The Theory Of Evolution Is Incompatible With Christianity

Johnnyvee

Ostrich
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.

-Didn`t say I was an atheist:) (I like bold writing to underscore a point)

-Fine-tuning (both in terms of stable universes and life within them) could be explained by many processes, like multiple universes, where only a very few can harbour life. And maybe an evolution of universes also. Of course we don`t know where matter comes from, but that could mean many things, including that God brought it into being.

-I did argue that the formation of galaxies, solar systems and the distribution of matter where related to the forces/laws of the universe, and that those things where a consequence in part of the uneven entropy "scattering" that would then take place over eons of time post big-bang. Life would then be a microphenomenon related to the same process. Think of the whole thing as one big movement that lasts for billions of years, but that is very dynamic still.
 

nagareboshi

Woodpecker
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.

Yes it is conceivable and imaginable, I just think this imagining is unconvincing and requires many assumptions and is not so "obvious" as proclaimed by modern zeitgeist. In terms of what is possible in the maximum extent of the imagination, I think that we are in agreement here, but we disagree as to probabilities.
 

pathan

Chicken
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.
Out of interest, how do you determine what/who should be worshiped?
 
For all of you, purveyors of the tyranny of happy endings, future denizens of Eden/Utopia, the consequence-free planet, please lend me your eyes/ears:

Nothing exists outside duality.

Perfection is freedom from choice
(perfection is not having to chose*.)

Perfection is nothingness.

*
Willingly being bossed around is how simple folk manifest their yearning for perfection. (Simple folk become confused, act erratically and can even rebel when the rulers/religious leaders are weak, failing to exert clear, authoritative leadership, the only way to appease that longing.)

Logical folk often feel confused (=sad and/or angry) because they have a hard time trying to square that to strive for betterment (perfection) is to aim at nothing(ness).
 

Blade Runner

Ostrich
Orthodox
I think I can assimilate a few things you are suggesting here. Namely, choices must be made, and due to risk and consequence (as we have seen recently especially) people are generally aggrieved. At least the mass man is, since he is generally insecure. I don't think you mean strict duality, but rather in the sense that we experience a world that is clearly opposed in choices, God(s) and in simple language it is a sea of gray with a larger binary structure (at least in our minds).

I'm uncertain about your nothingness suggestion, but I would say that silence perhaps is closer to this idea of so-called "perfection".
 

NickK

Kingfisher
Orthodox
That is interesting can you expound on that?

Out of interest, how do you determine what/who should be worshiped?
In the case of the theory of evolution, it contradicts the Spirit of the my Church and its Holy Tradition. That's what I follow.
God did not create death, it entered the world through sin. So a system that is based on death cannot come from the True God, it must come from the prince of this world.
 

Vasily Martian

Pigeon
Orthodox
my favourite refutation of evolution - which is also nice and simple - comes from an Orthodox priest or bishop or whatever who was quoted in Fr Seraphim Rose's book Genesis, Creation and Early Man:

(I paraphrase)

If existence came about by accident, then the first signs of human intelligence (which had to be higher than the no-intelligence of accidental becoming) should have been smarter than the whole universe and immediately solved the problems of sickness and death, as well as created even better universes.

Of course, nothing could be further from the truth.
 
The evolution theory of Darwin is tied to his "survival fo the fittest" mantra people say without thinking about it. The funny thing about Darwin - and yet another thing I learned from E. Michael Jones - is that he was promoted by the British during the peak of their power.

This was a way to spread the idea that since life was all about the "survival of the fittest," you need not spend any time feeling bad when the mighty Empire subjugates weaker peoples and nations. It was all just natural, you see? Small wonder it later became an excuse for atheism too.

That nowadays you usually see Darwin-walking-fish stickers on cars driven by leftists - it is as hilarious as it is Ironic. You can be sure none of them have any idea they are parading around with a symbol representing a man used as a lame excuse for the morality of empire building.

What many don't realize about evolutionary "philosophy", and Darwinian Fairytales brings this up, is that by 'Darwinian standards' having 15 unruly, uncared for, kids for a fat government check is "fitter" than having and dutifully raising one child into a successful adult... Even though anyone with a brain knows otherwise. So it's gone and bitten them on the ... well, you get the idea.

From the book: The overwhelming tide of philanthropic and egalitarian sentiment had brought about a population in which there was (as several writers put it at the time) a preferential "survival of the unfittest." That is, a preferential rate of reproduction by the indolent, the improvident, the unintelligent, the dishonest, the constitutionally weak, the carriers of hereditary disease, the racially inferior, and so on. Of course other people might have drawn, from these same facts, a conclusion very different from the one that the eugenists drew. They might simply have concluded that Darwin's theory of evolution is false. After all, a eugenist does not have to be a Darwinian. Plato, for example, was a eugenist thousands of years before Darwinism was thought of. Strictly speaking, there was one other conclusion which Darwinians could have drawn from the demographic facts which terrified them: namely, that the mentally defective, the carriers of hereditary disease, and so on, actually were fitter than the average upper middle class Britons. But this would have required the superior fitness of one group of organisms to another to be identified with its having a higher rate of actual reproduction: an idea which, though it is neo-Darwinian orthodoxy at the present day, really is as ridiculous as Galton would have thought it.

I haven't read the entire book, but he makes many great points. I found it's actually very funny too. Or at least it is if you enjoy some rather 'dark' sarcasm.
 
So you don’t accept evolution, but you do accept a theory of Genesis, where “some guy” created everything in 7 days - that seems more probable to you. Without having any evidence, just because some people said so. And you wonder your kids don’t buy it…

Side note - they’re still “dogs” because they were named and catalogized as such by humans. That does not mean they’ve stopped evolving.
Inforfmation coming from a MIND with a design and set of instructions is far more probable than information coming from NOTHING which entails no design or instructions, obviously. Evolution is impossible, as is atheism. Whether you accept it or not is irrelevant to the truth of the argument. Dogs are a kind, evolution (Macro-Evolution) which is the one we deny , teaches that we all have a common ancestor and that one species can "evolve" into another species. There is no evidence for either claim, scientific claims have to be falsible and have to be proven. Evolution fits none of the criteria and isn't a scientifc theory at all but is in fact a belief and nothing more. Nothing exloding into a universe and magically " evolving" for billions of years with no creator of origin is far more fantastical and delusional than any other origin story of the universe.
 
Last edited:

Theseus7

Chicken
Vestigial organs and functions in humans, such as wisdom teeth and muscles that are no longer used, are strong proof in favor of descent from apes.

Also, why are we so hairy?

The Roman Catholic Church has accepted Evolution since the 1950s. God could have decided to implant a soul in us at some point in our Evolution.

The Genesis story is obviously metaphorical and had been recognized as such by Origen, a Church Father.
 

Aloha50

Sparrow
Vestigial organs and functions in humans, such as wisdom teeth and muscles that are no longer used, are strong proof in favor of descent from apes.

Also, why are we so hairy?

The Roman Catholic Church has accepted Evolution since the 1950s. God could have decided to implant a soul in us at some point in our Evolution.

The Genesis story is obviously metaphorical and had been recognized as such by Origen, a Church Father.
That's only strong proof if you're deluded by evolutionary theory. All vestigial organs can be classified in one of two camps:

1. We just don't know for sure what the use is, but we may find out one day. Scientific consensus of today is often shown to be foolish in the future.

2. Due to the fall, the earth and its organisms have been in decline and decay. So organs that may have had a purpose 3k years ago, don't today. Take wisdom teeth for example. Today, many people have their wisdom teeth come in without issue; their jaw can accommodate a third set of molars. Others (myself included) never had wisdom teeth come in at all (about 35% of people don't). Others, need them pulled as their isn't enough space. As humans gene pool has degraded our jaws have become smaller. In times past, wisdom teeth most likely had no issue coming in as humans had ample jaws to accommodate them.
 

KantPost

Sparrow
Vestigial organs and functions in humans, such as wisdom teeth and muscles that are no longer used, are strong proof in favor of descent from apes.

Also, why are we so hairy?
Has Sciencism really reduced Evolutionists' arguments to this?

Just because a horse has four legs doesn't mean it's a dog.
 

Theseus7

Chicken
That's only strong proof if you're deluded by evolutionary theory. All vestigial organs can be classified in one of two camps:

1. We just don't know for sure what the use is, but we may find out one day. Scientific consensus of today is often shown to be foolish in the future.

2. Due to the fall, the earth and its organisms have been in decline and decay. So organs that may have had a purpose 3k years ago, don't today. Take wisdom teeth for example. Today, many people have their wisdom teeth come in without issue; their jaw can accommodate a third set of molars. Others (myself included) never had wisdom teeth come in at all (about 35% of people don't). Others, need them pulled as their isn't enough space. As humans gene pool has degraded our jaws have become smaller. In times past, wisdom teeth most likely had no issue coming in as humans had ample jaws to accommodate them.
What about goose bumps when we are cold or frightened?

The only explanation that made sense to me is that back when we were apes, the function of this mechanism of hair raising was to make us appear bigger than we were to scare off predators (a common response among animals).

Also, what about Homo Erectus, Neanderthal, etc: are those fossils fake? What is certain is that their age predates the creation myth in the OT.

For the record, I don't have a firm opinion on Evolution, and I find the Creation - > Fall hypothesis quite satisfying intellectually. However, I do think that the arguments used against Evolution are usually of bad quality (not saying this is your case, I say this in general). I also think that there is no definite opposition between Evolution and Christianity, although Evolution can definitely make it easier for atheism to seduce.
 
For me, this was what killed evolution for me. Not only do you have to have this statistically improbable set of random mutations, they have to also even more statistically improbably be a set of random mutations all working in concerted effort toward a common design schematic.

Also, natural selection is a culling effect, not an additive effect. Natural selection does not favor the fittest, but rather, the most average. That is, the "good enough" to reproduce. Think the bell curve: most people in the middle of the bell curve end up reproducing, even when female hypergamy would have you think it's just the top 20% of men. But when you go out into the streets and see all the children that are clearly not well-sired, that illusion flies out the window very quickly. Heck, even the adults themselves don't look very well-sired. You don't see many Chad Thunderfists walking around. Just look at Portland. And that's with human intelligence guiding the reproductive act. A peahen isn't going to wait until it can find the absolute perfect Mr. Peacock; it's just going to mate with the first peacock that meets its standards.

This tendency for populations to gravitate toward a genetic mean is actually a biological mechanism to ensure the stability of the gene pool. In fact, biology shows us that there are many mechanisms in place that are designed to mitigate the effect of mutations, because mutations are rarely beneficial. Better instead to maintain the integrity of the gene pool so that more creatures are born with a lower chance of some kind of debilitating or self-sterilizing disease. Just like how in microbiology, there are cellular mechanisms for preventing mutations during mitosis, there are also macrobiological mechanisms to stabilize genetics.

But they don't teach you that in biology classes because that flies in the face of the theory of common descent by evolution. Evolutionary biology says mutations are good, but it says so out of necessity because that's the only way they can explain their theory. But in reality, mutations are bad. You do not want to have mutations. You want to be like your father and your mother, because then you have similar fitness as them. And if your father and mother reproduced to have you, then it really does benefit you to be more like them, because then you are more likely to reproduce as well.

Sounds to me like biology points a lot more to "Go, be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth," rather than "goo to you via the zoo".
The reason why mutations work to build adaptations is because there is an incomprehensible amount of time to do so. Each mutation in an organism creates a new baseline from which further mutations can build on. Genes allow for cumulative evolution to take place via slow ratcheting process. With vanishing amounts of time and a step-like mechanism that can build on what came before, bit by bit, and with differential reproduction of organisms, adaptation is all but inevitable - no deity or designer required.
All of the counter-arguments have been debunked. Roosh is just recycling old trash.
 
For me, this was what killed evolution for me. Not only do you have to have this statistically improbable set of random mutations, they have to also even more statistically improbably be a set of random mutations all working in concerted effort toward a common design schematic.

Also, natural selection is a culling effect, not an additive effect. Natural selection does not favor the fittest, but rather, the most average. That is, the "good enough" to reproduce. Think the bell curve: most people in the middle of the bell curve end up reproducing, even when female hypergamy would have you think it's just the top 20% of men. But when you go out into the streets and see all the children that are clearly not well-sired, that illusion flies out the window very quickly. Heck, even the adults themselves don't look very well-sired. You don't see many Chad Thunderfists walking around. Just look at Portland. And that's with human intelligence guiding the reproductive act. A peahen isn't going to wait until it can find the absolute perfect Mr. Peacock; it's just going to mate with the first peacock that meets its standards.

This tendency for populations to gravitate toward a genetic mean is actually a biological mechanism to ensure the stability of the gene pool. In fact, biology shows us that there are many mechanisms in place that are designed to mitigate the effect of mutations, because mutations are rarely beneficial. Better instead to maintain the integrity of the gene pool so that more creatures are born with a lower chance of some kind of debilitating or self-sterilizing disease. Just like how in microbiology, there are cellular mechanisms for preventing mutations during mitosis, there are also macrobiological mechanisms to stabilize genetics.

But they don't teach you that in biology classes because that flies in the face of the theory of common descent by evolution. Evolutionary biology says mutations are good, but it says so out of necessity because that's the only way they can explain their theory. But in reality, mutations are bad. You do not want to have mutations. You want to be like your father and your mother, because then you have similar fitness as them. And if your father and mother reproduced to have you, then it really does benefit you to be more like them, because then you are more likely to reproduce as well.

Sounds to me like biology points a lot more to "Go, be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth," rather than "goo to you via the zoo".
 

DanielH

Ostrich
Orthodox
The reason why mutations work to build adaptations is because there is an incomprehensible amount of time to do so. Each mutation in an organism creates a new baseline from which further mutations can build on. Genes allow for cumulative evolution to take place via slow ratcheting process. With vanishing amounts of time and a step-like mechanism that can build on what came before, bit by bit, and with differential reproduction of organisms, adaptation is all but inevitable - no deity or designer required.
All of the counter-arguments have been debunked. Roosh is just recycling old trash.
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.

1621878572513.png

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.
 

KantPost

Sparrow
The reason why mutations work to build adaptations is because there is an incomprehensible amount of time to do so. Each mutation in an organism creates a new baseline from which further mutations can build on. Genes allow for cumulative evolution to take place via slow ratcheting process. With vanishing amounts of time and a step-like mechanism that can build on what came before, bit by bit, and with differential reproduction of organisms, adaptation is all but inevitable - no deity or designer required.
All of the counter-arguments have been debunked. Roosh is just recycling old trash.
how dull and blunted is your mind so that you are not able to think things through? What you are saying is impossible beyond any comprehension. How did the eye develop? Did it change from one non-seeing cell into a seeing cell? No, it did not because it can not. A basic undeveloped eye is still an eye. Do you have a response to this basic being vs. non-being argument? It invalidates your whole theory

Your point about an incomprehensible amount of time is a statement of faith. You believe that there has been enough time for it. You have no proof and no evidence. You have left your scientific reservation.

Your theory would only make sense if there was a purpose to the mutations included mutation from being into non-being. Changes could have occurred over time subject to a final plan for Creation. However this would involve teleology which as a Sciencismist you would reject.

The Theory of Evolution by random mutation is a theological proposition. The sooner you start to see yourself as religious, albeit a member of false religion, the faster the scales will drop from your eyes
 

Elipe

Pelican
Genes allow for cumulative evolution to take place via slow ratcheting process.
Empirically false. There is very little evidence that this type of ratcheting process is unidirectional.

With vanishing amounts of time and a step-like mechanism that can build on what came before, bit by bit, and with differential reproduction of organisms, adaptation is all but inevitable - no deity or designer required.
This is with the very heavy, unsupported assumption that each of those bits that came before hold over "vanishing amounts of time". It does not follow from the theory that each "step" is constantly selected for after they have been acquired into the germline, especially if it is as evolutionists tend to argue that there are "neutral" traits that have no (or very minor) selective pressure. Your argument is for unidirectional evolution, but this is empirically not the case, as regression to the mean exists.
 
Empirically false. There is very little evidence that this type of ratcheting process is unidirectional.


This is with the very heavy, unsupported assumption that each of those bits that came before hold over "vanishing amounts of time". It does not follow from the theory that each "step" is constantly selected for after they have been acquired into the germline, especially if it is as evolutionists tend to argue that there are "neutral" traits that have no (or very minor) selective pressure. Your argument is for unidirectional evolution, but this is empirically not the case, as regression to the mean exists.
Mutations don't need to be "unidirectional". They can go in various directions, it does not matter. All that has to happen is for a mutation to provide a fitness advantage. Then it spreads, and those copies of the mutation, which are inherited across generations, then act as a platform upon which further mutations that provide an additional fitness-benefit can build upon. And natural selection has an incomprehensible amount of time to achieve gradual, cumulative adaptation - and the medium of DNA to accomplish it.
 
Top