Why is Christianity opposed to the theory of Evolution?

[Paul of Eugene OR]

What difference does it make, 6,000 years or 6 billion years old?

I'm not sure what you mean by the question. I don't expect to have a better life based on a particular age of the earth. On the other hand, I'm partial to knowing the right answer as to what really happened. The age of the earth is scientifically estimated to be about 4 and a half billion years.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Yes, I've heard of Billy Graham. Does he embrace Godless Darwinist evolution? From the quote above, it doesn't seem that he does

Personally, I don't embrace Godless Darwinist evolution. I embrace Godly Darwinist evolution.

 

[justlookinla]

I'm not sure what you mean by the question. I don't expect to have a better life based on a particular age of the earth. On the other hand, I'm partial to knowing the right answer as to what really happened. The age of the earth is scientifically estimated to be about 4 and a half billion years.

You're right, one's life isn't better or worse dependent on the age of the earth.

 

[justlookinla]

Personally, I don't embrace Godless Darwinist evolution. I embrace Godly Darwinist evolution.

Then you're at odds with folks like UC-Berkeley and their view of Darwinist evolution. As I've pointed out many times, "evolution" isn't a monolithic term.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That suggestion keeps coming up over and over. Can anybody think of any reason in the world that God would create the universe in such a way? How does one accept this idea and exonerate God from the accusation of being deceptive?

This explanation has absolutely nothing going for it except that it reconciles the findings of science with an earth only 6000 years old. There's no other reason to suggest it. There is no religious reason to predict it and no scientific reason to predict it. It only has its merit as a rescue mechanism for the young earth hypothesis in its favor.

You are assuming the Bible says the earth was created in six days as others wrongly assume this.

People can say what they want - but the Hebrew word that is the second word in the second verse of the Bible is "hayah".

Hayah means to become - or to fall out. So the earth "became - hayah" desolate and waste and darkness "became - hayah" upon. The Bible tells us repeatedly the earth is from ancient times, not a mere few thousands.

That darkness that befell the earth and killed the dinosaurs is most likely caused by comet or meteor. This has happened globally 5 different times. And in each case life sprang up fully formed - life not found in the lower layers. They simply confuse the creation of man - the 6th creative act - with the creation of the earth and life.

You are right that they are wrong - just wrong as to the reasons you are right.

EDIT:

In nowhere but Genesis, in these chapters, is hayah ever translated as "was".

 

[mickiio]

There is no conflict between the theory of evolution and Christianity. The majority of Christians are just fine with it. Certain groups of Christians might have problem with it, but that does not represent all if Christianity. The question is malformed.

You must hang out with different Christians then I do! Oh RIGHT!!!! You're Agnostic.

Physical laws are descriptions of what we observe in the universe. There are not only laws on physics, there are also laws in biology and evolutionary biology.

Yes, they are. I have no problem with microevolution in biology. No problems with classifications. Only when evolutionist extrapolate their findings into lies. Then I have a problem.

To say that macroevolution (really just evolution) violates physical laws and aging is based on circular reasoning betrays a lack of understanding of not only biology, but also physics and chemistry as well.

Really it's not. Microevolution....good science. Macroevolution....bad science. Say this three times and you might get it.

Have you heard of Billy Graham?
"I don't think that there's any conflict at all between science today and the Scriptures. I think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we've tried to make the Scriptures say things they weren't meant to say, I think that we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man. ... whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man's relationship to God."

Of course he doesn't! Science backs up the bible time and time again. Good science does of course -- that is testable, verifiable & falsifiable that is.

 

[In situ]

Where did you get that idea from? You mean all dogs share (two) ancestors, as all cats share (two) ancestors. That you confuse some cats that breed and produce fertile offspring in front of your eyes as separate species is a personal problem you have yet to deal with in your Fairie Dust classification system.

That you think it's ok to call birds that mate and produce fertile offspring separate species is also a personal problem you have yet to deal with.

That you then expect others to ignore what is right in front of their eyes is when it becomes my problem - and I am not going to let you ignore it. I mean come on In situ - the whole reason Darwin's Finches were classified as separate species is because they believed they were re-productively isolated. But the DNA data - not just their eyes - told them they had been interbreeding from the start. Yet here you are, trying to ignore that "in situ" data in favor of pure theory.

You are going to ignore Asian mating with African producing an Afro-Asian, or Husky mating with Mastiff producing a Chinook. And instead claim the tiny variations between all Husky is what causes variation - when Husky always remain Husky. Just as T-Rex remained T-Rex. As Asian will always remain Asian - no matter how many mutations they undergo.

The Husky will NEVER become a Chinook, nor will the Mastiff. The Asian nor the African will ever become an Afro-Asian. Until they mate they will all always remain the same as they always were, with but minor variation from that genome damage.

And the Asian will still remain Asian, the Husky the Husky - the only thing that will change is a new infraspecific taxa (within the species) will appear suddenly.

First you want to separate everything into separate species - now you want to make them all one. Make up your mind what you want to do?

Look mate. Who are you arguing with? I said your post, your own words, implies a common ancestor. I then asked you a simple question if you are pro or against evolution. That was my question. To that question I get this long reply. What kind of question or claim do you think you are trying to address with your answer?

That said I understand your wall of text as an answer that you are against the theory of evolution, so no need to reply to this unless I am incorrect.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

You are assuming the Bible says the earth was created in six days as others wrongly assume this.. . . ..

Not me. But you know there are those who do make that assumption.

 

[As I was saying]

Then freshman Zoology 101 would be quite a stunner for you. Guess what I looked at in my Zoo101 course? Animals with half an eye that needed it for survival. Planaria have just half an eye. It is a photosensitive patch in a depressed pit. There is no enclosed eyeball. There are no lenses. It is half an eye, and it works. I love it when creationists use well known quote mines. What better way to demonstrate the dishonesty of the creationist movement than their own words.

I will ignore you penchance for quote mining and refer you to the following.....

Modern researchers have been putting forth work on the topic. D.E. Nilsson has independently put forth four theorized general stages in the evolution of a vertebrate eye from a patch of photoreceptors.[5] Nilsson and S. Pelger published a classical paper theorizing how many generations are needed to evolve a complex eye in vertebrates.[6] Another researcher, G.C. Young, has used fossil evidence to infer evolutionary conclusions, based on the structure of eye orbits and openings in fossilized skulls for blood vessels and nerves to go through.[7] All this evidence adds to the growing amount of evidence that supports Darwin's theory.

I have highlighted the keys words which are theorized, theorising, infer and theory. Notice, no facts only supposition. Please forgive me but I don't base anything on supposition or theory.

 

[justlookinla]

I will ignore you penchance for quote mining and refer you to the following.....

Modern researchers have been putting forth work on the topic. D.E. Nilsson has independently put forth four theorized general stages in the evolution of a vertebrate eye from a patch of photoreceptors.[5] Nilsson and S. Pelger published a classical paper theorizing how many generations are needed to evolve a complex eye in vertebrates.[6] Another researcher, G.C. Young, has used fossil evidence to infer evolutionary conclusions, based on the structure of eye orbits and openings in fossilized skulls for blood vessels and nerves to go through.[7] All this evidence adds to the growing amount of evidence that supports Darwin's theory.

I have highlighted the keys words which are theorized, theorising, infer and theory. Notice, no facts only supposition. Please forgive me but I don't base anything on supposition or theory.

And this is the typical verbiage used in the 'evidence' presented by Darwinists.

 

[As I was saying]

And this is the typical verbiage used in the 'evidence' presented by Darwinists.

Sadly yes, but as we know, they are not keen on ruining a good story if it means they have to acknowledge the truth.

 

[In situ]

You must hang out with different Christians then I do!

Your personal experience of the world is not the collected knowledge of humankind. What my beliefs are, and who I "hang out with" are my own private bussiness.

 

[mickiio]

Your personal experience of the world is not the collected knowledge of humankind. What my beliefs are, and who I "hang out with" are my own private bussiness.

And yet you claim to know about Christians and yet are bias against them. Hey dude, your claim not mine.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Look mate. Who are you arguing with? I said your post, your own words, implies a common ancestor. I then asked you a simple question if you are pro or against evolution. That was my question. To that question I get this long reply. But what kind of question or claim do you think you are trying to address with your answer?

Where? Show me? Yes it implies a common ancestor (two) of them for all Creotopsia. (Two) of them for all humans, (two) for all dogs, (two) for all cats. You then took it upon your own to then assume this means dogs and cats share a common ancestor - when no data backs that up. So the assumption of a common ancestor beyond the species is totally upon you, and you alone.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Where? Show me? Yes it implies a common ancestor (two) of them for all Creotopsia. (Two) of them for all humans, (two) for all dogs, (two) for all cats. You then took it upon your own to then assume this means dogs and cats share a common ancestor - when no data backs that up. So the assumption of a common ancestor beyond the species is totally upon you, and you alone.

Dogs and cats are both mammals. They share a common ancestral species.

 

[justlookinla]

Dogs and cats are both mammals. They share a common ancestral species.

Let me ask you, when did Dogs not have an ancestor which was a mammal?

 

[In situ]

Where? Show me? Yes it implies a common ancestor (two) of them for all Creotopsia. (Two) of them for all humans, (two) for all dogs, (two) for all cats. You then took it upon your own to then assume this means dogs and cats share a common ancestor - when no data backs that up. So the assumption of a common ancestor beyond the species is totally upon you, and you alone.

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.

 

[Meowzltov]

It is neither man or ape. It is a separate infraspecific taxa among the ape species.

You just contradicted yourself. First you said it wasn't an ape, then you said it was an infraspecific taxon among the ape species. Make up your mind. Either its an ape, or a human, or you agree with the science that says humans ARE apes so that its both.

btw: infraspecific is a botanical term

 

[Meowzltov]

Let me ask you, when did Dogs not have an ancestor which was a mammal?

You go back far enough, and you will eventually get to the non-mammalian ancestors of dogs. Heck, go back far enough, and you get to single cell pond slime.

 

[Meowzltov]

No, I must not answer man or ape. There's a third option, which I posted.

Your answer didn't comment on Homo Habilus. You simply waxed eloquent on how human beings are created above the animals. Completely irrelevant to the question. My guess is that you are avoiding answering the question because you don't want to admit you can't, thus being forced into admitting Homo Habilus is a transitional form.