Why is Christianity opposed to the theory of Evolution?

[bhsmte]

Because the theory of evolution is a fairy tale. Not once, not ONCE, have we seen a kind of animal turn into another kind of animal.

A mosquito becoming more resistant to bug spray is not proof of molecule-to-man evolution.

Maybe learn a little about evolution and then get back to us.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Biologos certainly opposes the evolutionary position of Godless Darwinist evolution. Simply go to the 'about us' section of the site to read about their position. Posting from my phone, but if you wish I'll copy and paste their position about Godless evolution when I get back to my computer.

Number 9 disagrees with you.

9. We believe that the diversity and interrelation of ALL life on earth are best explained by the God-ordained process of evolution with COMMON DESCENT. Thus, evolution is not in opposition to God, but a means by which God providentially achieves his purposes. Therefore, we REJECT ideologies that claim that evolution is a purposeless process or that evolution replaces God.
https://biologos.org/about-us/

It also disagrees with you here:

"Fossils tell us how species have changed across long periods of the Earth’s history. For instance, in 1998, scientists found a fossil showing an animal at the transition from sea creature to land creature. This tetrapod had a hand-like fin, confirming a prediction of evolutionary biology"

https://biologos.org/common-questions/scientific-evidence/fossil-record/

 

[Loudmouth]

Asians are no more H erectus than Africans are Asians.

Asians and Africans belong to the same species, H. sapiens. The fossils we are talking about do not belong to H. sapiens. They belong to a different species. You are flatly wrong.

H erectus is just another infraspecific taxa among the human species as is Asians and Neanderthal.

Asians are infraspecific, Neanderthals are not. Neanderthals are a separate species, as is is H. erectus.

But then you start trying to throw in the monkey bones and make your Piltdown men.

Yet another false accusation. This is when we know that these fossils really are transitional, when you have to use lies to try and make them go away.

No, just useful for letting us know when that foreign DNA was transferred by Horizontal Gene Transfer after the virus that carried it inserted itself. You got the foreign virus insertion part correct, now just stop ignoring the rest..

Ignoring what? We observe that ERV's are passed down vertically. We observe that they are found at the same position in the genome. This means that a specific ERV is the result of a single insertion in a common ancestor that was passed down vertically to modern species. The 200,000 ERV's found at the same position in the chimp and human genomes are ERV's that were already found in the common ancestor of our species. That is why they are found at the same spot in each genome.

Only you really believe that.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1871816/

"Our analysis suggests that ≈95% of all nonsynonymous mutations that could contribute to polymorphism or divergence are deleterious, and that the average proportion of deleterious amino acid polymorphisms in samples is ≈70%. On the other hand, ≈95% of fixed differences between species are positively selected, although the scaled selection coefficient (Nes) is very small. We estimate that ≈46% of amino acid replacements have Nes < 2, ≈84% have Nes < 4, and ≈99% have Nes < 7. Although positive selection among amino acid differences between species seems pervasive, most of the selective effects could be regarded as nearly neutral."

Let's see if you can keep up this time, Mr. "I think bacteria have diploid genomes".

The nonsynonymous mutations would be neutral mutations that do not change protein sequence. Only 2-3% of the genome is coding DNA, so right off the bat you are excluding 97% of mutations. Of the ones that do occur in coding regions, there are still some that do not change the amino acid sequence and are not deleterious according to your paper. Of the tiny percentage of mutations that do change amino acid sequence, 95% are detrimental meaning that 5% are beneficial or neutral.

You really need to learn some genetics if you are going to be making these types of arguments.

Yah I know, it's magic in your fantasy land.

For the thousandth time, it has to do with the location of the ERV in each genome. Do you know what the difference is between an orthologous and non-orthologous ERV?

Please show any that were not and I'll show you the wrong ancestor.

Your claim. Your burden of proof. If you can't demonstrate that all of the ancestors of E. coli were E. coli, then your claim is dismissed.

So they never mutate? You can't have it both ways during that copying process. Either they can change allies dominant and recessiveness - or they can not change at all. And so then we wouldn't need to keep testing rats.

You aren't making sense. Again, it is the position in the genome that evidences common ancestry.

 

[laurie2777]

Or is it because you don't have any verifiable or testable evidence? If you think you can falsify the theory of evolution you should write a paper and have it peer reviewed! Collect your Nobel Prize and become rich and famous from the ridiculous speaking fees you'll be able to charge. Are you willing to write the paper?

You twisted my words (lied) and did it with sarcasm.. Is this an attempt to make me feel or appear foolish because that's the best you can come up with?

You started this and now want to insult me and back out because I won't follow your rules..?

Sorry, but I'll show you mine if you show you yours.. is pointless.

 

[Loudmouth]

Because the theory of evolution is a fairy tale. Not once, not ONCE, have we seen a kind of animal turn into another kind of animal.

We have seen wolves become Chihuahuas.

 

[com7fy8]

Why is Christianity opposed to the theory of Evolution?

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

I don't think it refutes anything, because I don't think it is true. I simply accept that God made everything and He is in all-control; and so I am busy with submitting to Him so I do well with Him and loving any and all people the way Jesus wants.

I have read that evolutionists claim they have "evidence", but I haven't seen much except what I would have to assume is true evidence. I would not be able to prove it is true or that people's interpretation is correct.

One common assumption is how ones assume that there is no spiritual existence, but only physical existence. Of course, they can not prove this, but they assume it, then are busy with expecting people to believe their "evolution" claims . . . as ones who assume what they can't prove. So, if they can assume, like this, why should I assume I can trust how they think and make claims?

I am quite well aware how humans can rig things and argue things to be what they want me to believe. And Christians are included in being "humans".

So, I concentrate on discovering what God does with me And I am finding that all in the Bible has His love meaning, somehow, for how to love Him and any and all people. So, this keeps my attention busy "enough".

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

You twisted my words (lied) and did it with sarcasm.. Is this an attempt to make me feel or appear foolish because that's the best you can come up with?

You started this and now want to insult me and back out because I won't follow your rules..?

Sorry, but I'll show you mine if I show you yours.. is pointless.

You said you could refute that modern medicine depends on the theory of evolution (Example: flu shot) but don't want to share any evidence to support this claim. Would you like to share this evidence?

 

[Loudmouth]

I have read that evolutionists claim they have "evidence", but I haven't seen much except what I would have to assume is true evidence. I would not be able to prove it is true or that people's interpretation is correct.

This is the oft cited collection of evidence.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

One common assumption is how ones assume that there is no spiritual existence, but only physical existence. Of course, they can not prove this, but they assume it, then are busy with expecting people to believe their "evolution" claims . . . as ones who assume what they can't prove. So, if they can assume, like this, why should I assume I can trust how they think and make claims?

How would that be different for any other scientific theory? Do you apply the requirements to the Germ Theory of Disease? Do we have to disprove a demon realm before someone can accept the theory where physical germs cause infectious disease?

I am quite well aware how humans can rig things and argue things to be what they want me to believe. And Christians are included in being "humans".

That's why we have the scientific method, to limit these types of biases.

So, I concentrate on discovering what God does with me And I am finding that all in the Bible has His love meaning, somehow, for how to love Him and any and all people. So, this keeps my attention busy "enough".

For the record, there are many Christians who find great spiritual reward in studying evolution and biology in general. They fully accept evolution and the existence of a spiritual realm. They aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[AV1611VET]

He desperately clings to this manufactured term though, like a child does their favorite blanket.

Sorta like you guys' "Bronze age, ignorant, goat herding, desert nomads," isn't it?

 

[laurie2777]

You said you could refute that modern medicine depends on the theory of evolution (Example: flu shot) but don't want to share any evidence to support this claim. Would you like to share this evidence?

I gave you the answer to that once and why. I don't like repeating myself.

If all you have is scientific data that supports evolution.. but no proof.. then all you have is an opinion.

 

[WeAreTheChristianGems]

Here's my two cents:
•'Evidence' for evolution is almost always flimsy
•Charles Darwin himself claimed he'd made a mistake
•The Bible clearly states how God made us. There is no room for shoehorning in evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

I gave you the answer to that once and why. I don't like repeating myself.

If all you have is scientific data that supports evolution.. but no proof.. then all you have is an opinion.

If we have evidence then we have the facts, not opinion. Do you think the germ theory of disease is just an opinion? Is gravity just an opinion?

 

[Loudmouth]

Here's my two cents:
•'Evidence' for evolution is almost always flimsy

Such as?

•Charles Darwin himself claimed he'd made a mistake

Would this be the Lady of Hope myth or the quote mines again?

•The Bible clearly states how God made us. There is no room for shoehorning in evolution.

Then you are making the same mistake as the Pope did with Galileo. If you want to have science prove the Bible wrong, then continue to interpret the Bible in contradiction to reality.

 

[justlookinla]

Number 9 disagrees with you.

9. We believe that the diversity and interrelation of ALL life on earth are best explained by the God-ordained process of evolution with COMMON DESCENT. Thus, evolution is not in opposition to God, but a means by which God providentially achieves his purposes. Therefore, we REJECT ideologies that claim that evolution is a purposeless process or that evolution replaces God.
https://biologos.org/about-us/

There is no "God-ordained process of evolution" in the view of atheistic Darwinist evolution, thus they reject the atheistic Darwinist evolutionary view that the process whereby humanity was produced was a purposeless process.

The difference between the view of evolution embraced by BioLogos and the view of evolution embraced by atheistic Darwinist evolution is stark. In one, God's involvement is an essential part of the process, in the other, God isn't allowed, needed or wanted.

It also disagrees with you here:

"Fossils tell us how species have changed across long periods of the Earth’s history. For instance, in 1998, scientists found a fossil showing an animal at the transition from sea creature to land creature. This tetrapod had a hand-like fin, confirming a prediction of evolutionary biology"

https://biologos.org/common-questions/scientific-evidence/fossil-record/

Nothing there about the process.

 

[laurie2777]

If we have evidence then we have the facts, not opinion. Do you think the germ theory of disease is just an opinion? Is gravity just an opinion?

I did not say ''evidence'' .. you're putting words in my mouth.


What I did say is "data that supports"..which there is for creation as well.

Until there is irrefutable proof.. it's an opinion.

My opinion (obviously) is we were created.

 

[justlookinla]

If we have evidence then we have the facts, not opinion. Do you think the germ theory of disease is just an opinion? Is gravity just an opinion?

Notice the attempt to change the focus from the fact that the 'how' of Darwinist evolutionary view has no support based on the scientific method.

 

[bhsmte]

I gave you the answer to that once and why. I don't like repeating myself.

If all you have is scientific data that supports evolution.. but no proof.. then all you have is an opinion.

Here is reality; evolution is one of the most robust and well evidenced theories in science.

There are many other theories as well, that helped develop the following products or services:

-modern medical treatments
-your computer
-the car you drive around in
-the electricity you have in your house
-the refrigerator that keeps food fresh
-Heat and air conditioning in your home
-the television you watch

Do you want me to go on?

Do you think all the scientific theories that make these products available to you and reliable, work on opinion?

 

[justlookinla]

Here is reality; evolution is one of the most robust and well evidenced theories in science.

No it's not.

 

[Preacherbob]

The question the thread is asking is the same broad brush that some Christians use in regard too creation. In many ways, Christianity does not have to ascribe to evolution in a theological premise because that is not the point of the creation story. No theological paper is written which truly cares about Neanderthal man and the advent of present humans overcoming them and their territories.
Now, that being said, when non-believers in God decided that replacing the creation story with evolution was a good logical defense for their own lack of belief, then things got a tad shaky.
I digress and offer an appology.

The only thing a good studied up Christian theologian is concerned with is the geneology of Jesus. Nothing more. After all, in one sense that is what the Bible is. A genealogical background of Jesus and the advents that took place during those periods. In the New Testament we find the teachings of Jesus, his crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, and His later revelationary return.

There is absolutely no room for discussion concerning any other events predating the Adam / Eve since that is where the record of Jesus starts, and to the Jew, where the record of Abraham starts. If God had inspired Moses to write more concerning giants, dinasaurs, and why they disappeared from the earth, I am sure it would have been included. For now, it's a Kiss moment. Keep It Simple Saint! Mankind has a difficult time figuring out how yesterday fits into today much less trying to set up a working paradigm in which Theology>Paleontology>Archaeology>Biology>Physics>and whatever "ologys" and "ics" can comfortably fit in order to create a non emotional, logical agreement within our prospectus of organized thought.
As an example: If I wanted to know everything I could find out about you, why would I check out the history of your neighborhood beyond the very basics?

Lastly, the question posed is not one concerning the advent of Adam and Eve but the consequence served by agreeing with evolution regarding the existance of God. There is no consequence. Most scientists and mathematicians agree that our existance is no mistake nor a willy-nilly shake up of carbon based matter. It is organized and extremely well done which gives way to a higher mind, ergo: God. The well studied Theologian also agrees and has no problem with a few billion years of comets and meteors slamming into the earth thereby causeing catastrophic incidents of mass destruction as long as God is not somehow taken out of the equation. Note: Gen. 1:28. God tells Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply and to "REPLENTISH" the earth. Think about it. Then go to II Tim. 2:15 and do as it says.

In short, the Christian Theologian has nothing to offer about the evolution of the biological aspects of the earth but the geneology of Jesus and those advents that took place in that same geneology. The scope is limited to just that one simple part of Christian faith.
To the evolutionist, the geneology of Jesus is a nil factor because it is just the geneology of one versus the study of a species in it's entirety.

Please do not fall prey to what common man has to opine concerning God. Study, respect other thoughts, but be your own person and trust God. All will be well.

Nemo Mortalium omnibus horis sapit

 

[laurie2777]

Here is reality; evolution is one of the most robust and well evidenced theories in science.

There are many other theories as well, that helped develop the following products or services:

-modern medical treatments
-your computer
-the car you drive around in
-the electricity you have in your house
-the refrigerator that keeps food fresh
-Heat and air conditioning in your home
-the television you watch

Do you want me to go on?

Do you think all the scientific theories that make these products available to you and reliable, work on opinion?

Seriously?? You truly believe that all mans accomplishments and advancements is proof of evolution?

That just proves what I said earlier .. ''that anyone can say anything and claim it as a fact''.. And my friend..that does not make it so..