Why is Christianity opposed to the theory of Evolution?

[Armoured]

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.

I did already. You ignored it.

 

[Armoured]

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.

Yeah. While you look up that one, look up "PRATT" while you're at it.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

But there is controversy regarding the bird.

Not really.

 

[Graham Lloyd Dull]

Not really.

.
Do you accept that a bird (like the plane) is ‘designed,’ that it ‘has a purpose,’ and agree that it ‘has a creator?’
.

 

[Armoured]

.
Do you accept that a bird (like the plane) is ‘designed,’ that it ‘has a purpose,’ and agree that it ‘has a creator?’
.

What's its purpose?

 

[Graham Lloyd Dull]

What's its purpose?

.
Can't you see any purpose in its existence?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

.
Do you accept that a bird (like the plane) is ‘designed,’ that it ‘has a purpose,’ and agree that it ‘has a creator?’
.

No. That there are a fringe few who disagree does not make it a controversial subject. There are some who disagree that with Heliocentrism, and some who disagree with a spherical Earth. These are not controversial subjects, either.

 

[AV1611VET]

I also believe God created. I believe that using evolution was part of his method for creating. God can create any way he wants to.

Is evolution still in progress?

If so, then is God still creating?

If so, then why is God going to suddenly intervene and destroy everything and create a New Heaven and a New Earth?

I get the image of a writer writing a story and suddenly yanking the paper out of the typewriter and burning it up and starting over.

 

[Graham Lloyd Dull]

No. That there are a fringe few who disagree does not make it a controversial subject. There are some who disagree that with Heliocentrism, and some who disagree with a spherical Earth. These are not controversial subjects, either.

.
Not every post has to be of a controversial nature. You are allowed to see purpose in the things around you, and no one should condemn you for it.

See http://lifefromgod.com/
.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

.
Not every post has to be of a controversial nature. You are allowed to see purpose in the things around you, and no one should condemn you for it.

See http://lifefromgod.com/
.

Your assertion, presumably copy and pasted from the link you keep spamming, was that whether or not the bird was "designed" was "controversial". It's not.

 

[Graham Lloyd Dull]

Your assertion, presumably copy and pasted from the link you keep spamming, was that whether or not the bird was "designed" was "controversial". It's not.

.
Seeing the website is mine, and written by me I see no problem using my own work. I don't necessarily have to write everything a hundred times.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

.
Seeing the website is mine, and written by me I see no problem using my own work. I don't necessarily have to write everything a hundred times.

That it's your own site that you're attempting to drive traffic to doesn't make your spam any less spam. And it certainly doesn't mean that there's a controversy over whether or not the bird has a designer.

 

[Armoured]

.
Can't you see any purpose in its existence?

Specifically? Not... not really. Can you?

 

[Reuben Wills]

The theory of evolution is the best explantation for the diversity of live on earth

 

[Graham Lloyd Dull]

That it's your own site that you're attempting to drive traffic to doesn't make your spam any less spam. And it certainly doesn't mean that there's a controversy over whether or not the bird has a designer.

.
Evolutionists push the point 'regarding many things' that although they may have the appearance of being designed for a purpose, there is no such intended purpose.
Example, we may eat an apple, or a mango and enjoy it. And it appears to us that it is designed as food. Evolution never intended to grow an apple or mango tree for us to enjoy. Evolution does not have a purpose.
.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

.
Evolutionists push the point 'regarding many things' that although they may have the appearance of being designed for a purpose, there is no such intended purpose.
Example, we may eat an apple, or a mango and enjoy it. And it appears to us that it is designed as food. Evolution never intended to grow an apple or mango tree for us to enjoy. Evolution does not have a purpose.
.

This also does not mean that there is a controversy over whether or not a bird was designed.

 

[Graham Lloyd Dull]

Specifically? Not... not really. Can you?

.
See post #895
.

 

[Armoured]

.
See post #895
.

Um, what about it? Doesn't say anything about "the purpose" of a bird, that I can see.

 

[Graham Lloyd Dull]

This also does not mean that there is a controversy over whether or not a bird was designed.

.
Evolutionists make the very same point regarding all of creation -- whether it be the bird, an apple, a mango, or the 'Big Bang,' there was never any end goal, or any plan.
.

 

[Armoured]

.
Evolutionists make the very same point regarding all of creation -- whether it be the bird, an apple, a mango, or the 'Big Bang,' there was never any end goal, or any plan.
.

Sooooo... unless you can show why "evolutionists" are in error...?