Why is Christianity opposed to the theory of Evolution?

[Black Dog]

Here's an example....can't prove it's 2/3, but it seems to be a widespread (whatever that means) bias.

Most scientists have a bias that living matter was produced from non-living matter.

I'm surprised you haven't encountered the term "widespread" before. You could have learned what it means by googling it like this: widespread definition. Anyways, I saved you the bother:

wide·spread
ˈwīdˌspred/
adjective
adjective: widespread; adjective: wide-spread
found or distributed over a large area or number of people.
"there was widespread support for the war"

Scientists aren't being biased (except possibly in the loosest possible sense), they are following the evidence. There is a difference. Do you know of any evidence indicating that living matter was created by a God? Do you know of any evidence indicating that living matter was created by your God?

 

[justlookinla]

I'm surprised you haven't encountered the term "widespread" before. You learned what it means by googling it like this: widespread definition. Anyways, I saved you the bother:

wide·spread
ˈwīdˌspred/
adjective
adjective: widespread; adjective: wide-spread
found or distributed over a large area or number of people.
"there was widespread support for the war"

Widespread is subjective. Over 25%? 50%? 75%? Pick one.

Scientists aren't being biased (except possibly in the loosest possible sense), they are following the evidence.

There's no evidence, based on the scientific method, for abiogenesis. There are plenty of guesses though because of the bias of scientists and their belief that somehow, somewhere, at some time non-living matter produced living matter.

Wouldn't you say that those scientist's unsubstantiated and biased beliefs are 'widespread'?

There is a difference. Do you know of any evidence indicating that living matter was created by a God?

That's not the issue. The issue is about the bias of science/scientists.

 

[Black Dog]

Widespread is subjective. Over 25%? 50%? 75%? Pick one.



There's no evidence, based on the scientific method, for abiogenesis. There are plenty of guesses though because of the bias of scientists and their belief that somehow, somewhere, at some time non-living matter produced living matter.

Wouldn't you say that those scientist's unsubstantiated and biased beliefs are 'widespread'?



That's not the issue. The issue is about the bias of science/scientists.

I did. I said 66% way back, you must have missed it.

AFAIK, there is only evidence for natural explanations for events that happen in our world, so that is what scientists would be looking for. If you, or anyone, can provide evidence that a God has his hand in earthly events, that evidence should be provided to the scientists. But to accuse scientists of being biased when they are following the evidence, and you can't provide them with evidence for your personal beliefs, makes no sense. Were you home-schooled by chance?

 

[justlookinla]

I did. I said 66% way back, you must have missed it.

Guess i did. The percentage is dependent upon the bias of the picker.

AFAIK, there is only evidence for natural explanations for events that happen in our world, so that is what scientists would be looking for. If you, or anyone, can provide evidence that a God has his hand in earthly events, that evidence should be provided to the scientists. But to accuse scientists of being biased when they are following the evidence, and you can't provide them with evidence for your personal beliefs, makes no sense.

There is a complete lack of evidence for the process whereby non-living matter became living matter.....the scientists aren't basing their beliefs on evidence, but are simply yielding to their biases. Because of their biases, they have spent a great deal of time and money, with no success, to support their biased position. That doesn't stop their biases from continuing to impact real science (science based on the scientific method) with their biased guesses and suppositions though.

I'm not sure what the latest 'widespread' biased position is among scientists concerning abiogenesis. Is it the magic mud guess or something else?

 

[Black Dog]

Guess i did. The percentage is dependent upon the bias of the picker.



There is a complete lack of evidence for the process whereby non-living matter became living matter.....the scientists aren't basing their beliefs on evidence, but are simply yielding to their biases. Because of their biases, they have spent a great deal of time and money, with no success, to support their biased position. That doesn't stop their biases from continuing to impact real science (science based on the scientific method) with their biased guesses and suppositions though.

I'm not sure what the latest 'widespread' biased position is among scientists concerning abiogenesis. Is it the magic mud guess or something else?

I explained that. There has never been evidence for a supernatural explanation for an event that occurred on our planet. Or can you or anyone else provide evidence of a supernatural explanation? Because if you can't then scientists aren't being biased, they are being realistic.

Do you think scientists are being biased because they aren't investigating whether Santa Claus lives at the North Pole in an invisible workshop?

What percentage would you like to use for widespread?

 

[Black Dog]

oops

 

[justlookinla]

I explained that. There has never been evidence for a supernatural explanation for an event that occurred on our planet. Or can you or anyone else provide evidence of a supernatural explanation? Because if you can't then scientists aren't being biased, they are being realistic.

No, they're being biased for the reasons given. Could be magic mud, could be a magic warm pond, but the bias is strong that it's a naturalistic mechanism even with a complete lack of evidence.

What percentage would you like to use for widespread?

It would be subjective, doesn't matter.

 

[Aman777]

Are you implying there is a godly evolutionary view which produced humanity from an alleged single life form (unknown) of long ago.

Sure. Genesis 1:20 shows that One God commanded that every living creature that moveth, be created and brought forth from the WATER. Gen 1:21 Science has learned that the cells within flesh cannot exist without liquid water.

Godless Science rejects this Fact and CLAIMS that life which came from the water, came about "Naturally". This means they also had to change the name from descent within "kinds" to evolution. These dreamers will say anything to support their False Religion of Evolution. Beware their lies. God Bless you

 

[mickiio]

Tax fraud.

You should not be imprisoned for tax fraud. For sure NOT for 10 years!
Christians must unite and stand up against corruption to reclaim America… and our first fight is to #FreeKent

BREAKDOWN ON WHY PROSECUTORS WANT TO CENSOR KENT HOVIND IN HIS UPCOMING TRIAL – USA vs Kent Hovind:
IMPORTANT: Pamela C. Marsh and Tiffany Eggers silence jury and evidence. New Prosecutor J. Ryan Love protected violent felon who was employed by the ATF now persecuting USA vs Kent Hovind case. Here is a timeline of events
1 – PROOF: Letters from professionals absolve Kent Hovind from all wrong-doing
2 – PROOF: Judge Margaret Casey Rodgers was caught altering court transcript
3 – PROOF: Judge Margaret Casey Rodgers is anti-christian and bias
4 – PROOF: Judge Margaret Casey Rodgers pre-judged Kent calling him the ‘HEAD OF A CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION’.
5 – PROOF: Sexual deviant, immoral and mentally-ill people imprisoned Kent Hovind
6 – IRS arrest and seize over $19k from widowed senior citizen
7 – IRS caught stealing a quarter of a billion from American people
8 – IRS apologizes for abusing their laws
9 – Congress is furious with the IRS for targeting Christian Americans

 

[ecco]

Yeah, I'm not sure if we've discussed it or not. I do not believe in the position of Godless macro-evolution (atheistic Darwinist evolution).

So you believe in god-tweaks-from-time-to-time macro evolution, right?

 

[ecco]

Sure. Genesis 1:20 shows that One God commanded that every living creature that moveth, be created and brought forth from the WATER. Gen 1:21 Science has learned that the cells within flesh cannot exist without liquid water.

Godless Science rejects this Fact and CLAIMS that life which came from the water, came about "Naturally". This means they also had to change the name from descent within "kinds" to evolution. These dreamers will say anything to support their False Religion of Evolution. Beware their lies. God Bless you

How do you account for the fact that very many christians believe in biological evolution?

 

[ecco]

You should not be imprisoned for tax fraud. For sure NOT for 10 years!
Christians must unite and stand up against corruption to reclaim America… and our first fight is to #FreeKent

What corruption is reclaiming America?

 

[Ada Lovelace]

Congratulations, well done!

Thanks!!!! I was elatedly surprised by the score, haha.

 

[Graham Lloyd Dull]

What corruption is reclaiming America?

.
You should want to live in Australia. Alan Bond served time in an Australian jail for a $1.2 billion fraud.

He served a full 'one day' for each million dollars he defrauded. (We're not in the convict era now.) Link to news item below.

News item -- August 4, 2004
A former trusted lieutenant of Alan Bond helped carry out a $1.2 billion fraud that was astonishing in size and audacious in execution, a court was told today.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/08/04/1091557905188.html?from=storylhs
.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

You should not be imprisoned for tax fraud.

Why not?

 

[Graham Lloyd Dull]

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?

.
Many do, but also many don't believe.

Of those who don't, they acknowledge that it was atheistic science that discovered of the function of genetics -- beginning from the late nineteenth century to the present day, a high point coming in 1953 when Watson and Crick described the structure of DNA.

Therefore atheists believe the DNA/RNA was not God's invention, and to them God doesn't even exist.

It is the discovery of science. If God wanted to use this means, he should have taken out a patent on it and recorded it in Scripture. But he didn't, genetics belongs to science.

Without genetics as we know them, there could be no differences in hair, skin, and eye colour, etc, and all humans would look exactly the same.
.

 

[Meowzltov]

Is evolution still in progress?

If so, then is God still creating?

If so, then why is God going to suddenly intervene and destroy everything and create a New Heaven and a New Earth?

I get the image of a writer writing a story and suddenly yanking the paper out of the typewriter and burning it up and starting over.

Yes, Yes, and Yes.

It's like a writer finally finishing the book and then starting a new book.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

.
Many do, but also many don't believe.

Of those who don't, they acknowledge that it was atheistic science that discovered of the function of genetics -- beginning from the late nineteenth century to the present day, a high point coming in 1953 when Watson and Crick described the structure of DNA.

Therefore atheists believe the DNA/RNA was not God's invention, and to them God doesn't even exist.

It is the discovery of science. If God wanted to use this means, he should have taken out a patent on it and recorded it in Scripture. But he didn't, genetics belongs to science.

Without genetics as we know them, there could be no differences in hair, skin, and eye colour, etc, and all humans would look exactly the same.
.

I see assertions, but you don't seem to have provided even a single link to someone who's made this argument.

 

[Graham Lloyd Dull]

Ebola is natural.

.
I don't claim that the world is perfect now. I fact, the exact opposite is true.

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

It is not perfect now.
Genesis 3:17, 18 Cursed is the ground because of you, it will produce thorns and thistles.
(A corruption of genetics has played a part in this decay.)

It will be made perfect in the future.
Revelation 21:5 He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!”
.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

.
I don't claim that the world is perfect now. I fact, the exact opposite is true.

What you said was that it is "the variety we see in nature" that means the world is "such a pleasant home in which we live". Are you retracting that statement?

And you have still not yet posted a quote with a citation from any atheist who claims that if God had created DNA then every person would be identical.