The Theory Of Evolution Is Incompatible With Christianity

[nagareboshi]

Some might say that evolution is rather simple also. Literally just an extension of the parameters and forces of the universe. Pockets of organized matter that arise from the original low entropy of the moment of "creation." Galaxies, solar systems, molecules that dissipate entropy into it`s surroundings, with the entropy always increasing. The one`s that are a bit more effective at that, have an advantage over the one`s that are not. From there you have the spur of selection, and all events throughout are of a random nature, creating all the variation that you see in the biological world. It`s almost beautiful when you get a grasp of it.

Yea lol, so crazy how entropy always decreases as a consequence of thermodynamic laws, yet somehow living creatures and human societies are all examples of self-contained systems in which entropy decreases locally and systematically. Totally plausible, right?

 

[Johnnyvee]

But it might really be that simple. Something cannot come from nothing, so creation had to come from a first mover. This is what we call God. From this point we can learn about Him and deduce many things by working forward through time via the prophets, then through to Jesus, then the Catholic Church He established through Peter, and so on.
Getting back to the theory of evolution, E Michael Jones in Logos Rising raises even more important points regarding mankind. We could not have formed by accidental random mutation. Think of language and communication. It had to have formed instantaneously between two separate people living in immediate proximity. Hearing had to take place along with speaking, and brain behaviour to coordinate the hearing and speaking. It is impossible that it could have formed randomly, simply preposterous. Sciencismists have not even invented a number estimating the probability of this, and there is no possibility of the quadrillions of years of random mutations having ever had the possibility of allowing for this. It is purely absurd.
Jones also draws our attention in Degenerate Moderns to the importance of the life stories and habits of the Sciencismists. If we look at Richard Dawkins for example, he was molested by a priest as a boy and he has clearly developed a complex over this. In the same way that father deprivation causes homosexuality, father deprivation also causes atheism, which is a psychological disorder.
In Libido Dominandi Jones describes how the American Psychological Association for example was taken over by Jewish activists in the 1960s and 70s, and more or less overnight threw out decades of proven research showing the true causes of homosexuality. It went from being a disorder that could be cured in some men, to a lifestyle change in the most typical transvaluation of values manner. Joseph Nicolosi demonstrated convincingly that homosexuality can be cured in 33% of men, reduced to a manageable non-active state in another third of men, and unchangeable in the other 33%. The key factor was religious outlook which influenced the level of determination in these men.

The Theory of Evolution is no more than LGTB for the late 19th and most of the 20th centuries. It's a cover, a facade, for a naked destruction of the metaphysical structure underlying Christian nations.

I`m just pointing out that it`s not something that can be rationally debated. I have witnessed this debate a million times over it seems;

a-Had to come from the first mover/God

b-You are interjecting a God, ad hoc

a-But we know that God exists from the scriptures and the prophet`s

b-Those are just man made fantasies, a consequence of the evolution of the brain, all men have God`s, and they are all different God`s, they can`t all be right, and they are all probably all wrong etc.

a-But who else than God could create the universe

b-Just because we don`t understand the origin of the universe, it doesn`t mean that there isn`t a rational explanation

I`m not picking sides here, but I`m just saying that there is no convincing people based on rationality. You have to take things of faith alone.

 

[Johnnyvee]

Yea lol, so crazy how entropy always decreases as a consequence of thermodynamic laws, yet somehow living creatures and human societies are all examples of self-contained systems in which entropy decreases locally and systematically. Totally plausible, right?

 

[KantPost]

I`m just pointing out that it`s not something that can be rationally debated. I have witnessed this debate a million times over it seems.

a-Had to come from the first mover/God

b-You are interjecting a God ad hoc

a-But we know that God exists from the scriptures and the prophet`s

b-Those are just man made fantasies, a consequence of the evolution of the brain, all men have God`s, and they are all different God`s, they can`t all be right, and they are all probably wrong etc.

a-But who else than God could create the universe

b-Just because we don`t understand the origin of the universe, it doesn`t mean that there isn`t a rational explanation

I`m not picking sides here, but I`m just saying that there is no convincing people based on rationality. You have to take things of faith alone.

Yes, rational debate will be rejected by those who cannot support their claims with reason.

The Greeks over 2000 years ago established this basic truth. Something cannot come from nothing

You have to interject a First Mover because there can be no other cause. Someone/thing had to cause the something. The something cannot bring itself into existence because it would have to exist before existing. With this plain truth we can move forward and try to learn more about the First Mover.

It really is that simple.

But if one has immoral passions that blind his elementary sense of reason, of course he cannot see what is so plainly true. He cannot see because he wills it that he doesn't see it.

The most important thing to understand about why people attack God is because they just don't want it all to be true. Because if it were true, they would most likely have to change their wicked ways which they have grown fond of.

Edit: I missed your last part. Yes, I agree with you. It all comes down to faith in life. Just as all points of disagreement are at root theological

 

[nagareboshi]

It is interesting that entropy generation may be associated with increased Darwinian survival, and it perhaps is possible in the context of already-existing, already-living animals, but I don't really see any explanation in this video as to how local entropy reduction as we see in organic life may emerge from non-living, entropy-increasing material systems.

 

[Johnnyvee]

Yes, rational debate will be rejected by those who cannot support their claims with reason.

The Greeks over 2000 years ago established this basic truth. Something cannot come from nothing

You have to interject a First Mover because there can be no other cause. Someone/thing had to cause the something. The something cannot bring itself into existence because it would have to exist before existing. With this plain truth we can move forward and try to learn more about the First Mover.

It really is that simple.

But if one has immoral passions that blind his elementary sense of reason, of course he cannot see what is so plainly true. He cannot see because he wills it that he doesn't see it.

The most important thing to understand about why people attack God is because they just don't want it all to be true. Because if it were true, they would most likely have to change their wicked ways which they have grown fond of

I wish it was that simple, but the problem is that there might be some thing/mechanism that we don`t, or are not capable of grasping. That goes back to the evolution of the human brain argument. That we evolved to tackle the challenges of life on this tiny pocket of air, on one planet. There is no reason that we should intuitively understand the universe, and maybe even the greater nature that our universe is a part of. We don`t know what nothing means either, we can`t imagine it. Maybe there is no nothing.

 

[Johnnyvee]

It is interesting that entropy generation may be associated with increased Darwinian survival, and it perhaps is possible in the context of already-existing, already-living animals, but I don't really see any explanation in this video as to how local entropy reduction as we see in organic life may emerge from non-living, entropy-increasing material systems.

Good question. But the molecules that "help" the universe increase it`s entropy have been implicated in the origin of life. The entropy is always increasing in the universe as a whole, but there are local pocket`s of low entropy (like life) that exist as a result of the original low entropy of the big bang then. So life "piggy-backs`s" on the original very organized state of the universe.

 

[KantPost]

I wish it was that simple, but the problem is that there might be some thing/mechanism that we don`t, or are not capable of grasping. That goes back to the evolution of the human brain argument. That we evolved to tackle the challenges of life on this tiny pocket of air, on one planet. There is no reason that we should intuitively understand the universe, and maybe even the greater nature that our universe is a part of. We don`t know what nothing means either, we can`t imagine it. Maybe there is no nothing.

I respectively disagree. God made us in His image precisely so that we can understand what we need to know about existence and the universe etc. You seem to be focusing on an unlikely possibility that what we plainly see with our own eyes is just an illusion. Your doubt is irrational and it will lead you to despair. We have to have faith that what we see we see, and when we can plainly see that 2 + 2 = 4 we should accept it and move on to the next question, rather than agonising about what the number 2 might really be, especially when we can see that when we apply this formula it leads to good and wonderful things in our lives

 

[nagareboshi]

Good question. But the molecules that "help" the universe increase it`s entropy have been implicated in the origin of life. The entropy is always increasing in the universe as a whole, but there are local pocket`s of low entropy (like life) that exist as a result of the original low entropy of the big bang then. So life "piggy-backs`s" on the original very organized state of the universe.

It's one thing for a whirlpool to emerge when currents of water are streaming in various directions, creating a local source of order, but it's another thing to say that random currents and forces would create entirely self-sustaining life filled with organs, cells, proteins, organelles, etc.

Once life gets started, we can see that local entropy reductions can happen naturally and in the everyday biological world. But who was the one who paid the initial energy cost to set up all those living systems in order? To say this all happened randomly (when order tends to decrease, not increase) is almost like saying that you can use stochastic gradient descent with very small increments to roll a pebble up a giant mountain, after which it settles in a local valley. It seems much more believable that an intelligence placed the pebble in that valley, after which equilibrium is attained.

I basically think that naturalists / mainstream materialists (correctly) see that micro-evolution works when you get all the foundations for DNA-based carbon lifeforms established, but they (including you) wrongly generalize from this posterior phenomenon and assume it must have happened all the way in the beginning, with non-life, as well.

I mean, think about it: is it not true that the origin of life and the progression of life are two very different concepts? You should disentangle them from one another, and evidence for the latter phenomenon does not count at all as evidence for the former.

 

[Hermetic Seal]

Personal pet peeve of mine: when creation/man is described as "perfect." Actually, it's "very good," so I don't think this is a great argument against evolution.

The best reason for rejecting evolution (and probably long timeframes as well) is animal (and depending on your particular view, human) death and suffering prior to the Fall. This is simply an intractable obstacle and that's why those desperate to realign the creation account to modern secular understanding (like William Lane Craig) spend so much effort trying to work around or downplay this problem. I spent years trying to wiggle around this but it just doesn't work. The implications are just devastating.

Either God is a psycho whose creative plan involves millions of years of death, violence, and bloodshed, or He built the entire universe in a "fallen" state to accommodate us fully expecting Adam to fall, revealing that the "choice" to sin or not sin was just an illusion (this option sharing considerable overlap with Psycho Calvinist God) and we were set up to fail from day one.

The only real resolution to this is to take Romans 8.20 at face value, that God altered creation at the fall to accommodate man in his fallen state, and the world we observe is not its original intended state, but "subjected to futility" for our sake. This is consistent with the Patristic interpretation you'll find in Fr. Seraphim Rose's "Genesis, Creation, and Early Man," which is a helpful read on this subject.

 

[Johnnyvee]

It's one thing for a whirlpool to emerge when currents of water are streaming in various directions, creating a local source of order, but it's another thing to say that random currents and forces would create entirely self-sustaining life filled with organs, cells, proteins, organelles, etc.

Once life gets started, we can see that local entropy reductions can happen naturally and in the everyday biological world. But who was the one who paid the initial energy cost to set up all those living systems in order? To say this all happened randomly (when order tends to decrease, not increase) is almost like saying that you can use stochastic gradient descent with very small increments to roll a pebble up a giant mountain, after which it settles in a local valley. It seems much more believable that an intelligence placed the pebble in that valley, after which equilibrium is attained.

I basically think that naturalists / mainstream materialists (correctly) see that micro-evolution works when you get all the foundations for DNA-based carbon lifeforms established, but they (including you) wrongly generalize from this posterior phenomenon and assume it must have happened all the way in the beginning, with non-life, as well.

I mean, think about it: is it not true that the origin of life and the progression of life are two very different concepts? You should disentangle them from one another, and evidence for the latter phenomenon does not count at all as evidence for the former.

You can actually get silver nanotubes to self-organize in the lab, and do just that, become more complex, as they increase the surrounding entropy. Maybe the same process happened at the bottom of the oceans near thermic vents etc.

 

[Johnnyvee]

I respectively disagree. God made us in His image precisely so that we can understand what we need to know about existence and the universe etc. You seem to be focusing on an unlikely possibility that what we plainly see with our own eyes is just an illusion. Your doubt is irrational and it will lead you to despair. We have to have faith that what we see we see, and when we can plainly see that 2 + 2 = 4 we should accept it and move on to the next question, rather than agonising about what the number 2 might really be, especially when we can see that when we apply this formula it leads to good and wonderful things in our lives

I see you point, but if your eyes see the evidence of evolution, then what do you do...

 

[nagareboshi]

You can actually get silver nanotubes to self-organize in the lab, and do just that, become more complex, as they increase the surrounding entropy. Maybe the same process happened at the bottom of the oceans near thermic vents etc.

Again, this is an example of evolution happening after the circumstances for life are already present. Who created the silver nanotubes? Man. Who created the lab environment? Also man.

Can you create an experiment where a lab is spontaneously generated, and silver nanotubes spontaneously assemble from base particles, actually, from nothingness? The whole thing is a farce. And anyway, even if you did successfully create such an experiment, it would just prove that complexity-from-nothing is possible when an intelligence orders it into existence, which is exactly the premise of Christianity.

In any experiment, the ordering intelligence is man; in the world, the intelligence is God.

 

[Elipe]

Good question. But the molecules that "help" the universe increase it`s entropy have been implicated in the origin of life. The entropy is always increasing in the universe as a whole, but there are local pocket`s of low entropy (like life) that exist as a result of the original low entropy of the big bang then. So life "piggy-backs`s" on the original very organized state of the universe.

Bolded phrase is nonsensical, unless posited as an unfalsifiable axiom. Explosions aren't low-entropy, and you're probably referring to the state of a tightly packed, super-dense cluster of matter before it exploded. But how did that super-dense cluster get there in the first place? Where did the material for the Big Bang come from?

I think you'd be better off trying to argue an example of high-to-low entropy with something like gravity and the formation of galaxies, solar systems, planets and stars, etc. Or rather, argue that these aren't actually examples of low entropy, but that these, and life, are actually just high-entropy systems bounded by chemical interactions.

That puts you more in the range of smarter atheists.

But if there's one question I've always stumped atheists with, it is the question: "Can you trust that the sun will come up tomorrow morning?"

That is, can you trust the laws of the universe to remain constant? Every law, even physical laws, have two essential characteristics: they have a Giver and an Enforcer. Without a Giver, a law cannot exist. Without an Enforcer, a law is meaningless. Laws must be Given and Enforced. Every atheist I have encountered cannot describe a Giver nor an Enforcer for the constraints of our universe. But yet, such a belief is necessary for science to mean anything, because science is predicated upon the consistency and predictability of the universe, even of time itself; yesterday is always yesterday, today is always today, and tomorrow is always tomorrow. In the Christian God we are assured of this truth. But atheists can only fall back on personal experience, but even that is suspect in an atheist universe where there is no assured enforcement of the constraints of the universe. How can you be sure that yesterday ever existed? You say you remember it, but what if you just blinked into existence a moment ago with false memories?

I also find myself having to ask: why are the laws so specifically designed to ensure that an universe could exist at all?

Atheists reply with the anthropic principle, but I reply: that is circular reasoning, you are arguing that there is an atheistic explanation for the universe because we exist.

 

[FactusIRX]

But if there's one question I've always stumped atheists with, it is the question: "Can you trust that the sun will come up tomorrow morning?"

That is, can you trust the laws of the universe to remain constant? Every law, even physical laws, have two essential characteristics: they have a Giver and an Enforcer. Without a Giver, a law cannot exist. Without an Enforcer, a law is meaningless. Laws must be Given and Enforced. Every atheist I have encountered cannot describe a Giver nor an Enforcer for the constraints of our universe. But yet, such a belief is necessary for science to mean anything, because science is predicated upon the consistency and predictability of the universe, even of time itself; yesterday is always yesterday, today is always today, and tomorrow is always tomorrow. In the Christian God we are assured of this truth. But atheists can only fall back on personal experience, but even that is suspect in an atheist universe where there is no assured enforcement of the constraints of the universe. How can you be sure that yesterday ever existed? You say you remember it, but what if you just blinked into existence a moment ago with false memories?

I also find myself having to ask: why are the laws so specifically designed to ensure that an universe could exist at all?

Atheists reply with the anthropic principle, but I reply: that is circular reasoning, you are arguing that there is an atheistic explanation for the universe because we exist.

Yes, Hume's problem of cause and effect & induction hasn't been solved yet to my knowledge, which is why many atheist philosophers have moved away from being empiricists. Jay Dyer spanked Molyneux when Molyneux tried to bring up this argument in their debate a while back.

 

[Mancipium Mariae]

It only makes sense when viewed through the religious lens: evolution is their story of creation, Darwin a prophet, entrepreneurs are missionaries, scientists are their priests, abortion is the sacrificial sacrament, getting injected is their baptism, sodomy is their highest virtue, therapy is confession, oligarchs are their cardinals, music festivals are pilgrimages, criminal gentle giants/joggers/fentanyl overdosers their martyrs, etc

And they are more devoted the the devil himself than so many Christians are to Christ.

 

[Mancipium Mariae]

I personally have no issues believing in evolution while still being a Christian.

Take a look at this if you have an hour to spare. It is the most eye-opening talk I've listened to on the subject

 

[NickK]

One other point that I wish to add: evolution, if it were true, would be the creation of an evil god, a god worth opposing with every ounce of one's being. I'm pointing this out not to the few atheists that lurk here, because they believe in randomness, but to the Christians who are trying to reconcile evolution with Christianity.

 

[Mancipium Mariae]

One other point that I wish to add: evolution, if it were true, would be the creation of an evil god, a god worth opposing with every ounce of one's being. I'm pointing this out not to the few atheists that lurk here, because they believe in randomness, but to the Christians who are trying to reconcile evolution with Christianity.

That is interesting can you expound on that?

 

[Johnnyvee]

Again, this is an example of evolution happening after the circumstances for life are already present. Who created the silver nanotubes? Man. Who created the lab environment? Also man.

Can you create an experiment where a lab is spontaneously generated, and silver nanotubes spontaneously assemble from base particles, actually, from nothingness? The whole thing is a farce. And anyway, even if you did successfully create such an experiment, it would just prove that complexity-from-nothing is possible when an intelligence orders it into existence, which is exactly the premise of Christianity.

In any experiment, the ordering intelligence is man; in the world, the intelligence is God.

It`s a proof of concept, that demonstrates that it could have happened that way. Spontaneous is not a good description here, as events would then unfold over eons of time. (But in gradual increment.) Of course you can`t generate the universe in a lab, or copy evolution entirely then, but that does not mean that there is not a rational explanation again. You can get fruit flies to live up to 4 times longer by only allowing the longer lived flies to breed, (and solve ageing basically) and alter somewhat their morphology also in quite a short duration of time. And you could then imagine that the environment might do the same thing. So that`s the kinds of things that make it hard to explain away the concept of natural selection.

Sorry for being a hard-ass here, but most people do not reflect deeply enough over these questions. Who created man; God...and you know the next possible question, but you didn`t ask it.