The Theory Of Evolution Is Incompatible With Christianity

josemiguel

Robin
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
Protestant
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
Other Christian
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

Ostrich
Protestant
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
Protestant
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.
 

cyborg1337

Robin
Muslim
From a creation point of view, how did humans and animals spawn on Earth? For example you have an uninahbited earth and then in the blink of an eye did the first human or animal appear out of nowhere? What would that process look like, do we think?

PS: I accept creationism as the only way, and I have a theory in my mind, but very interested to others thoughts.
 
Last edited:

Suburban Yahoo

Robin
Protestant
From a creation point of view, how did humans and animals spawn on Earth? For example you have an uninahbited earth and then in the blink of an eye did the first human or animal appear out of nowhere? What would that process look like, do we think?

PS: I accept creationism as the only way, and I have a theory in my mind, but very interested to others thoughts.

Not sure how us humans could comprehend the "mechanics" (so-called) of creation ex nihilo
 

Grey

 
Banned
Protestant
In uni I saw scads of corruption and 'make it up as you go, discard it if it doesn't fit' in evolutionary sciences. It's storytelling.

Natural selection explained in evolutionary psycology/biology terms are useful to know when dealing with many kinds of secular people though. It's an asset to be able to persuade people on their own presuppositions.
 

vraph

 
Banned
Other Christian
@Roosh

You fail to understand the fundemental difference between Neo-Darwinianism (by chance evolutionism as you describe) and versions of theistic evolution or supernatural-selectionism that accept evolution but assert God's creation.
 

anti-science

Sparrow
Gnostic or New Age
@Roosh

You fail to understand the fundemental difference between Neo-Darwinianism (by chance evolutionism as you describe) and versions of theistic evolution or supernatural-selectionism that accept evolution but assert God's creation.

Still an unverifiable assertion, a theory backed with faulty dating and shady evidence. You can make it fit with God with some mental gymnastics or you can throw it out altogether.
 

Elipe

Ostrich
Protestant
@Roosh

You fail to understand the fundemental difference between Neo-Darwinianism (by chance evolutionism as you describe) and versions of theistic evolution or supernatural-selectionism that accept evolution but assert God's creation.
He hasn't failed to understand anything. Theistic evolution is still incompatible with the fundamental teachings of the Bible. For example, on the nature of death. Death is a stranger to this world that entered due to our sin, not a fundamental building block of all creation.
 

ere

 
Banned
Orthodox
Darwinism is the heresy (a justification for Anglo ‘born to rule’ classism) . Evolution strikes me as compatible with revealed Truth.
Do you believe that blacks and middle easterners are inferior to whites? If not, what's wrong with blacks and arabs taking over white countries? After all, in your non-Darwinian world we should all be the same humans fashioned by God. :) Would you let your daughter marry an Orthodox Christian black man from Kenya (Alexandrian Patriarchate)?

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.
Sophistry at its finest. Absolutely sad. I'm pretty sure I've never seen an atheist speak out against formal logic, mathematics, or the knowledge they build their arguments upon, so there goes that theory.
 
Last edited:

Cavalier

Kingfisher
Orthodox Catechumen
Do you believe that blacks and middle easterners are inferior to whites? If not, what's wrong with blacks and arabs taking over white countries? After all, in your non-Darwinian world we should all be the same humans fashioned by God. :) Would you let your daughter marry an Orthodox Christian black man from Kenya (Alexandrian Patriarchate)?


Sophistry at its finest. Absolutely sad. I'm pretty sure I've never seen an atheist speak out against formal logic, mathematics, or the knowledge they build their arguments upon, so there goes that theory.
So you are an Orthodox Catechumen and believe in Darwinism?
 

ere

 
Banned
Orthodox
So you are an Orthodox Catechumen and believe in Darwinism?
It's practically impossible not to at this point. The evidence is staggering. It would be like asking if you believe in gravity or electromagnetism or conservation of momentum. And everyone who has graduated in STEM believes in it as well. There is no better working model.
 
Last edited:

Cavalier

Kingfisher
Orthodox Catechumen
It's practically impossible not to at this point. The evidence is staggering. It would be like asking if you believe in gravity or electromagnetism or conservation of momentum. And everyone who has graduated in STEM believes in it as well.
Ok. It does in large part contradict Genesis. I personally don’t believe in evolution after having believed in it for many years. Interesting but there is a website positing that there is no such thing as gravity but what we take as gravity is an effect of electromagnetism. I believe that the site is run by electrical engineers. Also in regards to evolution it is unverifiable personally whereas gravity on the Earth, electromagnetism and conservation of momentum is personally verifiable. So a belief in evolution is faith in speculation, while there is not a belief in those other things but verifiable knowledge.
 

josemiguel

Robin
Orthodox
Sophistry at its finest. Absolutely sad. I'm pretty sure I've never seen an atheist speak out against formal logic, mathematics, or the knowledge they build their arguments upon, so there goes that theory.
Not an argument and projection. Which modern atheist has given a justification for knowledge, logic or reason?

Put up Sophist.

Here's how you do a syllogism, aka a logical argument:
1 Modern Atheism is materialist.
2 Materialism rejects the immaterial.
3 Logic, reason, knowledge and the empirical method itself are immaterial.
Conclusion: Modern atheism rejects logic, reason, knowledge and the empirical method.

If 1, 2 and 3 are true, the conclusion MUST be true.

I dare you Sophist, which one of the three premises are false?
 
Top