't SHOWING that its random, mindless, etc. You are simply inserting your own ideas in there. Lots and lots of people believe that God designed evolution, and that it's not random or mindless or meaningless or purposless or goaless.

You keep saying, if it's A then it's B. Well, it's not A.

He, really, really, really needs to think it is A though. Which is why you get the constant repeating of a strawman argument, as he tries to convince himself, because he clearly is not convincing anyone else.

 

[justlookinla]

The reason this red herring is brought up is because otherwise justlookinla must confront the uncomfortable conclusion that mammalian synapsids is just specialized synapsids that make more specialized synapsids. Just like Irish setter is a special dog that makes more specialized dogs, you don't need to know about transition anything in order to know an Irish setters is a dogs that makes more dog, or at a higher level a very, very very specialized synapsid that makes more
very, very very specialized synapsids.

At some point in the past, there allegedly was a life form which wasn't mammalian and you're only presenting a life for which we haven't found the answer....was it non-mammalian producing mammals or was it mammalian producing mammals?

Maybe we need to back up past synapsids? Surely that life form (whatever it is) would be non-mammalian.

 

[Meowzltov]

Mutations are random

Yes, mutations are random, but natural selection is NOT.

 

[justlookinla]

Again, you aren't SHOWING that its random, mindless, etc. You are simply inserting your own ideas in there. Lots and lots of people believe that God designed evolution, and that it's not random or mindless or meaningless or purposless or goaless.

You keep saying, if it's A then it's B. Well, it's not A.

I quoted directly from the UC-Berkeley site.

"Mutations are random
Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be."

 

[justlookinla]

Yes, mutations are random, but natural selection is NOT.

Who said anything about natural selection? What does that have to do with random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless?

 

[Graham Lloyd Dull]

http://lifefromgod.com/

Unless the design is for things to spontaneously occur within a general idea that a sentient being will come into existence.

Do you believe that God guides in this world?
Do you believe that God guides in the process of development or process of evolution?

Things are either guided (an example is that an airplane is designed and built with distinct purposes in mind.)
Or things are unguided and left to rise or fall without anyone caring whether they succeed or fail.
What is your world view in this respect?

 

[Meowzltov]

I can show that one particular view of evolution, Godless evolution, is promoted by UC-Berkeley.

The Berkley view neither confesses nor denies God. It takes no position. Anyone at Berkley can choose either way, or can remain agnostic.

 

[Meowzltov]

Who said anything about natural selection? What does that have to do with random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless?

You can't have natural selection and say its random.

 

[cifi]

As an atheist I stand corrected by these two Christian posts (which I've clipped for brevity but hopefully the link can be clicked)

I agree: and it's all because a few influential people started reading Genesis 1 & 2 literally, when the Hebrew genre of that part of Genesis is anything but! The bible literally contradicts itself between 1 & 2, so that should be a clue that the original authors were actually writing 2 different creative narratives.

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.

They rightly point out that I painted all "Christians" with the same brush, when it's only a vocal minority that have a problem with evolution. I think the proper term might be "fundamentalist Christians".

This "vocal minority" is blatantly on display in this thread. Saying they don't believe the evidence, as if they are qualified enough to even understand it and have a solid opinion on the matter. Case in point;

...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.

That's all well and good for you not to believe it, but it doesn't really matter one bit. Your opinion doesn't contribute usefully to the science that the rest of the world is operating on, so the theory and the work based on it chugs merrily along without your opinion.

Here is an example of the lack of a concern for evidence I was talking about in my previous post;

I used to be in that "what if it were millions of years" camp... until Exodus 31:17 was pointed out to me and then I was like 'GAAH! I've been calling God a liar!?' and... well let's just say I don't Dare ever do that anymore.

That's not a quest for the truth, that's a quest for subservience.

 

[justlookinla]

The Berkley view neither confesses nor denies God. It takes no position. Anyone at Berkley can choose either way, or can remain agnostic.

Of course it denies God when it promotes the view that only naturalistic mechanisms produced all life we observe today. No God needed, wanted or allowed. It's atheistic Darwinist evolution in a nutshell.

 

[bhsmte]

The Berkley view neither confesses nor denies God. It takes no position. Anyone at Berkley can choose either way, or can remain agnostic.

The real problem with fundies is this; they are ticked off, the theory of evolution does not mention God.

 

[justlookinla]

You can't have natural selection and say its random.

You can have mutations and claim it's random. Natural selection doesn't not create new life forms, it only populates existing life forms created by random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless mutations.

 

[justlookinla]

The real problem with fundies is this; they are ticked off, the theory of evolution does not mention God.

UC-Berkeley eliminates God and claims the view of only naturalistic mechanisms.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Be a physicist and express a notion of creationism. See if you aren't jobless in a year.
There is a very nasty, biased side in the fields of science that atheists refuse to recognize, for obvious reasons. It doesn't do their claim "we are right and you are wrong because ~science~" any justice.

 

[Graham Lloyd Dull]

Is there any creationist responding to this thread, who isn't from North America? I wondering, also, about their education & profession.

Yes, Dubbo Australia

I wouldn't worry about education down here, we're all convicts.

I have a website at http://lifefromgod.com/

 

[bhsmte]

Be a physicist and express a notion of creationism. See if you aren't jobless in a year.
There is a very nasty, biased side in the fields of science that atheists refuse to recognize, for obvious reasons. It doesn't do their claims that "they are right and you are wrong because ~science~" any justice.

Ok, another claim, where is the evidence to support it?