The Theory Of Evolution Is Incompatible With Christianity

josemiguel

Sparrow
Orthodox
Why? Because you said so? If you had to go by empirical evidence that is on hand alone, atheism is perfectly rational. And many, if not most scientists are atheists - far from imbeciles.
Modern Atheism is materialist. Materialism rejects the immaterial. Logic, reason, knowledge and the empirical method itself are immaterial. This means modern atheism rejects logic, reason, knowledge and the empirical method. They literally know nothing because they reject the existence of knowledge. Hence materialist atheism is imbecility.

Even an honest atheist will admit they can't even recognize existence of identity over time.
 

GodfatherPartTwo

Kingfisher
So you think that not only did a bunch of organic molecules randomly form and assemble each other, but they did so in a complex enough way that the several proteins and enzymes that randomly formed were able to self replicate, all without any sort of divine intervention.

View attachment 31112

Imagine the cynicism required to think that peacocks just randomly formed like that, to the point where they can barely fly, because "natural selection," as if being weighed down by hundreds of purely decorative feathers is better for survival. No, that's from a benevolent God who created beautiful things.

Atheistic evolution is a mental illness.
To play devil's advocate, the peacock's feathers do serve the purpose of helping it to attract mates but I agree that there is an inherent beauty in creation and that God deserves all the glory for it.
 

messaggera

Kingfisher
Woman
Pardon me if I’m hard on evolution, but you can easily calculate the untold number of souls that it has helped lead to damnation, all consensually by those who wanted to believe in scientists over the Church,

A fact to be shared with an individual who believes in evolution: The Willow Warbler

The Willow Warbler is a fascinating little bird.
Audio, transcript, scientific citations, and prayer.

https://creationmoments.com/sermons/willow-warblers/

2:00 minute read
 

Elipe

Pelican
To play devil's advocate, the peacock's feathers do serve the purpose of helping it to attract mates but I agree that there is an inherent beauty in creation and that God deserves all the glory for it.
But at the same time, the peahen has to be able to appreciate the peacock's feathers, so there's a bit of a chicken-or-egg problem. What makes it even more bizarre is that the peacock's feathers do not appear to confer survival advantages, but appear to be specialized toward attracting a mate. In other words, it's a trait that doesn't seem to conform to the normal evolutionary narrative of survival of the fittest, as the peacock's plumage can even be seen as a negative survival trait (opposite of camouflage) that is only selected purely for its function in the mating dance. So why didn't the peahen "evolve" to prefer mean fighter males that could fight off predators and protect themselves and their mate over pretty-boys? Shouldn't survival be stronger pressure than having bright flashy feathers?
 

GodfatherPartTwo

Kingfisher
But at the same time, the peahen has to be able to appreciate the peacock's feathers, so there's a bit of a chicken-or-egg problem. What makes it even more bizarre is that the peacock's feathers do not appear to confer survival advantages, but appear to be specialized toward attracting a mate. In other words, it's a trait that doesn't seem to conform to the normal evolutionary narrative of survival of the fittest, as the peacock's plumage can even be seen as a negative survival trait (opposite of camouflage) that is only selected purely for its function in the mating dance. So why didn't the peahen "evolve" to prefer mean fighter males that could fight off predators and protect themselves and their mate over pretty-boys? Shouldn't survival be stronger pressure than having bright flashy feathers?
I think survival in survival-of-the-fittest refers more so to the species' ability to propagate itself rather than it's day-to-day survival capabilities. That said, I am by no means a darwinist or evolutionist. Macro-evolution is undeniably false. Micro-evolution has some merit but I couldn't say that I believe in it. I'm a young-earth creationist/Christian.
 
Top