Why is Christianity opposed to the theory of Evolution?

[Graham Lloyd Dull]

Sure. Zombies aren't perfect, yet they don't die. QED.

.
Regarding the girl I was asking, I doubt very much that she believes in zombies.

As for yourself, you can believe whatever you like.
.

 

[Armoured]

.
Regarding the girl I was asking, I doubt very much that she believes in zombies.

As for yourself, you can believe whatever you like.
.

Doesn't matter, as we're talking purely theoretical.

But if you want "real world" examples, well, bacteria don't die. Certain species of jellyfish don't die.

Are they "perfect"?

 

[Graham Lloyd Dull]

Perfection is perfection. Very good is not the same as perfect. New is not the same as perfect.

Can you provide anything extra biblical to indicate that a "corruption of genetics" has occurred in human history?

Bonus points if you can tell me what such 'corruption' would entail.

.
I will respond both from the Bible and from nature.

Bibical

Genesis 3:17, 18 Cursed is the ground because of you, It will produce thorns and thistles for you.

Thorns and thistles (plants having thorns) can be genetically manipulated so that plants without thorns may be made to acquire them, and plants with thorns may be made to loose them. Under the next heading I will give a direct example from nature.

Natural world

I am now retired, but I've spent a lot of my life farming, and for some of this time I was as a farm manager in the tropics (PNG). A legume (Mimosa -- not the tree) was acquired in Africa, I was bred to loose its myriad of tiny thorns, and introduced to the wet, humid tropics as cattle food. Being a legume, it had a high food value.

All was good, then it reverted to its wild form, regained it thorns, and became a very unpleasant pest infecting huge areas where it had been introduced.

Genetics can be used to great benefit, and also to great disadvantage.

Here I give two examples where genetic quality is rapidly deteriorating.

1.
Medical authorities in western countries are greatly alarmed in the last decade by the widespread and rapidly declining sperm quality in men (in the western world). This is regarded as a serious issue. Evolution, rather than improving the gene pool as required by it to go forward, is loosing the race, the gene pool is deteriorating.

2.
It is now being observed that the majority of genetic mutations which enable a virus, etc to avoid (become immune to medication) is not because they have developed some great new genetic feature. They in fact are loosing such features. The vulnerable genes are disappearing. What is generally happening is that these organisms are loosing the very receptors which had allowed the medication to take effect. If the medication cannot find a means to connect with and enter the virus/organism it will have no affect. Therefore the organism wins.

In both these situations, the gene pool is deteriorating and reducing.
.

 

[Graham Lloyd Dull]

Doesn't matter, as we're talking purely theoretical.

But if you want "real world" examples, well, bacteria don't die. Certain species of jellyfish don't die.

Are they "perfect"?

.
If we are going to get ridiculous about it, I suppose that the banana I usually have for breakfast has gone through a life and death cycle. (Mind you, I don't eat the same banana day after day -- I buy fresh ones.) The banana grew on a tree, it was alive, at some point it died. Bananas share a considerable amount of genetic material with humans. But I don't go out and have a funeral over a banana.

Skin cells on our bodies die and are shed constantly. This is not the same as the person dying. In fact, because your skin cells die, and your body replaces them with new ones, it makes you a much healthier and cleaner person. Only an evolutionist would equate the quality of life enjoyed by a bacteria, a banana, or an individual skin cell with human life.

You are much more valuable
Jesus said:
Matthew 26:28 See how the flowers of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. 29 Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. 30 If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you—you of little faith?

26 Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?
.

 

[As I was saying]

Then you must never step on an airplane, drive in a car, or take modern medicines. Because ALL of those are based upon scientific research and development - and ALL of science is based upon theory!

Non sequitur.

 

[keith99]

Doesn't matter, as we're talking purely theoretical.

But if you want "real world" examples, well, bacteria don't die. Certain species of jellyfish don't die.

Are they "perfect"?

Actually they do die. It is more accurate to say they are not born and that every one alive today has been alive for millions of years.

 

[keith99]

.
Could you honestly argue the case that "no more death" doesn't mean perfection?
.

I'm pretty sure there was a Star Trek episode that argued that very effectively. No more death was more a vision of Hell.

 

[Gene2memE]

.
I will respond both from the Bible and from nature.

Bibical

Genesis 3:17, 18 Cursed is the ground because of you, It will produce thorns and thistles for you.

Thorns and thistles (plants having thorns) can be genetically manipulated so that plants without thorns may be made to acquire them, and plants with thorns may be made to loose them. Under the next heading I will give a direct example from nature.

Natural world

I am now retired, but I've spent a lot of my life farming, and for some of this time I was as a farm manager in the tropics (PNG). A legume (Mimosa -- not the tree) was acquired in Africa, I was bred to loose its myriad of tiny thorns, and introduced to the wet, humid tropics as cattle food. Being a legume, it had a high food value.

All was good, then it reverted to its wild form, regained it thorns, and became a very unpleasant pest infecting huge areas where it had been introduced.

Genetics can be used to great benefit, and also to great disadvantage.

Useful to humans or animals does not equate to "good". Neither does reversion to a more successful genetic phenotype equate to a negative.

From the perspective of the plant, re-acquiring its thorns meant that its more successful, evolutionary speaking. That's good - for it, not so good for us.

Good or bad are necessarily subjective.

Here I give two examples where genetic quality is rapidly deteriorating.

1.
Medical authorities in western countries are greatly alarmed in the last decade by the widespread and rapidly declining sperm quality in men (in the western world). This is regarded as a serious issue. Evolution, rather than improving the gene pool as required by it to go forward, is loosing the race, the gene pool is deteriorating.

This is environmental - related to the prevalence of a certain type of plastic - not genetic. Its not remotely related to what I was asking for.

2.
It is now being observed that the majority of genetic mutations which enable a virus, etc to avoid (become immune to medication) is not because they have developed some great new genetic feature. They in fact are loosing such features. The vulnerable genes are disappearing. What is generally happening is that these organisms are loosing the very receptors which had allowed the medication to take effect. If the medication cannot find a means to connect with and enter the virus/organism it will have no affect. Therefore the organism wins.

And you're using rapid evolution as a counter example to evolution? Curious.

By the way:
Substitution are more the most common genetic mutations for viruses. Much more common than frameshift, insertion, deletion or rearrangements. By a factor of about 400%.

 

[SteveB28]

Non sequitur.

How so? You say that you have no trust in ANYTHING "based on theory".

I point out to you that ALL science is based on theory.

How does it not follow, then, that you would distrust those things based upon scientific development?

 

[Armoured]

Actually they do die. It is more accurate to say they are not born and that every one alive today has been alive for millions of years.

OP wasn't semantically specific, so we run into these issues.

 

[Armoured]

.
If we are going to get ridiculous about it,

Don't get huffy at me for your failure to define your terms.

 

[Graham Lloyd Dull]

Don't get huffy at me for your failure to define your terms.

.
I'm just having a dig at you for introducing 'Zombies' into the discussion.

You said: "Zombies aren't perfect, yet they don't die."

I didn't even know such zombies existed (except in someones imagination.) Do they exist? Do they possess DNA/RNA? The reference you make to them is probably not in the least bit relevant to the discussion at hand.
.

 

[Graham Lloyd Dull]

And you're using rapid evolution as a counter example to evolution? Curious.

.
'Rapid evolution?'

My children and grandchildren are genetically different to me. But I don't know that I or anyone else would call this variation Rapid Evolution.

The genetic differences between them and myself may make them genetically susceptible to certain diseases, and allergies, intolerances, etc. They may likewise become less susceptible. For example, the inherent weakness acquired may contribute to their death from skin cancer. It may be a strength and prevent the same problem. If you take a million people and select them for certain characteristics, you can drive change in a population. Or take a billion bacteria and do the same. If my grandchild has a gene inherited from a long dead ancestor, it would hardly seem like evolution.

My grandchildren are certainly different to me, but nobody is running up and saying, 'Wow,' look at that rapid evolution.
.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

It is far from perfect now, but it is still a pleasant home in which we live.

Then I ask you again - those examples of the variety of life that I provided , who do they make the Earth pleasant for?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

.
You're an Atheist. I will ask you.

Do you believe that variety in nature comes about because of the function of DNA?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes

Do you believe that God used DNA?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No

If God didn't use DNA, then how would he create various features such as different eye, skin and hair colour?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: He couldn't. There would be no such variations.

Please correct me. Tell me where you believe differently.
.

What I asked you to do was to provide a link to an atheist making the argument that you have claimed is common for atheists to make. If you cannot find even one example of someone making that claim, then perhaps you should reconsider whether or not you're actually right that it's a common claim for atheists to make.

Now, please, provide that link.

 

[Armoured]

.
I'm just having a dig at you for introducing 'Zombies' into the discussion.

You said: "Zombies aren't perfect, yet they don't die."

I didn't even know such zombies existed (except in someones imagination.) Do they exist? Do they possess DNA/RNA? The reference you make to them is probably not in the least bit relevant to the discussion at hand.
.

There is as much evidence for the existence of zombies as there is for a future state of divinely ordained, undieing biological life.

 

[Armoured]

Then I ask you again - those examples of the variety of life that I provided , who do they make the Earth pleasant for?

Wish it were that simple. Google loa worms and then come back and talk to us about things being pleasant for humans.

 

[Graham Lloyd Dull]

What I asked you to do was to provide a link to an atheist making the argument that you have claimed is common for atheists to make. If you cannot find even one example of someone making that claim, then perhaps you should reconsider whether or not you're actually right that it's a common claim for atheists to make.

Now, please, provide that link.

.
OK, I will retract.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

.
OK, I will retract.

Good for you. Does this mean that you will remove the claim from your website?

Now to the question of who the varieties of life I mentioned makes the Earth pleasant for...

 

[As I was saying]

How so? You say that you have no trust in ANYTHING "based on theory".

I point out to you that ALL science is based on theory.

How does it not follow, then, that you would distrust those things based upon scientific development?

No, that is not what I said. I pointed out that the article referred to was based on theory not fact.