Why is Christianity opposed to the theory of Evolution?

[Justatruthseeker]

What am I supposed to show to you - are you sure you do not mix me up with someone else?

I don't know what you refer to with dogs and cats. I have not mention it. I wrote that it was not necessary for you to reply if I understood you correct. Is this reply supposed to inform me that you are pro evolution?

Btw, there is plenty of data to support the notion that cats and dogs share common ancestors. They data is called 'cats, dogs & birds'. The question is not if there is any data but how the data support the notion, and that was what your statement about E. coli was - it supports a common ancestor for cats and dogs.

Which make me think you are not anti-evolution after all, but you seems to be anyway. Which makes me confused. Like, if you do not believe in a common ancestor why do you then make statements that implies a common ancestor exists and then say they don't exists?

And why don't you answer my question if you are pro or against? That would make it easier for me to understand you then.

Birds are neither mammal nor reptile. Dinosaurs they once claimed were reptiles - now they just claim warm-blooded without actually claiming mammal because they know birds share nothing ancestrally with mammals. So dinosaurs have been left unclassified so they can fudge them where they need them in the future.

You have no proof of evolution - that's the whole point. Asian remains Asian until they mate with an African. Only when the two mate do you ever observe variation within the human species. There is no mutation involved except what we see among Asian's themselves. As we see slight variation among E coli. But E coli remain E coli and Asian remain Asian - no matter how many times they undergo mutation. As T-Rex remained T-Rex.

Stop ignoring the observations of the natural world in favor of Fairie Dust.

No variation occurs within the species until one infraspecific taxa (Asian or Husky) mates with another infraspecific taxa African or Mastiff) within that species. Everyone understand what observation of the natural world shows you but you. That there is no mutation - only mating pairs causing the variation you observe.

That you then assume that virus that bring foreign genomes across species lines shows relation is absurd. Constantly confusing and twisting everything you see to fit a theory it does not fit at all.

No one on here claims Asian mating with Asian producing Asian means common ancestry with apes but you. The baboon remains a baboon, the chimp a chimp, the Asian an Asian an African an African as Husky remains Husky and Mastiff remains Mastiff as E coli remain E coli.

Could you at least attempt to devise a theory that matches what we observe??? And could you at least please classify the fossil record according to what we observe? But no, you see Asian mate with Asian producing Asian and T-Rex remains T-Rex but you refuse to apply this to the classification. Instead assuming things evolve into something different when mutation NEVER cause an Asian to become anything but an Asian. While ignoring that the only variation you have observed within the species is when two infraspecific taxa within that species mate.

There is no reason at all to assume mutation does anything except the small variation in appearance we see among Asians. Because we do know how new infraspecific taxa come into being - by the mating of two other infraspecific taxa (within the species). Hence you have to double-talk your way around discoveries of billion year old bacteria that never mutated and come up with double-speak as to how no evolution at all proves evolution. And then to prop up that fable we have to assume that the environment it cohabited remained the same over the last 2 billion years. Do we need to discuss the folly of that assumption? Shall we go see what conditions they believe prevailed on earth 2 billion years ago compared to today??????


So when you actually come up with any scientific proof for evolution - please let me know.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Nested hierarchy.

Not really as hard as you're making it.

I see lines drawn on a piece of paper with no links at any of the claimed divergence points - in any tree you care to name. It is quite convenient that at every point of divergence on every tree - they are completely missing. The link between humans and apes - missing. The link between whales and camels - missing. The link between crocodiles and birds - missing of course.

Yes you can show us crocodiles and show us birds - but the species that became both birds and crocodiles? Missing.

If you want to use the fossil record you must first correct the mistakes in classification. Ceratopsia are not separate species but one species - they are merely infraspecific taxa within that species.

Just as you observe today - All races of humans are merely different infraspecific taxa within the human species. As all dog breeds are merely different infraspecific taxa within the Canidae species. Why don't all of you evolutionists at least start with a correct classification of the fossil record instead of in direct contradiction of what we observe in real life?

Why instead do you avoid this subject with strawman after strawman?

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

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.

Yeah, go to a wiki for all your answers. No neo-progressive bias there!
Jason Lisle is a PhD astrophysicist who, despite his credentials, was silenced on the most simplest of things just because they were in favor of young earth creationism. Instead of looking at the validity of the starlight problem, for example, they basically just smeared him. So he straight up quit and went to AiG where such things were appreciated.

And yet, he's on that list you have.
Just because people do a good job in concealing the truth of these things doesn't mean they do not happen. That list only has 241 people on it, where are the other thousands of creationists in the fields of science?
Exactly.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yeah, go to a wiki for all your answers. No neo-progressive bias there!
Jason Lisle is a PhD astrophysicist who, despite his credentials, was silenced on the most simplest of things just because they were in favor of young earth creationism. Instead of looking at the validity of the starlight problem, for example, they basically just smeared him. So he straight up quit and went to AiG where such things were appreciated.

And yet, he's on that list you have.
Just because people do a good job in concealing the truth of these things doesn't mean they do not happen. That list only has 241 people on it, where are the other thousands of creationists in the fields of science?
Exactly.

Unless they discover the same thing an evolutionist discovers and dares to question the age fable.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014...-discovery-of-soft-tissue-on-dinosaur-fossil/

So he found nothing Mary Schweitzer didn't find - the only difference is he chose to accept the logical scientific conclusion that those bones are not as old as they are claimed - hence no one had bothered to look for soft tissue - because not one single biologist believed soft tissue could last millions of years. And now they want us to believe in miracle after miracle after miracle preserving that soft tissue because they refuse to accept the logical conclusion. Despite never having looked because the biology told them of the impossibility of finding soft tissue on 95 million year old specimens. And since they do not believe in miracles - that is a logical fallacy.

 

[Armoured]

I see lines drawn on a piece of paper with no links at any of the claimed divergence points - in any tree you care to name. It is quite convenient that at every point of divergence on every tree - they are completely missing. The link between humans and apes - missing. The link between whales and camels - missing. The link between crocodiles and birds - missing of course.

Yes you can show us crocodiles and show us birds - but the species that became both birds and crocodiles? Missing.

If you want to use the fossil record you must first correct the mistakes in classification. Ceratopsia are not separate species but one species - they are merely infraspecific taxa within that species.

Just as you observe today - All races of humans are merely different infraspecific taxa within the human species. As all dog breeds are merely different infraspecific taxa within the Canidae species. Why don't all of you evolutionists at least start with a correct classification of the fossil record instead of in direct contradiction of what we observe in real life?

Why instead do you avoid this subject with strawman after strawman?

Not true. There are several "link" species.

Here's a good one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miacidae

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And oh yes wiki is biased - but let's see who they are truly biased against despite your strawman.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/CMI_li...y_who_accept_the_biblical_account_of_creation

I see direct opposition to your claims.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Not true. There are several "link" species.

Here's a good one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miacidae

A good one for what?

"Miacids are thought to have evolved...."

No proof - just belief. So when you find one let me know, ok? Not opposing your right to have "faith" in anything. Just your claim your "faith" matches reality.


"They were small carnivores, superficially marten-like or civet-like"

So that they are merely infraspecific taxa of the marten species is most logical.

Do we need to list all the other small animals that existed then - dispelling your claim this is a common ancestor to anything but martens and civets and is the same exact species as are they?

 

[Armoured]

And oh yes wiki is biased - but let's see who they are truly biased against despite your strawman.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/CMI_li...y_who_accept_the_biblical_account_of_creation

I see direct opposition to your claims.....

Um, wha...?

 

[Armoured]

A good one for what?

"Miacids are thought to have evolved...."

No proof - just belief. So when you find one let me know, ok? Not opposing your right to have "faith" in anything. Just your claim your "faith" matches reality.


"They were small carnivores, superficially marten-like or civet-like"

So that they are merely infraspecific taxa of the marten species is most logical.

Do we need to list all the other small animals that existed then - dispelling your claim this is a common ancestor to anything but martens and civets?

Ugh. The "it's just a theory" argument? Seriously? I know it's been explained to you that science doesn't deal in proofs.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Ugh. The "it's just a theory" argument? Seriously? I know it's been explained to you that science doesn't deal in proofs.

So it's religion, pure belief????? So then if science does not deal in proofs, then why are you claiming it as fact and refusing to accept it is nothing but personal belief????????

Because the first thing evolutionists spout is "prove it" when it comes to God. Which according to your claims "this post," is asking for what science does not deal in. Just wish all of you would make up your minds.

 

[Armoured]

So it's religion, pure belief????? So then if science does not deal in proofs, then why are you claiming it as fact and refusing to accept it is nothing but personal belief????????

Because the first thing evolutionists spout is "prove it". Which according to your claims "this post," is asking for what science does not deal in. Just wish all of you would make up your minds.

So's law.

No. It's not pure relief. It's about what there is the best evidence for. Evolutionists DON'T in fact ask creationists to "prove" anything. They ask either for DISproof of evolution, or conversely, evidence FOR creationism.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Yeah, go to a wiki for all your answers.

Straw man.

Jason Lisle is a PhD astrophysicist who, despite his credentials, was silenced on the most simplest of things just because they were in favor of young earth creationism. Instead of looking at the validity of the starlight problem, for example, they basically just smeared him. So he straight up quit and went to AiG where such things were appreciated.

If I accept that everything you say is true, despite you offering no evidence that that is so (and despite the fact that his theory was refuted not because he is a Creationist, but because the maths doesn't work, it contradicts relativity, it makes predictions that we should observe things that we do not actually observe), and despite the fact that your own account of events has him quitting rather than losing his job, it only takes one name on that list being employed as a physicist to refute your assertion that it was impossible for someone to be a Creationist and be employed as a physicist.

That list only has 241 people on it, where are the other thousands of creationists in the fields of science?
Exactly.

I would say that Creationism and good science being antithetical to each other is a plausible alternative hypothesis. Somewhat ironically, your example of Jason Lisle is supporting evidence for that hypothesis, and not for your hypothesis, as his hypothesis was not rejected because it was a Creationist hypothesis, but because it was bad science that is contradicted by the observable facts.

 

[Graham Lloyd Dull]

.

http://lifefromgod.com/

A bird, a plane and ‘intelligent design.’

We all agree that a plane is ‘designed,’ that it ‘has a purpose,’ and we agree that it ‘has a creator.’ But there is controversy regarding the bird. Some will say: The bird has no design, no purpose, and no creator.
.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So's law.

No. It's not pure relief. It's about what there is the best evidence for. Evolutionists DON'T in fact ask creationists to "prove" anything. They ask either for DISproof of evolution, or conversely, evidence FOR creationism.

It is pure belief. Shall we do a search of this post alone to see how many times evolutionists have asked creationists to "prove" God exists? All the evidence goes against evolution.

I'll repeat it again: Asian mates with Asian and produces an Asian. African mates with African and produces an African. Only when those two infraspecific taxa mate does another infraspecific taxa (Afro-Asian) come into the record, suddenly, with no evolution and no missing links missing. Stop ignoring the observational evidence when you classify the fossil record.

 

[WeAreTheChristianGems]

So, you walk into a garage. You see such a beautiful, well constructed car sitting there.
Obviously while you were gone all the parts gradually moved towards each other, and evolved so they could fit together, eventually creating the car you see today!
Wait, that's not how it works? Oh, sorry. Yeah, I guess that would only be a trillion and one possibility of happening... And yeah, I guess the parts are perfectly put together, the work so fluidly. It only makes sense for someone who knew what He was doing to have created it.
Btw, here's an article on Charkes Darwin that might be interesting: http://x-evolutionist.com/charles-d...ith-his-theory-in-his-book-origin-of-species/

 

[Armoured]

It is pure belief. Shall we do a search of this post alone to see how many times evolutionists have asked creationists to "prove" God exists? All the evidence goes against evolution.

I'll repeat it again: Asian mates with Asian and produces an Asian. African mates with African and produces an African. Only when those two infraspecific taxa mate does another infraspecific taxa (Afro-Asian) come into the record, suddenly, with no evolution and no missing links missing. Stop ignoring the observational evidence when you classify the fossil record.

Back atcha. You're ignoring transitionals.

 

[Armoured]

So, you walk into a garage. You see such a beautiful, well constructed car sitting there.
Obviously while you were gone all the parts gradually moved towards each other, and evolved so they could fit together, eventually creating the car you see today!
Wait, that's not how it works? Oh, sorry. Yeah, I guess that would only be a trillion and one possibility of happening... And yeah, I guess the parts are perfectly put together, the work so fluidly. It only makes sense for someone who knew what He was doing to have created it.
Btw, here's an article on Charkes Darwin that might be interesting: http://x-evolutionist.com/charles-d...ith-his-theory-in-his-book-origin-of-species/

Oh good, Paley's watch. Haven't heard that one in a while.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Back atcha. You're ignoring transitionals.

What transitional links? Show me one single transitional between the Husky and Chinook or Mastiff and Chinook? Show me one between the Asian and the Afro-Asian or the African and the Afro-Asian? You can't can you - so again - why are you incorrectly classifying the fossil record by ignoring how you know life propagates? Asian mates with Asian and produces an Asian. Variation within the species only occurs when Asian mates with African producing a brand new infraspecific taxa within that species. And NEVER are there missing links that are missing.

Quit ignoring all of the natural world to promote a theory that does not fit in the slightest to what is observed.

 

[WeAreTheChristianGems]

Here's another one to chew on: http://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/10-ways-darwin-got-it-wrong
I just read it and thought it was really good.
I'm not sure exactly what 'Paley's Watch' is, but if it's like the story I shared, sounds like it explains the logic (or lack thereof) in evolution pretty good.

 

[Graham Lloyd Dull]

Back atcha. You're ignoring transitionals.

Of course there are transitionals.

Extinct ape -- mankind.

Same pose
Same frown
Similar intelligence

http://lifefromgod.com/