Why is Christianity opposed to the theory of Evolution?

[Cearbhall]

I have no argument with you. It is an exercise in exposing the nonsense that there are no transitional forms.

Except it's not, because you basically said "Are they fruits or apples? Your answer must be one or the other." Nonsense isn't very good at exposing nonsense.

 

[justlookinla]

They are different branches in the same tree.

Very different life forms though.

 

[Meowzltov]

The website claims only naturalistic mechanisms 'created' all life we observe today. This automatically dismisses God as not wanted, needed or allowed.

Who created the universe with all its natural laws and naturalistic mechanisms? It still all comes back on God.

 

[Meowzltov]

If you can find anywhere on the site that their view of Darwinist evolutionary 'creation' is not random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless, I'd appreciate a link with associated content supporting that claim.

Anywhere it doesnt say it, it doesn't say it. You can't provide the quote, so it doesn't say it.

 

[justlookinla]

I asked you a question: Can you quote directly from their site where it specifically says "mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless"
Stop making things up.

You're wanting a verbatim quote and this isn't about a verbatim quote. This is about the view of evolution promoted by the UC-Berkeley website and it's definitely one of Darwinist evolutionary 'creation' which is random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless.

 

[Graham Lloyd Dull]

Things happen either because they are planned, or they happen spontaneously -- without thought, without a purpose, and without design.

Consider a bird, a plane and ‘intelligent design.’

We all agree that a plane is ‘designed,’ that it ‘has a purpose,’ and we agree that it ‘has a creator.’ But there is controversy regarding the bird. Some will say: The bird has no design, no purpose, and no creator.

http://lifefromgod.com/

Generally speaking, evolutionists reject any notion of intelligent design.

 

[mickiio]

If you can find anywhere on the site that their view of Darwinist evolutionary 'creation' is not random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless, I'd appreciate a link with associated content supporting that claim.

Not possible, because that would go against the sacred cow of the hypothesis macroevolution

 

[justlookinla]

Who created the universe with all its natural laws and naturalistic mechanisms? It still all comes back on God.

That's your faith-based view. That still doesn't dismiss the fact that the UC-Berkeley view of evolution is one of humanity being the result of random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanisms though.

 

[Meowzltov]

Very different life forms though.

They have evolved apart from one another, just as tree branches grow out from the trunk.

 

[justlookinla]

Anywhere it doesnt say it, it doesn't say it. You can't provide the quote, so it doesn't say it.

I can provide the link to the UC-Berkeley site which promotes that particular view of Darwinist evolution.

 

[justlookinla]

They have evolved apart from one another, just as tree branches grow out from the trunk.

That's certainly the claim.

 

[Meowzltov]

You're wanting a verbatim quote and this isn't about a verbatim quote. This is about the view of evolution promoted by the UC-Berkeley website and it's definitely one of Darwinist evolutionary 'creation' which is random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless.

But you can't even show synonyms, or you would be quoting from the site and documenting your case. All you can do is say "Anything that isn't literal B I B L E is random mindless meaningless purposeless and goalless."

 

[Meowzltov]

I can provide the link to the UC-Berkeley site which promotes that particular view of Darwinist evolution.

The proper way to do it is to quote the particular parts (succinctly) that support your case, and provide the link in case anyone wants to make sure you aren't making it up.

 

[justlookinla]

But you can't even show synonyms, or you would be quoting from the site and documenting your case. All you can do is say "Anything that isn't literal B I B L E is random mindless meaningless purposeless and goalless."

Any alleged process which created humanity which is random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless is inherently atheistic.

 

[Meowzltov]

Things happen either because they are planned, or they happen spontaneously -- without thought, without a purpose, and without design.

Consider a bird, a plane and ‘intelligent design.’

We all agree that a plane is ‘designed,’ that it ‘has a purpose,’ and we agree that it ‘has a creator.’ But there is controversy regarding the bird. Some will say: The bird has no design, no purpose, and no creator.

http://lifefromgod.com/
Unless the design is for things to spontaneously occur within a general idea that a sentient being will come into existence.
Generally speaking, evolutionists reject any notion of intelligent design.

 

[mickiio]

They have evolved apart from one another, just as tree branches grow out from the trunk.

More like they have been divinely designed. Natural Selection can, over time, transform an organism into a more specialized species of an organism. It is more like a bush then a tree.

 

[Meowzltov]

That still doesn't dismiss the fact that the UC-Berkeley view of evolution is one of humanity being the result of random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanisms though.

That is YOUR SLANT. It is NOT the ONLY way to see things, so you can't pin all those things on evolution as being Berkleys view.

 

[bhsmte]

Who created the universe with all its natural laws and naturalistic mechanisms? It still all comes back on God.

What is your evidence that it points to a God?

 

[justlookinla]

The proper way to do it is to quote the particular parts (succinctly) that support your case, and provide the link in case anyone wants to make sure you aren't making it up.

"Mutations are random
Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be."

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_18

 

[justlookinla]

That is YOUR SLANT. It is NOT the ONLY way to see things, so you can't pin all those things on evolution as being Berkleys view.

I can show that one particular view of evolution, Godless evolution, is promoted by UC-Berkeley.