Why is Christianity opposed to the theory of Evolution?

[JonFromMinnesota]

Same life forms. Move on folks, nothing new to see here.

Yeah, dodging the evidence so you don't have to address it. Same story, different post.

 

[AV1611VET]

Speaking of perplexed, is it just me, or is everything in boldface now?

 

[JillG]

Is it because it refutes the idea of Adam and Eve, original sin, and coming of Jesus?
Or are there any other reasons?

Science and the Bible don't disagree. What most people don't know is that the Bible is not written in chronological order. The book of isaiah talks about animals like dinosaurs and also about human - like beings. Also, if you directly translate Genesis 1, it states that the earth became without form and void. What evolutionists call the big bang is actually what happened to the earth when Satan and 1/3 of the angels were thrown from heaven to earth. The reason Christians don't believe in evolution is because it isn't how man or any other animal came into existence. Most people just don't know that science and the Bible aren't in conflict, so they insist that the Bible us only a few thousand years old, but that isn't taking the whole Bible into account.

 

[eclipsenow]

God took six days on purpose, so as to create a template for the work week, as stipulated in the Ten Commandments.

What if the original author wrote a creative narrative on purpose for the same reason? You have not provided a rational reason for God actually building the world in 6 days.

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.I have a feeling Philo was perplexed by a lot of things.

I have a feeling you are also: like why so much data supports an extremely old universe and very old world.

After all, wasn't Plato perplexed at shadows in a cave or something?

Um, that's plato. We're talking about a Jew 2000 years ago, not a Greek.

Wanna perplex a scientist today?

Don't be juvenile.

 

[eclipsenow]

Speaking of perplexed, is it just me, or is everything in boldface now?

That is the first sensible thing you've said in months. Has someone left some code open somewhere? Is this happening across the entire site?

 

[Open Heart]

The reason Christians don't believe in evolution

What do you mean Christians don't believe in evolution? LOTS of Christians believe in evolution. I believe in evolution. Even the Pope believes in evolution. Not every Christian is a young earth fundamentalist like you.

 

[GAPCanadianChristian]

If you're a Christian you believe in Theistic Evolution. ;-) You're a TE.

No, I don't believe that God messed around with it.

 

[Rygaku]

Religion and science and as well faith and fact are mutually incompatible. Here is why you have the bible
that says man was made in the image of god and that woman was made of a mans rib, well we know that
not to be true. I mean there is evidence of evolution one does not need to try hard to find it why else
would we need a new flu vaccine every so often or even antibiotics. That being said that there is evolution,
viruses and sicknesses do evolve to combat against medication. Humans have evolved it took along time
every so often we do find fossils of our older ancestors.

 

[Blue Wren]

I've never met a Christian, off this place, who are opposed to evolution. Young Earth Creationism, is barely found, in Europe. It's an American thing.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

I don't know how the Catholic Church resolves this, as they approve theistic evolution, but the problem is in Original Sin. If mankind came about through evolution, then they were inherently fallen, which is contradicting to the notion that Satan misled them to the Fall.

 

[keembo]

That still doesn't answer my question. I highly doubt millions of people oppose evolution because two men disagreed hundreds of years ago.
My question is: why do some Christiants refuse to accept evolution as a reasonable explanation to our becoming if the data strongly suggests it?

Actually, scriptures says that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth and the earth was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep." If we accept that, there should be no problem with evolution, because we are given no timeline between the above verse, and when God said "Let there be light and there was light."
Billions of years could have passed between the earth we see today, and the earth being without form and void and darkness being upon it. Scripture tells us that heaven and earth existed but that it was void, and this could have existed as a condition for a very long time.

 

[Audock]

That still doesn't answer my question. I highly doubt millions of people oppose evolution because two men disagreed hundreds of years ago.
My question is: why do some Christiants refuse to accept evolution as a reasonable explanation to our becoming if the data strongly suggests it?

I assume by your statement "the data strongly suggests" evolution is true you do not mean what I believe most Christians believe. Most Christians accept the fact of micro-evolution as true. What we (most Evangelicals) do not accept is macro-evolution since the data is far from overwhelming.

Kindly,
Dennis

 

[Geoffreyatkinson]

[/QUOTE]
Before Darwin atheists could not explain the existence of living things, but they eagerly embraced his theory as a rational support to their atheism. They noted that fossils occured in layers with the more mobile in the more superficial layers, and instead of concluding that more mobile animals were inundated more slowly they concluded that the more mobile ones had developed from the less mobile ones. In the 19th century they gave ages to these layers according to how long they presumed the evolution of the more mobile animals would take. Radioactive dating has not confirmed these ages because sedimentary rock is not amenable to radioactive dating and insertions give widely different dates. Darwin postulates that one kind of animal developed into another by thousands of small changes over millions of years. If this were the case why do we not find fossils of the intermediate stages? Atheists have got religion banned from the classroom therefore the evidence for creation can not be stated, but they claim that atheism is not a religion even though it is a belief that can not be proved and is a belief that affects one's whole perception of reality. Have a look at "shattering the Myths of Darwinism" by Richard Milton and "Darwin's Black Box" by Professor Michael Behe.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Are you willing to write a paper and have it peer reviewed in the relevant fields of study?

Peer reviewed by who? The same people that won't admit current classifications don't match anything observed?

T-Rex remained T-Rex from the oldest fossil of it found to the youngest fossil of it found. As did they all. Just like you observe. Asian has remained Asian to the oldest bones found of them to the youngest.

By who? The same people that ignore their own scientific definitions?

http://www.evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VA1BioSpeciesConcept.shtml

"The biological species concept defines a species as members of populations that actually or potentially interbreed in nature, not according to similarity of appearance. Although appearance is helpful in identifying species, it does not define species."

And then because Darwin classified them before actually studying them, when we find they are all interbreeding - and have according to the DNA been doing so since they got to the islands - never underwent speciation to begin with. But will they admit to such a simple little mistake in classification before they were actually studied? Of course not.

And these are the people I am to trust in reviewing anything?

I fail to see your faith in a system that also approved papers on the Milky-Way being the entire universe? We all know how that turned out - even though at the time all of science - including the peer review system accepted it as truth. Just as they accept evolution as truth. But what is believed is not always true, no matter how many people believe it.

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

If they want they are welcome to come here and discuss it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

As new evidence comes along then science and religion need to re evaluate what they believe. In some cases people are stuck with their traditions and are resistant to change. Look at science. At one time a lot of babys died because the doctors did not wash their hands. When a doctor came along that advocated washing their hands he ended up getting fired for his efforts to try and save lives. So in science and religion they like to cling to their traditions and change is not always easy.

Change is never easy. The belief of group think is always overturned by one man, but only after struggle - and it has always been that way throughout all of history.

Gravity is a theory.

That works nowhere but the solar system where it is 98% accurate. Once outside the solar system we suddenly have to add 96% Fairie Dust. So yes - it is a theory that applies to 1% of the universe - planetary systems. They just need to stop applying it to Plasma - the other 99%.

And I won't deny that evolution may apply to 1% either. EDIT: Such as the micro-variation between Asians, yet all remain Asian - and only when mated with another infraspecific taxa (African say) does a new infraspecific taxa appear (Afro-Asian in this case). So we ignore the large variations caused by natural mating between infraspecific taxa and assume instead variation is caused by the individual within the infraspecific taxa, when they merely make more like their own. Asian never becomes anything but Asian. T-Rex never became anything but T-Rex...

 

[GAPCanadianChristian]

I assume by your statement "the data strongly suggests" evolution is true you do not mean what I believe most Christians believe. Most Christians accept the fact of micro-evolution as true. What we (most Evangelicals) do not accept is macro-evolution since the data is far from overwhelming.

Kindly,
Dennis

But you forget... the vast majority of Christians aren't "Evangelicals."

 

[GAPCanadianChristian]

Science and the Bible don't disagree. What most people don't know is that the Bible is not written in chronological order. The book of isaiah talks about animals like dinosaurs and also about human - like beings. Also, if you directly translate Genesis 1, it states that the earth became without form and void. What evolutionists call the big bang is actually what happened to the earth when Satan and 1/3 of the angels were thrown from heaven to earth. The reason Christians don't believe in evolution is because it isn't how man or any other animal came into existence. Most people just don't know that science and the Bible aren't in conflict, so they insist that the Bible us only a few thousand years old, but that isn't taking the whole Bible into account.

But most Christians DO believe in evolution. At least their denominations support it.

 

[AV1611VET]

What if the original author wrote a creative narrative on purpose for the same reason? You have not provided a rational reason for God actually building the world in 6 days.

Then I guess you'll just have to keep on scratching your head over it until someone convinces you otherwise.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Peer reviewed by who? The same people that won't admit current classifications don't match anything observed?

If you think it's wrong, write a paper demonstrating your evidence that it's wrong and submit it to relevant fields of study. Science loves to be proved wrong in order to gain a better understanding of the natural world. If you think you're right, you have to put it through the same process all scientific discoveries are subject to. Otherwise you're just blowing smoke.

T-Rex remained T-Rex from the oldest fossil of it found to the youngest fossil of it found. As did they all. Just like you observe. Asian has remained Asian to the oldest bones found of them to the youngest.

There are more hominid fossils than there are T-Rex fossils. Thousands compared to less than 100 T-Rex fossils.
Homo Naledi says hello . Ape and human like features. Like all fossils that are found, it is a transitional.

"The biological species concept defines a species as members of populations that actually or potentially interbreed in nature, not according to similarity of appearance. Although appearance is helpful in identifying species, it does not define species."

You should really read the rest of the site instead of quote mining it to support your position. This seems to be a common theme in your posts.

And these are the people I am to trust in reviewing anything?

Would you bring your car to be looked at by your dentist? How about you write a paper, submit it to relevant fields of study and if it gets unfairly rejected, come back here and demonstrate why it was unfairly rejected. I'm confident you aren't willing to do this.

I fail to see your faith in a system that also approved papers on the Milky-Way being the entire universe? We all know how that turned out - even though at the time all of science - including the peer review system accepted it as truth.

Science changing based on newly available evidence is a strength not a weakness. If you think they are in error, write your paper. You are recognizing that science changes based on new evidence. If you think they are wrong, prove it. Or you're just blowing smoke.

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually, scriptures says that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth and the earth was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep."

No, It doesn't.

If we accept that, there should be no problem with evolution, because we are given no timeline between the above verse, and when God said "Let there be light and there was light."
Billions of years could have passed between the earth we see today, and the earth being without form and void and darkness being upon it. Scripture tells us that heaven and earth existed but that it was void, and this could have existed as a condition for a very long time.

Then explain how angiosperms appeared on the earth before the sun even existed.