Why is Christianity opposed to the theory of Evolution?

Crowns&Laurels said:

What, that people get fired for disagreeing with evolution, or basically anything that creationism challenges?

Click to expand...

It's just what the acronym means. As far as anything that creationism challenges, it is subjected to the same process any science is. Creationism is not science but if people want to say that it is, then it is subjected to the same rigorous peer review process all scientific research must pass. Are you able to cite one creationist paper that was unfairly rejected and point out why you think it was unfairly rejected.

Crowns&Laurels said:

What does that mean?

Oh, well. Here's more on that
http://www.wnd.com/2014/08/scientist-fired-for-making-dinosaur-discovery/

Click to expand...

It means Previously Refuted a Thousand Times. I read through, several past threads, on this place, with links. The man, he was not a tenured professor, at the university, and that wasn't why he was fired. He was a temporary worker, hired, to teach students, how to use equipment, in a lab. Students, they had complained about him. Of course, every creationist site, will tell the same dramatic lie, so the second link is as useless, as the first.

Open Heart said:

I read that something like only 40% of America accepts Evolution. It's more than just the fundies that are ignorant. I think a lot of it is just lack of education, and I'm thinking this movie might actually make some headway.

Click to expand...

No, it's because Americans have a problem with conformity.
The UK has just as many idiots, I don't know where anyone gets off on an idea that the US is not as well educated. You can bring up all the statistics you want but all they illustrate is that people study marginally harder. I mean really.

mickiio said:

Also try to be a student and be a Creationist. If you don't enjoy the opposition *high fives LA, Crowns & Truthseeker* , it's best to keep your mouth shut.

Click to expand...

Are you a student? Are they?

justlookinla said:

I doubt you're going to get an explanation.

Click to expand...

The question was if there existed a non-mammal that can give raise to a mammals and the question was answered with synapsids, for he reason being that mammals are specialized synapsids - so called mammalian synapsids.

Most reasonable people will accept that so diverse mammals such as a squirrels and whales both are mammals without start asking question about when a 150 tons aquatic whale shrank to the size of mouse, got up on land, got fur, four legs, climbed up in the trees and start crack nuts. So why is it so hard to accept that mammals are synapsids as well without asking malformed question about when mammals stopped laying egg (which they never did, e.g. platypus) ?

"The platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus) also known as the duck-billed platypus is a semiaquatic egg-laying mammal"
-- wikipedia

(For all I know it is possible that those synapsids that became mammals stopped lay eggs after they where specialized to mammals - but I don't know so I don't say anything).

Somehow it seems like creationist believe if I cant tell when a 150 tons aquatic whale shrank to the size of mouse, got up on land, got fur, four legs, climbed up in the trees and start crack nuts then they have refuted that a whale is a mammal. But they haven't - they only proved how illogical or ignorant they are themselves. What is worst is the smug attitude they have about it. I find that obnoxious since the purpose is not to learn but to deny in any way possible.

Blue Wren said:

It means Previously Refuted a Thousand Times. I read through, several past threads, on this place, with links. The man, he was not a tenured professor, at the university, and that wasn't why he was fired. He was a temporary worker, hired, to teach students, how to use equipment, in a lab. Students, they had complained about him. Of course, every creationist site, will tell the same dramatic lie, so the second link is as useless, as the first.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm sure that's totally legitimate. I'm sure they were 100% honest. Science institutions are completely incapable of doing what other businesses do because they are moved by the benevolent hand of the Non-Existent God.

JonFromMinnesota said:

Correct. It's just a lack of understanding. It was only covered briefly when I was in highschool. I didn't know much about it until I did independent research. When is the movie supposed to release? I've honestly just heard of it from this site.

Click to expand...

I didn't learn anything about genetics or physical anthropology until my late 20s when I went back to college. Til then, the only thing I knew about evolution was what I had read in a Jack Chick tract in junior high. (Oh I'm sooooooooooooooooooo embarrassed.)

I tried googling when the movie is coming out, but there is no release date yet.

AV1611VET said:

I don't buy that for two reasons:

1. They had to trust something, and I submit that something was evidence.

Click to expand...

So you think there was evidence that the drug couldn't cross the placental barrier?

1. How can you call it a "mistake," when they were told to do more testing and didn't?

Click to expand...

Semantics.

Crowns&Laurels said:

Yeah, I'm sure that's totally legitimate. Science institutions are completely incapable of doing what other businesses do because they are moved by the benevolent hand of the Non-Existent God.

Click to expand...

You can use Google, yes? Read about his job title & terms of his work, based on his employment contract, with the university. He was not a professor. His dig, was paid for by himself, on his own time, and had nothing to do, with his job. Stop reading creationist sites, for the gullible. Do some true research, if you want facts & not just dramatic stories.

Open Heart said:

I'm not entirely sure. I lean to the side that God guides -- I have a hard time seeing natural selection (plus genetic drift and all that) as the explanation for life as we see it today. But I might be wrong. I'm always collecting more information.

Click to expand...

I think it's important that people of faith have approach this topic with discernment. It's very easy--and very common--today to make a hard distinction between natural activity and divine activity, or what we might call the natural and supernatural. And so to bring in, as a matter of faith, the concept of God in certain areas such as this we might be tempted to think there must be an either-or decision to be made. Either evolution is through completely natural mechanisms such as natural selection or else "God did it". I think that this is, fundamentally, a false dichotomy.

I usually like to turn to the topic of procreation, from sex, conception, gestation, to birth is the process of natal human development a natural process that can be fully comprehended naturalistically, or is God involved? That is, can I say that God created me in my mother's womb? I think when we look at this topic we can see why, from a faith-based perspective this is a false dichotomy. Yes, the entire process of procreation can be easily understood through entirely naturalistic means, but this does not exclude the activity of God within the natural processes. The completely natural mechanisms and means which can be understood through science are, in faith, understood as means by which God makes you and I as individuals within the womb.

It's therefore really only a matter taking this principle and looking at other naturalistic processes the same way. When it comes to evolution it's not a dichotomy between natural mechanisms or divine activity, it's confessing in faith that God as Author of the cosmos has put into place completely naturalistic mechanisms and processes which are completely satisfactory explanations for how things happen.

Such that when we understand that science approaching the study of the natural world has competent natural explanations for natural phenomenon--and if science is being done correctly provides us with invaluable and exceptional knowledge of how the natural world operates. The role of God is not mentioned because science simply doesn't have anything to say on the matter of God, God isn't a natural phenomenon and therefore doesn't fall within the scope of science. The role of God's activity is not a matter of science, observation, or empirical exploration of phenomenon--the role of God's activity is a matter of faith and revelation. As Christians we confess the activity of God not because God can be comprehended naturally, but because we have faith in the revelation of God in the history of the people of God, receiving in faith what has been passed down to us from those who came before. It is therefore a matter of faith to speak of the activity of God, not a matter of observation or knowledge--at least not knowledge in the empirical, scientific sense. We don't know God because He can be seen through the telescope or the microscope, we know God in faith through the revelation we have received, namely the revelation of God's Self through the person of Jesus Christ.

Which is all to say, natural selection does quite adequately address and explain how evolution works and has worked for roughly 4 billion years on this planet; but this doesn't exclude God's role in all these things. We, I believe, err in thinking of God only as a cosmic puppeteer pulling the strings from behind the curtain of the universe, God is both the transcendent and the immanent, beyond all things and also through all things, from the grand unifying mechanisms that hold the universe together to the tiniest subatomic particles interacting with one another at the quantum level. God is beyond, above, and through all things (Ephesians 4:6, Acts 17:28)

-CryptoLutheran

cifi said:

Oh - thanks for pointing that out. This is a really old account and I only came back because I saw new emails coming from this board which are more interesting. I couldn't find where to change this, it's not on the "Personal Details" page?

Click to expand...

I can't find a way to do it. You'll have to get technical support. Go to the Support Center section of the Forum, and click on the link for Questions About CF. Start a thread there and an Admin will get back to you. Check your alerts for messages from that thread. Good luck.

ViaCrucis said:

Which is all to say, natural selection does quite adequately address and explain how evolution works and has worked for roughly 4 billion years on this planet; but this doesn't exclude God's role in all these things.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your AWESOME reply. This above.... I'm not sure if you are right, but it's certainly something I'm thinking about. I appreciate greatly your analogy about the creation of a child being both something very natural and a work of God.

laurie2777 said:

Wow where do you people come from? According to you.. because there is data supporting the "theory" of evolution.. it has to be true. But even though there is scientific data that supports the bible .. that means nothing. Double talk?

Click to expand...

No it is not double talk.

Your concepts about how evidence are used to support claims is erroneous. It is just how it is, you need evidence, but you cannot just pick the evidence you like and then stop there. You must always try to find new evidence that disprove yourself. The implication of this is that you do not claim a theory to be true but approximative correct under this or that condition.

Notice, data is not the same as a facts. Data needs to be approved before it become facts. The reason facts that support the bible "means noting" is because there is also facts that does not support it, even contradicting the bible. In contrast the facts supports the Theory of Evolution, and no facts contradicts it. That is the difference.

That so called "scientific" data that support the bible are often found to be in error. You may have seen such data, but do you know how it was collected, treated and approved? That is the most important part of any scientific investigation. Because junk in = junk out, and that is what you find when you investigate the so called "scientific data" that support the bible.

s?

Crowns&Laurels said:

No, it's because Americans have a problem with conformity.
The UK has just as many idiots, I don't know where anyone gets off on an idea that the US is not as well educated. You can bring up all the statistics you want but all they illustrate is that people study marginally harder. I mean really.

Click to expand...

I like that you admit, up front, that you don't care what the statistics and facts say about your opinion.

Crowns&Laurels said:

http://www.nature.com/news/university-sued-after-firing-creationist-fossil-hunter-1.16281

Click to expand...

Leaving the question of the veracity of that story aside, it doesn't support your claim. Your claim was that it was impossible to keep a job for a year if you were a physicist who believed in Creationism.

It's actually a remarkably easy assertion to disprove. Here is a list of scientists who accept the literal story of Creation from the Bible. You'll note that many of them are currently employed as physicists.

DogmaHunter said:

It's really not.
That all life is related and has common ancestors, is pretty much a genetic fact.

Sure all life is related, it's all made up of same organic molecules so that they can be cycled through the ecosystem from organism to another, we can see that. Having common ancestors; we can't see that.

Is this a hint of the PRATT "2nd law of thermodynamics is not compatible with evolution"?

If it is: go out and look up. See that giant ball of nuclear fire in the sky? We call it the sun and it feeds the earth with workable energy 24/7.

Click to expand...

No, I've never even heard of Pratt before. The sun adds energy which would increase entropy - molecules move even faster in random directions. Sun light is harvested and creates more order because many lifeforms have the genetic coding to make use of it. Without the information in the organisms' genes, all of the sun's energy would simply increase the entropy of the earth until the whole universe is a homogenised mess. So before there was life with photosynthesis capabilities, how did the sun's energy provide more order, at least in Earth's corner of the Universe? Energy without direction creates disorder rather than order.

I believe that all order ultimately comes from intelligence. The aquaducts of Rome, the pyramids of Egypt, your laptop. These exemplifications of order are all created by an intelligence - us humans. Looking at everything other than life, all order was ultimately created by mankind. So when we look at life, a profound demonstration of order, what was it's origin? An intelligent being or the thoughtless, random laws of universe which tend towards disorder?
Life is no doubt subject to entropy in the form of mutation. The question is whether the mutation can create new functioning genetic information, or are mutations only destructive to functioning systems, as we are so familiar with in our daily lives. So far I am unfamiliar with any experiments which have demonstrated that mutations can create new functions in life forms. So I am inclined to picture mutations like a faulty part in a computer, sometimes it may only create a minor problem that allows general function, sometimes it may render the computer unusable.

marcusyg said:

I believe that all order ultimately comes from intelligence.

Click to expand...

Is this ordered?

\

Paul of Eugene OR said:

Dogs and cats are both mammals. They share a common ancestral species.

Click to expand...

justlookinla said:

Let me ask you, when did Dogs not have an ancestor which was a mammal?

Click to expand...

When did dogs ever share an ancestor that was not dog????

So then by all of your assumptions we can then exclude birds and reptiles from any common ancestor since clearly they are not mammals?????

Justatruthseeker said:

When did dogs ever share an ancestor that was not dog????

So then by all of your assumptions we can then exclude birds and reptiles from any common ancestor since clearly they are not mammals?????

Click to expand...

Nested hierarchy.

Not really as hard as you're making it.