Why is Christianity opposed to the theory of Evolution?

[ecco]

ecco said: ↑

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

I blame it on reading Genesis through the eyes of ancient men who could NOT have known what Genesis was teaching. What I have learned from knowing this, is that it's all just a part of God's perfect plan. By hiding His Truth from mankind in Genesis, it insured that ONLY by Faith could one come to know God.

That is really convoluted thinking.

The reason that people today, including very many christians, believe in evolution is that they set aside a literal reading of genesis.

The reason that people today, mainly christian fundamentalists, refuse to believe in evolution is that they read most of genesis as literal truth.

Today, there are so many stories being promoted and so many denominations claiming to know the real Truth, it is the SAME. ONLY by Faith that God is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him, can one be saved. Of course the biggest reason for Christians to believe in biological evolution is that they have been Forced to believe that Lie since the first time they went to School

.

Long before they went to school, they were indoctrinated by their parents and close relatives into believing the bible stories about the garden of eden and later, all the animals being loaded onto the ark.

A serious question, how old were you when you learned about the bible, how old were you when you were "Forced" to learn about evolution?

Biological evolution is nothing more than arrogant godless scientists changing the name from descent within His and Their kinds, into the word "evolution". They start with that REJECTION of Gen 1:20-21 and then proceed to dream up all kinds of lies to force upon our children. Amen?

Lies, like the immovable earth moving around the sun. Some christians, here in this forum, reject heliocentricity for the same reason you reject evolution. Their reading of scripture is just a little more literal than yours.

 

[ecco]

I believe in descent with modification within His and Their kinds. Those who cannot define His and Theirs have NO idea what I am posting. Do you?

Sure I do. Your views, and the reason for your views, are no different from many others.

You support "micro" evolution because it is necessary to explain how two of the "kind" feline became lions and tigers and panthers and house cats.

However, you ignore the fact that you cannot explain how this happened in the 2000 or so years between the flood and the beginning of written history. You also ignore how the descendants of the two of the "kind" feline spread across the entire globe in those same 2000 years.

You do not believe in "macro" evolution because it goes against your literal interpretation of most of genesis.


It's called pick and choose.

 

[Meowzltov]

In someone's imagination at least.

based on data.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

.
Evolutionists make the very same point regarding all of creation -- whether it be the bird, an apple, a mango, or the 'Big Bang,' there was never any end goal, or any plan.
.

It depends on where you look for the purpose. If you look to evolution itself, you won't find a purpose. if you look to the products of evolution, such as you and me, we are chock full of purposes. If you look to the Creator, He has His purposes.

 

[Graham Lloyd Dull]

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

.
The claim was never on my website. My website is http://lifefromgod.com/ You are free to confirm this for yourself. It is not there.

I do make claims on the site though. One is regarding 'Cosmic Evolution.' See below.

Cosmic Evolution

Sir Terry Pratchett stated it succinctly: “In the beginning there was nothing, and it exploded.”
.
“…the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago.” Stephen Hawking


The Fundamental Claims of Evolution

Below are listed the major, the best documented, and most well known evolutionary transitions.

a. Nothing became something — 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years ago
[ The Big Bang ]

b. Non-living substance came to life — 3.6 billion years ago
[ Abiogenesis ]

c. Prokaryotic cells (bacteria) became eukaryotic cells (these contain a nucleus and mitochondria like the cells in our bodies) — 2 billion years ago

d. Consciousness arose — 2nd Nov 1948

I can personally vouch for Point ‘d’ — but all the rest I find fanciful indeed.

Do you have objections to any of these?
.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

.
The claim was never on my website. My website is http://lifefromgod.com/ You are free to confirm this for yourself. It is not there.

I make it a point of principle not to follow links that are spammed. So I'll take your word for it.

I do make claims on the site though. One is regarding 'Cosmic Evolution.' See below.

Cosmic Evolution

The Fundamental Claims of Evolution

Below are listed the major, the best documented, and most well known evolutionary transitions.

a. Nothing became something — 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years ago
[ The Big Bang ]

b. Non-living substance came to life — 3.6 billion years ago
[ Abiogenesis ]

c. Prokaryotic cells (bacteria) became eukaryotic cells (these contain a nucleus and mitochondria like the cells in our bodies) — 2 billion years ago

d. Consciousness arose — 2nd Nov 1948

I can personally vouch for Point ‘d’ — but all the rest I find fanciful indeed.

Do you have objections to any of these?
.

Let's finish our last conversation before getting distracted, shall we? Your claim was that the variety of life makes the world "pleasant". My, as yet unanswered question, is who do the forms of life I mentioned make the world pleasant for?

 

[Graham Lloyd Dull]

I make it a point of principle not to follow links that are spammed. So I'll take your word for it.



Let's finish our last conversation before getting distracted, shall we? Your claim was that the variety of life makes the world "pleasant". My, as yet unanswered question, is who do the forms of life I mentioned make the world pleasant for?

.
I will. Give me a little time though. It is 8.30am Monday morning here in Australia, and I have some obligations to fulfill. I will be back. (The computer will be on so the site will show I'm online, but I won't be active.)

Thank you
.

 

[Gene2memE]

.
The claim was never on my website. My website is http://lifefromgod.com/ You are free to confirm this for yourself. It is not there.

I do make claims on the site though. One is regarding 'Cosmic Evolution.' See below.

Conflating cosmology and biology under the heading of 'evolution' is deceptive, to the point of mendaciousness. It's also not a good sign when you begin an argument with such a misleading claim.

The Fundamental Claims of Evolution

Below are listed the major, the best documented, and most well known evolutionary transitions.

a. Nothing became something — 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years ago
[ The Big Bang ]

That's neither a claim of evolution, nor what Big Bang cosmology claims. It appears that you fail to understand both inflationary cosmology and biological evolution. I suggest more reading.

b. Non-living substance came to life — 3.6 billion years ago
[ Abiogenesis ]

Abiogenesis is not a claim of evolution. Its a related, but distinctly separate, field. Its like the difference between developing computer processors and developing programming languages.

Plus, there's evidence that life is at least 3.8 billion years old, and recently discovered organic material may push this back to 4.1 billion years.

c. Prokaryotic cells (bacteria) became eukaryotic cells (these contain a nucleus and mitochondria like the cells in our bodies) — 2 billion years ago

Hooray! Something correct. The directly observable evidence is that eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes somewhere between 1.5 and 2 billion years ago.

Here's a recent paper reviewing the history of our thinking about endosymbiosis and various hypotheses and counter-hypotheses about their origin, as well as some insight into the ongoing debate. That's the lovely thing about science, its not settled unit there is sufficient evidence.

d. Consciousness arose — 2nd Nov 1948

I can personally vouch for Point ‘d’ —

Are you a solipsist? Is that's what's going on here?

but all the rest I find fanciful indeed.

Do you have objections to any of these?
.

Your logical fallacy is: personal incredulity.

 

[justlookinla]

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

I believe in God creates through His word and power. I don't believe in Godless willy-nilly macro evolution.

 

[justlookinla]

Actually it doesn't bother me that you are a Creationist. People can disagree with me and I'm fine with it. I actually LIKE IT when people disagree with me becaue it makes me think. After all I might be wrong, and how will I ever correct myself if I don't talk with others who disagree?

What bothers me is your irrational thinking. The arguments you are making, your points about the Berkley statement, for example, and your statements that evolution is atheistic, are illogical.

Depends on which view of evolution you're referring to. Darwinist evolution, the view that only naturalistic mechanisms produced all life we observe today from an alleged single life form (unknown) of long ago, is inherently atheistic. Theistic evolution isn't inherently atheistic and neither is micro-evolution.

 

[justlookinla]

Didn't you know, the 99% of Phd biologists who agree with evolution, all do so because of a world wide conspiracy?

They have a right to their guesses and suppositions as much as the next fella.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

based on data.

What data?


Asian mates with Asian and produces an Asian. African mates with African and produces an African. Only when Asian and African mate do you see variation within the different infraspecific taxa that make up a species.

That's the only data you have.

just like experiments with E coli. Those E coli are no different than the Asians within the bacterium species it belongs to. And will always remain E coli, it can not even become another infraspecific taxa within that species - because it never receives new genetic material. And is why 2 billion year old bacteria was found that never evolved - because it can't even get out of the infraspecific taxa it started as.

And T-Rex always remained T-Rex and Husky always remains Husky.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Didn't you know, the 99% of Phd biologists who agree with evolution, all do so because of a world wide conspiracy?

Aren't you evolutionist's tired of fallacious arguments yet?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

At one time all of science believed the Milky-Way was the entire universe - and had math and observational data to prove it. Turns out they were all wrong then too - even if they all believed they were right.

 

[SteveB28]

Aren't you evolutionist's tired of fallacious arguments yet?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

At one time all of science believed the Milky-Way was the entire universe - and had math and observational data to prove it. Turns out they were all wrong then too - even if they all believed they were right.

That is NOT an example of that fallacy.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

At one time all of science believed the Milky-Way was the entire universe - and had math and observational data to prove it. Turns out they were all wrong then too - even if they all believed they were right.

Your logical fallacy is the historian's fallacy
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/104-historian-s-fallacy

 

[As I was saying]

How do you determine whether a scientific theory is reliable or not?

That is not the issue. The theories presented in the article were presented as fact which was quite untrue.

 

[As I was saying]

Not what you said? Why do you feel it necessary to tell such blatant mistruths? Is your argument so weak?

Why do you feel it necessary to make nonsensical statements?

 

[As I was saying]

Show us a single scientific understanding of anything, anywhere, that is based on fact, rather than theory?

We are not talking about anything anywhere. We are talking about a specific article.

 

[As I was saying]

Do you mean I know better?
Or do you mean I am no better? In any event, I don't have to be a jellyfish nor do I need to go to heaven to live forever.

Quite true. You can choose hell if you want to.

 

[As I was saying]

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

How do you account for so many atheists believing that God does not exist when they cannot produce a skerrick of evidence to prove it.