Why is Christianity opposed to the theory of Evolution?

[Graham Lloyd Dull]

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

.
It is actually quite alright for you to not see any purpose in anything.

(Its way past midnight in Australia, I must go.)
.

 

[Armoured]

.
It is actually quite alright for you to not see any purpose in anything.
.

I'm glad I have your permission. But I asked you what the purpose of birds is. You claimed they have one, so what is it?

 

[Graham Lloyd Dull]

I'm glad I have your permission. But I asked you what the purpose of birds is. You claimed they have one, so what is it?

.
Genesis 1:31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.

The whole spectrum of the variety we see in nature is what makes this world such a pleasant home in which we live. This variety includes the many varieties of birds, and other creatures. Included are the beauty of sunsets, mountains, views of lakes, etc.

Many evolutionists suggest that if God actually made mankind, each one of us would be identical in every respect. There would be no differences regarding hair, skin, and eye colour. With God as creator, we shouldn't need the variety of birds, sunsets, mountains, and lakes. Only evolution would conceive of such a world.

 

[lasthero]

.

Many evolutionists suggest that if God actually made mankind, each one of us would be identical in every respect.

Many evolutionists actually believe in God, so that would be a weird thing for them to say. But can you name some evolutionists who've said this?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

.
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.
.

And?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I did already. You ignored it.

Where? You showed me an infraspecific taxa of a species to which the infraspecific taxa marten and infraspecific taxa civet belong.

Just like we observe in real life versus fantasy land.

Each of those is a separate infraspecific taxa within the same species. You know this, it is why they are called breeds, variations. It is why humans are called races.

You also know all Mastiff will remain Mastiff, no matter how many times they mate with another Mastiff and no matter how many mutations they undergo. Just as you know Asian will never be anything but Asian, until they mate with another infraspecific taxa within the species. You have ever only observed change within the species when two of those infraspecific taxa within the species mate. This is the ONLY TIME IT HAS EVER BEEN OBSERVED.

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...ry-of-evolution.7913487/page-44#post-68767829

That one you ignored.

That's when you went into your strawman about how science isn't proof but evolution is still fact, but I am required to prove God exists even if I can't prove it by using science. Seems I am in a bit of a quandary. I must prove to athiests God exists or there is no reason to believe He does, yet you don't have to prove evolution exists, because science doesn't deal in proofs. That about sum it up?

I can - you just won't accept the science when I do, but will fall back in defense using 96% Fairie Dust, instead of the science right before your eyes.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The whole spectrum of the variety we see in nature is what makes this world such a pleasant home in which we live.

Ebola is natural.

Some wasps lay their eggs inside caterpillars, where they incubate inside the still-live creature. When the eggs hatch, the larvae eat the caterpillar alive from the inside. That's natural.

There's a type of worm called the loa load worm which lives in human subcutaneous tissue, including the eyeball. They can grow up to 7cm long and cause a whole bunch of nasty symptoms, including a great deal of pain. They're natural.

The Candiru is a type of fish that enters other fish's bodies through the gills and uses its razor sharp fins to cut its way through the body until it reaches an artery, from which it drinks the blood. This is the Amazonian fish that's notorious for swimming up urine streams and attaching itself to men's penises. They're natural.

So who, exactly, are these particular varieties of natural creatures making the world pleasant for?

Many evolutionists suggest that if God actually made mankind, each one of us would be identical in every respect.

Name one person who has ever said this. Provide a link to evidence.

 

[Black Dog]

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

Why would anyone agree to that? There is no evidence for any of it, but there is a mountain of evidence that you are wrong.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

.
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.
.

Evolution also ignores all of science as well as does the Big Bang.

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

Your own science demands a cause for every one of those events. The fact that at the very start your math breaks down completely, declaring it's mathematical impossibility should have gave you a clue long ago.

The fact that you then admit energy had no beginning (cause) nor can be destroyed, should have given you a clue long ago.

The fact that energy is what is making this conversation possible to begin with should have given you a clue long ago as well.

E=mc^2 should have settled the issue.

EDIT: Yet even though science demands a cause event, you don't feel you have to justify your spontaneous generation of living matter from organisms that are non similar. And try to pass it off instead as abiogenesis.

Nor your creation event in a Big Bang proposed by a priest, then twisted beyond recognition.

 

[mickiio]

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.

Don't forget Dr. Kent Hovind. Very vocal Creationist. 10 years of jail time spent, for what? Taking out 10 k of his own bank account? That's what rapists get. Naw it was a smear campaign. At least be honest about it. http://www.hourofthetime.com/wordpresstest/who-is-kent-hovind-and-why-is-he-in-prison/ Plus, tell me why was his wife was thrown in prison?

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Don't forget Dr. Kent Hovind. Very vocal Creationist. 10 years of jail time spent, for what? Taking out 10 k of his own bank account? That's what rapists get. Naw it was a smear campaign. At least be honest about it. http://www.hourofthetime.com/wordpresstest/who-is-kent-hovind-and-why-is-he-in-prison/ Plus, tell me why was his wife was thrown in prison?

Cool story. Give me another one about a criminal creationist. I'd like to study more about this correlation between rape and creationism

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Don't forget Dr. Kent Hovind. Very vocal Creationist. 10 years of jail time spent, for what?

Tax fraud.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I'm glad I have your permission. But I asked you what the purpose of birds is. You claimed they have one, so what is it?

To balance out the chain of interdependent life that exists on this planet - when we don't make them extinct. They are there to eat flying insects and to hunt prey. They started with flight to begin with. From the oldest bird you can find - they flew. There are no flightless examples or missing links to flightless examples - as there were no swimming to walking examples with Coelacanth. That too was one of those wrong classifications built upon Fairie Dust in reality showing how things don't evolve outside of their infraspecific taxa - like those billion year old bacteria.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

There are no flightless examples or missing links to flightless examples - as there were no swimming to walking examples with Coelacanth.

There are no examples of flightless birds? Are you sure about that?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

There are no examples of flightless birds? Are you sure about that?

I'm sure many "became" flightless - but none started flightless. What's up with the strawman anyways, you know I wasn't talking about flightless birds today????

http://www.natureworldnews.com/arti...ehistoric-bird-species-oldest-known-avian.htm

But you can go ahead and make up pre-existing links if you like - it's your fantasy theory.

 

[Black Dog]

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.

Here is the thing about science: If you have crazy ideas that go against all the current thinking, and you have zero evidence to support your case, you will be ignored and laughed at. Flat-Eathers go through the same thing.

I'm sure this gentleman will be appreciated at AIG, they don't care about evidence, just that you can come up with a tall tale that the gullible will believe.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Here is the thing about science: If you have crazy ideas that go against all the current thinking, and you have zero evidence to support your case, you will be ignored and laughed at. Flat-Eathers go through the same thing.

I'm sure this gentleman will be appreciated at AIG, they don't care about evidence, just that you can come up with a tall tale that the gullible will believe.

Science has simply lost it's good thought and honest intellect in trade for an anti-theist agenda. You think people back in Einstein's time acted that way? And yet, he was an atheist who made a theory which physics virtually hinges on today.
The scientific community is jacked- just a bureaucracy like any other overblown establishment.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I'm sure many "became" flightless - but none started flightless.

http://www.natureworldnews.com/arti...ehistoric-bird-species-oldest-known-avian.htm

http://www.natureworldnews.com/arti...ehistoric-bird-species-oldest-known-avian.htm

http://www.nature.com/news/new-contender-for-first-bird-1.13088

Godefroit says that Aurornis probably couldn’t fly[...]

So, in order to convince that the earliest known bird could fly, you link to an example of the earliest known bird...which couldn't fly?

As to your edit...

What's up with the strawman anyways, you know I wasn't talking about flightless birds today????

Whoever said I was talking about modern birds? Aurornis xui couldn't fly. Archaeoptrix couldn't fly. There are other flightless prehistoric birds, like Gastornis. Your argument depends on none of these - including the one you cited - existing.

 

[Black Dog]

Science has simply lost it's good thought and honest intellect in trade for an anti-theist agenda. You think people back in Einstein's time acted that way? And yet, he was an atheist who made a theory which physics virtually hinges on today.
The scientific community is jacked- just a bureaucracy like any other overblown establishment.

Don't be silly. Science is currently providing more knowledge than ever before. Knowledge that helps us communicate, fight disease, feed the world, and on and on. You just don't like where the evidence is leading science in regards to your personal beliefs. Did you know that its starting to look like Jesus Christ never existed?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

You think people back in Einstein's time acted that way?

If by that question you mean was Einstein mocked and ridiculed for his ideas, then the answer is yes. Very much so.

Do you know why he overcame that and has his theories accepted? Because they're good science. The maths works, they are supported by all the observable data, and they have better explanatory power than the prevailing theories of the time.

If any Creationist were to publish a Creationist paper which stood up to those three criteria then I'm sure they'd still be mocked and ridiculed - that is quite normal in scientific circles to any new ideas - but their ideas would be accepted.