The Theory Of Evolution Is Incompatible With Christianity

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.
"A mental illness"? Lol. Easy there, champ.

You say that evolution is random as if that's the only ingredient at work. But evolution by natural selection is actually random variation and *selective retention*. This process is iterated, again and again, endlessly, over timescales that are incomprehensibly long. That's how complex adaptations emerge. There's no designer required to intentionally oversee the process.

Also, the peacock evolved its tail via sexual selection, not because it provides a survival advantage; it provides a mating advantage.
 

FactusIRX

 
Banned
"A mental illness"? Lol. Easy there, champ.

You say that evolution is random as if that's the only ingredient at work. But evolution by natural selection is actually random variation and *selective retention*. This process is iterated, again and again, endlessly, over timescales that are incomprehensibly long. That's how complex adaptations emerge. There's no designer required to intentionally oversee the process.

Also, the peacock evolved its tail via sexual selection, not because it provides a survival advantage; it provides a mating advantage.
Are you a Christian?
 
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
Impossible? Not even. Each step in the evolution of eyes provided a fitness advantage to the organisms that possessed them. A larger and or more effective eye is better, in terms of genetic fitness, than a smaller and or less effective eye. This process continues, gradually, cumulatively, via a rachet effect. No teleology or designer required.
 

FactusIRX

 
Banned
Impossible? Not even. Each step in the evolution of eyes provided a fitness advantage to the organisms that possessed them. A larger and or more effective eye is better, in terms of genetic fitness, than a smaller and or less effective eye. This process continues, gradually, cumulatively, via a rachet effect. No teleology or designer required.
He’s listed as an atheist in his profile. He types like a fedora Reddit. Good bye
 

Diocletian

Woodpecker
Greetings,

Free will is, like "evolution", a weak human concept, a half-baked attempt at easing the feeble human ego of its woes concerning the problem of evil.

Fear not: human salvation or damnation are God's prerogative, radical acceptance the sole faith/destiny.

Free will is what makes us different from common animals. We have the ability to act outside of instinct.
 

jeremy

 
Banned
I hope and /or certainly don't believe that this means I'm going to hell or perpetuating any kind of evil works. Invariably in any religion or belief system there's going to be disagreement. Much was said in this article that was not said in the Bible.
Practioners want to put God beyond explanation, and not contradict the Old Testament, like an old friend, and that is what seems to me, to conform the rational and reasoning of that the anti-evolutionists. Copernicus was sent to jail when dropping two objects of different weights simultaneously, demonstrating that gravity effects objects of different mass in the same way in that the objects fell at the same rate. Even though the proof was plainly observable right before the eyes of the church leaders, they thought it contradicted their teachings and thus Copernicus was sent to jail. Not to contradict or lead anybody into hell, but somebody tell me what is wrong with examining God's creation and to do so in a purely logical manner, based on plainly observable facts? One plus one equals two, and objects of different masses, minus any factor of wind resistance, fall at the same rate. This is simple logic. This is truth. This is based on the facts of reality. Why then must things that are a little more complicated, also arrived at with logic, based on facts, with no ill intentions, but perhaps the betterment of humanity; i e scientific method, be a thing of evil, just because they contradict something that was written 2000 years ago when man had much less knowledge of the natural world?
Roosh, you used logic in your argument against evolution; what's your argument against science in evolution? Scientific method is where people are honestly trying to derive knowledge of the natural world, who have no more motive than truth; truth based on observable facts. Religion is faith based; that is where they contradict because salvation is based in faith; not on observable fact. They are two different things. The insanity arises when making rational decisions based upon observable fact is not really, because what it is, is somehow evil? ; because it contradicts something written over 2000 years ago when mankind did not have the knowledge we have today? They would have thought it was witchcraft to cure the diseases we now have cures for. They would have thought it was an abomination that we fly because only angels can fly!
I'm sorry but I just don't think God is that cruel and maniacal. To say you must believe in this particular, ie anti-evolution, Noah's Ark, etc. rather than it just be about how you conduct your life in a moral sense, and faith in salvation through Christ. The Ten Commandments and the teachings of Christ are very moral, sane, and rational for any person to live by. Is it ratiomal to say that nothing has been invented, though clearly many things have?; that nothing grows and clearly things do; that nothing evolves and clearly things have; to bend the facts of reality so that; what? The Old Testament can be taken literally not allegorically? So that world history must have only been six thousand years to make the descendants in the Old Testament make sense? So now we must negate history? ; and the fascination of light years of the vast distances between the billions of stars in the Milky Way, and the unfathomable distance to the other galaxies even in our galaxy neighborhood? It's amazing! To me, that doesn't contradict God, that just shows how amazing God is! but we might as well throw astrophysics out the window because that's based on scientific method there's no way God could possibly be that amazing! There's no possible way that by using our own rational minds we can discover how more and more complex life is and examine God's wonderment! No!... we must make God a simple jealous being because it contradicts things a bunch of Hebrews said on the desert two thousand years ago; so God can't be that amazing, and logic and reasoning has to be at odds with God! That's like the insanity of saying act reasonably, but don't believe in reason!
You know who else controls logic and reasoning? Cult leaders. You know who else wants to make anything that contradicts an ideology a grave evil? Dictators.
I respectfully say shame on anyone who wants to put God in a little box, where only Noah had the right to be an incredible and rational scientist; to pick up every species; every millions of species of insect an animal on earth, and having the right air conditioning and climate systems and facility upon an extremely large and ingeniously engineered ship that was a modern marvel by today's standards let alone thousands of years ago, and no one else. For if we use a logic and scientific method to achieve such wonders, were contradicting God!
Jesus said give that which belongs to my Father in Heaven is his, and that which belongs to Caesar, is Caesars'. Again there is a difference between faith and logic. Roosh used logic in his argument against evolution; and logic is simply a matter of proceeding by fact; by known observable facts to acheive a rational end. There is no ill intent or evil in that. There is no evil or ill-will and simply using scientific method to discern reality, which is what evolution is based on.
Now, that which is gained through science like nuclear weapons can be used for evil purposes, but seeking out the nature of reality itself has no evil or ill will. It's what you do with it that matters. It is the moral decisions we make based on what is that matters! It's what we decide to do or believe. We would have neither survived as a species this far, nor saved lives and or improved the quality of life thus far, had we not used the facts of reality, ie scientific method; the facts of reality based on observable facts; how is that evil? It is pure Insanity to say use logic but use it this way and bend it towards belief not fact!
Even if this world is pure illusion; the wonderment that God created is absolutely amazing the more we discover him and it!
So yes if your left hand causes your right hand to sin, cut it off! If science is your left hand, surely faith is more important.
I, for one, see no contradiction between God and science. God is much more vast than the complexities of the universe and natural world, and certainly way more open-minded then religion.
 

Aloha50

Sparrow
Protestant
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.
You can have all the time you want. Trillions, Zillions numbers to the 100th power whatever you want and the DNA could never form by chance. Think of a junk yard filled with thousands of cars of different makes and models. Then imagine over a long period of time tornados coming through the junk yard and making a mess of the yard, parts everywhere. But one time all the parts came just together perfectly at the right time and put together a late model say Mercedes. You can imagine that right? No you can't. And the idea of a DNA molecule coming together randomly and unguided is billion time more absurd as DNA is way more complex than any car. Nothing creates nothing and order never comes from disorder.
 

Starlight

Kingfisher
Woman
Protestant
I hope and /or certainly don't believe that this means I'm going to hell or perpetuating any kind of evil works. Invariably in any religion or belief system there's going to be disagreement. Much was said in this article that was not said in the Bible.
Practioners want to put God beyond explanation, and not contradict the Old Testament, like an old friend, and that is what seems to me, to conform the rational and reasoning of that the anti-evolutionists. Copernicus was sent to jail when dropping two objects of different weights simultaneously, demonstrating that gravity effects objects of different mass in the same way in that the objects fell at the same rate. Even though the proof was plainly observable right before the eyes of the church leaders, they thought it contradicted their teachings and thus Copernicus was sent to jail. Not to contradict or lead anybody into hell, but somebody tell me what is wrong with examining God's creation and to do so in a purely logical manner, based on plainly observable facts? One plus one equals two, and objects of different masses, minus any factor of wind resistance, fall at the same rate. This is simple logic. This is truth. This is based on the facts of reality. Why then must things that are a little more complicated, also arrived at with logic, based on facts, with no ill intentions, but perhaps the betterment of humanity; i e scientific method, be a thing of evil, just because they contradict something that was written 2000 years ago when man had much less knowledge of the natural world?
Roosh, you used logic in your argument against evolution; what's your argument against science in evolution? Scientific method is where people are honestly trying to derive knowledge of the natural world, who have no more motive than truth; truth based on observable facts. Religion is faith based; that is where they contradict because salvation is based in faith; not on observable fact. They are two different things. The insanity arises when making rational decisions based upon observable fact is not really, because what it is, is somehow evil? ; because it contradicts something written over 2000 years ago when mankind did not have the knowledge we have today? They would have thought it was witchcraft to cure the diseases we now have cures for. They would have thought it was an abomination that we fly because only angels can fly!
I'm sorry but I just don't think God is that cruel and maniacal. To say you must believe in this particular, ie anti-evolution, Noah's Ark, etc. rather than it just be about how you conduct your life in a moral sense, and faith in salvation through Christ. The Ten Commandments and the teachings of Christ are very moral, sane, and rational for any person to live by. Is it ratiomal to say that nothing has been invented, though clearly many things have?; that nothing grows and clearly things do; that nothing evolves and clearly things have; to bend the facts of reality so that; what? The Old Testament can be taken literally not allegorically? So that world history must have only been six thousand years to make the descendants in the Old Testament make sense? So now we must negate history? ; and the fascination of light years of the vast distances between the billions of stars in the Milky Way, and the unfathomable distance to the other galaxies even in our galaxy neighborhood? It's amazing! To me, that doesn't contradict God, that just shows how amazing God is! but we might as well throw astrophysics out the window because that's based on scientific method there's no way God could possibly be that amazing! There's no possible way that by using our own rational minds we can discover how more and more complex life is and examine God's wonderment! No!... we must make God a simple jealous being because it contradicts things a bunch of Hebrews said on the desert two thousand years ago; so God can't be that amazing, and logic and reasoning has to be at odds with God! That's like the insanity of saying act reasonably, but don't believe in reason!
You know who else controls logic and reasoning? Cult leaders. You know who else wants to make anything that contradicts an ideology a grave evil? Dictators.
I respectfully say shame on anyone who wants to put God in a little box, where only Noah had the right to be an incredible and rational scientist; to pick up every species; every millions of species of insect an animal on earth, and having the right air conditioning and climate systems and facility upon an extremely large and ingeniously engineered ship that was a modern marvel by today's standards let alone thousands of years ago, and no one else. For if we use a logic and scientific method to achieve such wonders, were contradicting God!
Jesus said give that which belongs to my Father in Heaven is his, and that which belongs to Caesar, is Caesars'. Again there is a difference between faith and logic. Roosh used logic in his argument against evolution; and logic is simply a matter of proceeding by fact; by known observable facts to acheive a rational end. There is no ill intent or evil in that. There is no evil or ill-will and simply using scientific method to discern reality, which is what evolution is based on.
Now, that which is gained through science like nuclear weapons can be used for evil purposes, but seeking out the nature of reality itself has no evil or ill will. It's what you do with it that matters. It is the moral decisions we make based on what is that matters! It's what we decide to do or believe. We would have neither survived as a species this far, nor saved lives and or improved the quality of life thus far, had we not used the facts of reality, ie scientific method; the facts of reality based on observable facts; how is that evil? It is pure Insanity to say use logic but use it this way and bend it towards belief not fact!
Even if this world is pure illusion; the wonderment that God created is absolutely amazing the more we discover him and it!
So yes if your left hand causes your right hand to sin, cut it off! If science is your left hand, surely faith is more important.
I, for one, see no contradiction between God and science. God is much more vast than the complexities of the universe and natural world, and certainly way more open-minded then religion.
How has science brought people closer to God? Genuinely curious in your answer.
 

KantPost

 
Banned
"A mental illness"? Lol. Easy there, champ.

You say that evolution is random as if that's the only ingredient at work. But evolution by natural selection is actually random variation and *selective retention*. This process is iterated, again and again, endlessly, over timescales that are incomprehensibly long. That's how complex adaptations emerge. There's no designer required to intentionally oversee the process.

Also, the peacock evolved its tail via sexual selection, not because it provides a survival advantage; it provides a mating advantage.
The only thing incomprehensible is your theory which reads like it's been lifted straight out of some Retard Dawkins book, you know like the one you see promoted at the book store next to Hilary Clinton's biography or Barack Obama's memoirs.
You are saying that changes happen, in one direction only (which is a useful or good or "fit" direction which implies value which implies Purpose), and each change depends on all the previous random (yet "fit" which invalidates the value-free randomness point = purposeful) changes, and each of the trillions of links in this chain forms a sequence where every subsequent change leads to some useful function, and not only that, at any step along the way the whole process could be ruined by a non-fit mutation, which puts the whole process back to the beginning. this is PREPOSTEROUS!
Think this through, this is nonsense! Only the deformed mind of a coomer atheist could be so simultaneously stupid and blind.
And if that isn't bad enough, you provide no evidence! What kind of Dawkins disciple are you? Don't you understand Science? You just tell us, guys relax it just takes an "incomprehensible amount of time." That is not an argument. Again, you are making Religious claims.
Impossible? Not even. Each step in the evolution of eyes provided a fitness advantage to the organisms that possessed them. A larger and or more effective eye is better, in terms of genetic fitness, than a smaller and or less effective eye. This process continues, gradually, cumulatively, via a rachet effect. No teleology or designer required.
If it provided a "fitness advantage" this proves Purpose. How can there be value without purpose.
You are starting the Eye story half way through. You are ignoring precisely what I said. Go back to the beginning of the eye. I have to repeat my earlier post because you ignored what i said. A smaller and less effective eye is still an eye. The basis of evolutionary theory is that a non-eye cell somehow mutated into an eye-cell. there was a change in being, from a cell not being an eye cell, to being an eye cell. You never explain how this is possible. You argue that a random change has to happen which is then built upon. This is meant to happen trillions of times without any accident along the way ruining the sequence.
What about when dozens of changes are required simultaneously, and not only that, but changes where being is altered, in the same way that a piece of stone randomly mutated into a piece of wood, which is exactly what you are proposing when you say a non-eye cell changes into an eye cell. I have never seen one of your fellow co-religionists address this. Presumably you will ignore this again because it is a point which renders your religion false
 

jeremy

 
Banned
How has science brought people closer to God? Genuinely curious in your answer.
My answer is that through faith we see and know the wonderment that God is.
Knowledge alone does not bring one close to God. Science is a tool to guide us just like anything else we as humans have invented, whether it be driving a car or using a hand tool properly. It is how we use what God has given us that matters.
Science can be used for good. Science can be used for evil, but through faith a science minded person can see the vast richness and complexity as some of the many marvels that God has created and God's understanding certianly goes way beyond anything we can conceive of. I just have a hard time dealing with the idea that God created this richly intricate and vast universe, and at the same time is telling us to ignore those intricacies and finer points, and simplify your concept of me. If You must believe that physics, astronomy, science, and all the many wonderous things that God has created are an illusion by satan, and that God is an old man with a long beard, sitting on a cloud in order to get to heaven, so be it, as the kimgdom comes first. I personally give the credit to God, who created everything, and am in awe of the vastly interesting and intricate universe he created.
 
A Virgin birth. A Transfiguration. A Resurrection. An infinite universe that man can not see the beginning or the end. The finite mind of man cannot understand an infinite God no more than my Italian Greyhound can figure out my checkbook. As an Orthodox Christian, I accept many things as a Mystery. God will have an eternity to explain it to us, whether it was Adam and Eve, or Theistic Evolution or something beyond the mind of man.
 

Elipe

Pelican
Protestant
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.
Your definition of fitness advantage is the unidirectionality I'm talking about. You, along with so many other proponents of the theory of common descent by evolution, treat fitness advantage as a constant. It is clearly, and empirically, not. What is advantageous one year could become disadvantageous the next. This is a requirement for the theory to work, since in order to justify the existence of complex interdependencies in various genetic codes, mutations must not only be compatible with each other, but also compatible in purpose toward some end. Therefore, for such a system to work without design or intelligent guidance, it must be assumed that some function of the system is constant.

This assumption that things are constant has been the source of many mistakes in science.
 

MarquitaRollings

Chicken
Woman
accepting evolution means you can’t believe in god. approximately half of the people wrote that a person cannot believe in god/religion and accept evolution, indicating that these people may have atheistic perceptions of evolution. almost 150 years after Charles Darwin published his groundbreaking work on the origin of species by means of natural selection, Americans are still fighting over evolution.
 

jpsutt

Chicken
Originally posted on RooshV.com

big-bang-space-1024x683.jpg



The theory of evolution by natural selection to explain the creation of new species is Satan’s most elegant and effective lie. No other scientific theory has done more in killing God and faith. When I first encountered the theory in high school, I accepted it without hesitation and quickly concluded that there must be no God, which removed any spiritual restraint for me to commit innumerable evils as an adult. All truth comes from God, and since evolution is a lie, any Christian who believes in it is most likely in a state of deception.

Let me first state that something resembling evolution does occur within species. Different environmental conditions, which can include variability in weather or food supply, can alter the physical characteristics of an animal over the long term (microevolution). Birds living on one side of the forest may have a different beak size or mating call than birds of the same species on the other side. Human beings living on one continent may have different mental and athletic abilities than humans on another. The lie is that these changes, over the course of millions or billions of years, can lead to the creation of new species that then cannot reproduce with the previous species it evolved from (macroevolution).

Intuitively, you would think that given an unlimited amount of time, it has to be the case that new species can come about, but in fact this does not occur and has never occurred. Humans have artificially bred dogs since the beginning of humanity to create innumerable breeds, some small enough to fit inside a woman’s purse and others large enough for children to mount like a horse, but they are still the same “dog” species that can mate with another through natural mating or artificial insemination. We can selectively breed dogs for a billion years and they will still be dogs. (From this point on, when I refer to “evolution,” I’m referring to macroevolution, the theory that attempts to explain the creation of new life and species.)

Evolution is absurd on its face. To think that a “random mutation” can be introduced into a working and functioning system to create the beginning of an intermediary transition stage that could then—through countless more mutations still within the same stage of intermediation—lead to a finished and enhanced protein, organ, or system, on top of the hundreds, thousands, or millions of other concurrently active intermediary stages within the same species, requires so much faith that it would be a simpler matter to believe in the Bible.

Let’s ignore for a moment the claim that life was created from absolutely nothing, for no reason, and without cause, in a primordial soup that the expert scientists of today simply cannot reproduce to a minute degree with all their expertise and equipment. Functioning organisms were existing, surviving on Earth, and then through an accidental miracle, a random mutational change happened which enhanced their ability to survive. By simple analogy, this is like me grabbing a heavy sledgehammer, opening the hood of my car, throwing in pieces of scrap metal, wiring, and plastic, and giving the engine one big whack with all of my strength. If I attempt this whack a trillion times on a trillion different cars, the scientists would say that one of my “mutations” will begin an intermediary stage that, with many more miraculous changes from many more whacks, will have a positive effect which increases the value and performance of my car compared to other cars that did not receive the blows, but the car is already a completed, functioning system. All mutations that are the beginning of an intermediary stage of eventual enhanced function will always, without fail, cause a decrease in performance and survivability by either breaking something or increasing the usage of energy for a non-functioning potential advancement that won’t work until further mutations over an extended period of time finally complete the evolutionary stage to arrive at the end design.

To explain life, scientists say, “It is through a series [i.e. millions] of beneficial mutations that a new protein is developed.” In other words, a lot of miraculous whacks in the same car will make its performance better compared to the ones that didn’t experience the whacks. You can give me trillions of cars, and randomly assort the whacks to hit different parts of the car, but not a single car will be improved with multiple whacks from the sledgehammer, which is what a mutation does when performed on a system that already works. And yet that’s what scientists want you to believe happened in order for you to have transformed from stardust into the exceedingly complex conscious being you are now—simply a series of death blows that stem from random chance. It’s clear from this analogy that the evolutionists do have faith: faith in creation over a long period of time through an infinite number of miracles that they call beneficial mutations, even though the benefit is not realized until more random mutations, all in the correct direction, make it so. This is supposed to be more plausible than what I believe—faith in creation during a short period of time through a loving and all-powerful God?

My field of study in university was microbiology, which included a year of biochemistry courses. I studied a class of proteins called enzymes that catalyze reactions in our bodies. These proteins are exceedingly sophisticated, created from long chains of genetic material that have to be constructed just so to interact with specific substrates whose concentrations and biological activity are controlled by other enzymes. Just one enzyme is so complex that you can give a computer simulator unlimited time and not even one of these proteins will ever be created through an evolutionary process that scientists insist on. Why should it? There’s no reason for a spontaneous assembly of such specific complexity.

Consider that we have tens of thousands of proteins in our body (scientists don’t know the exact number), all working together in a majestic symphony, and you will begin to see the absurdity of the evolutionary lie that we are expected to believe. And that is only describing the proteins—we still have to account for the multitude of cells comprising different organs, the organelles within our cells, the nature of DNA replication, cellular signaling via organic chemicals and electrical impulses, immune system response, cellular regeneration, fetal development, and on and on through every square inch of our bodies until we reach the big question mark that a study of these individual systems cannot explain: consciousness. To say that all of this—and I have only begun to scratch the surface of how impossibly complicated the human body is on a level that simply does not compare to a modern car which is complicated in its own right—came to life through solely an evolutionary process that the universe possesses for its own random reason, and yet of which there is no actual evidence of this claim, requires—if I may be frank—an insane mind that fits like a glove with the spirit of these times, one that is fast approaching a point where most human beings on this earth will perform the grossest of evils in the name of being a “good person” who is on the “right side of history” thanks to being “evolved.”

The atheists would counter by saying I believe in a “magic man in the sky” or “fairy tales,” but I argue that their fairy tale is even more improbable and based on less evidence than the existence of God. Consider that “all the evidence for human evolution, all the skulls could be put into a single small coffin” (Teilhard de Chardin). The entirety of the secular world view, which leads to a lifestyle of secularism, self-worship, idolatry, abortions, sodomy, and Drag Queen Story Time, is a fantastical construction based on only a few bones collected over the decades by scientists who desperately sought prestige and recognition from the world for possessing a genius mind who could piece together the meaning of the universe without God.

Who is the greater fool—the man who puts his faith in Jesus Christ, the Godman who lived on Earth in the flesh and performed miracles and other signs with authority to a multitude that then proceeded to re-orient their lives through the gift of grace to serve Him unto death despite horrible persecutions, or the man who puts his faith in a box of dead bones, looking upon their marks and etchings like a medium looks upon your palm? Even carbon dating, which is supposed to be a gold standard of examining those bones, is a dubious science on par with astrology, and that’s an insult to astrology.

For you to doubt evolution and even carbon dating means that you will also have to doubt the normalized and widely accepted scientific story for how and why the universe was created. What will you then depend on to explain the world? The Orthodox Church, which is scripture interpreted and realized. Observable and measurable science can certainly be true, especially when it concerns mathematics, chemistry, and physical sciences, but as you begin to wade into archaeology, anthropology, biology, medicine, and certainly the social sciences, which is not science at all but was grafted with the term because of how effective its “truths” were at controlling the population, you should discard anything which has the effect of reducing your faith or trust in God, because if an idea is capable of doing such a thing, the end result being the eternal condemnation of your soul, you must conclude that it originated from those who are in communion with Satan. God wants all to be saved, and would not enlighten the world with the “fact” of evolution if it so effectively and consistently does the opposite. The fruits of evolution are atheism, nihilism, and the condemnation of millions of souls. Therefore it cannot possibly be of God, and if it is not of God, it is not true.

The scientists of this age have replaced a God who loves you with a god who doesn’t—the god of natural selection and random chance. This false god is one whose guiding hand brings order to disorder, meaning to the empty vacuum, and intelligence to the black void of hydrogen and carbon. The god of natural selection lacks consciousness but must act consciously to create, improve, and enlighten. How could the unconscious create consciousness? Perhaps the more important question: whence did natural selection arise? How did it become the driving law or force of the universe since it was conceived from nothing, another impossibility of physics, for that which is created must be created from something, not nothing.

Since evolution and continual improvement denote intelligence, and intelligence denotes consciousness, it’s clear that evolutionists are still relying on a god-like explanation for the universe. Instead of a living god, they choose a dead one, a watchmaker who they don’t admit exists but which must be the source of the principle reality from which all evolutionary theories hold true. You don’t have to hold your breath waiting for an answer from evolutionists when you ask them why natural selection?—they simply don’t know. They don’t know why the most important justification for the explanation of their existence exists and from where it originated, but they have admirable faith that it is the cause and driver of all.

I’ve given only a brief summary of why evolution is a lie. I could labor to turn this article into a book, but thankfully another man smarter than I has done that: David Stove wrote Darwinian Fairytales to poke huge holes in a supposed infallible theory that is anything but settled science. When a Christian comes to the realization that evolution is a lie, he need not much convincing that it is a lie from Satan, the father of lies. What other argument do you need to know that believing in a lie is incompatible with Christianity? If your faith is based on believing in tempting lies that allow you to feed your passions and fit into a secular world then your problem is not with evolution but your desire to go against God’s commandments due to a lack of faith. You don’t believe God has given you—through his Church and Bible—the most essential truths so that you can pick up and carry your cross to live a life that leads to salvation, and so you’ve put him aside to be willingly deceived by the world.

Christians who believe in evolution are lukewarm Christians, and this makes a questionable assumption that the evolutionist still believes in God—most of them completely lose the little faith they had after representatives of the secular world in public schools and universities jammed into their brains the myth of evolution and the false god of natural selection, the unconscious guiding force that has a preference for advanced consciousness for no reason at all. Such a deceived individual no longer believes that God made them from dust in His image and likeness. They don’t believe that they are in need of a Savior to redeem their sins. They believe that after this life it will be as if they were never born, a state of ignorant blackness, or if they’ve bought into the New Age lie, that they will become one with the collective unconscious of absolute nothing, but the truth is they return back to God from where they came to be judged, and from that judgment they either go to heaven or hell for all of eternity. 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, who received their sacrament not in the form of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ administered by an ordained priest but medicines, vaccines, drugs, and silly health fads enabled and disseminated by the princes of this world.

Ultimately, evolution is a gateway to atheism. This is why Satan designed the theory and why it is pushed so forcefully on young people. I consider it Satan’s best work, but he alone cannot take the blame when people choose worldly explanations that enable them to be their own god on Earth instead of postponing pleasure and serving their fellow man with love as commanded by God to receive a reward not in this life but the next. May all of us be ready to wholeheartedly account for the decisions we make that affect our salvation when we arrive at the Judgement Seat of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Read Next: Nihilists Are Spiritually Dead
Permalink
Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer is a great book that crystalizes this point.
 

jpsutt

Chicken
Roosh you should reach out to James Tour. He's a Christian synthetic chemist that did a great YouTube series debunking the absurdity of evolution
 

Aboulia

Woodpecker
Orthodox
It's an unnecessary belief though. Occam's razor (abbreviated): minimize the number of assumptions you need to live in the world. If you already believe in an all-powerful God who can create the entire universe, there's no reason to have an additional belief in evolution. You may just leave it up as a divine mystery unexamined. The reason naturalists cling onto evolution is because they have no other hope in explaining the world.

Occam's Razor is the reason we're in this ugly modern world in the first place. It's what happens when we think we can leave things out. It may be great in practical, everyday matters, but it's a very foolish tool to use philosophically, for how you define what is necessary, and the variables you choose to ignore, determine the outcome, it's circular logic.

A Christian needs to understand what they're doing or it all falls apart, for if there's no understanding we get the "I'm a Christian because my parents were Christian" mentality, then when asked by their children why they do the things they do, they just shrug their shoulders, and the kids fall away.

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

Perhaps you haven't thought about it too deeply, and would rather go along to get along. If you are a Christian, you must believe that acting in the self-sacrificial manner that Christ did, is the best possible way to encounter the world, and it's also how God designed the world.

Evolution is speculation how the earth came about long ago, and it's nothing more than speculation for A) you cannot travel back in time and verify it. B) As KantPost already pointed out, you need a value system to decide which mutation is better, and if the value system is random, it doesn't exist and there can be no change for the better. C) It "scientifically" presupposes that every organism is hostile to each other organism and fights to overcome other organism in it's environment rather than working in harmony (which I would add as an aside, is just an obvious example of elite projection, and how sin corrupts worldview)

Evolution's "Primordial soup", Nietzsche's "flux", and the alchemist's "Philosopher's stone" (and I'm sure there's others) are the same thing from different points of view. The "better mutation" overcomes the previous, the powerful dominate the weaker willed, and the one who possesses the stone can turn the "base matter" into gold. It's all about projecting power/self will Nietzsche just had the decency to be honest about it.

So, to hold both these beliefs at the same time is a problem, for if you believe that God created the world to work harmoniously, and that it's maintained by self sacrifice, you cannot also hold the belief that each organism in creation is hostile to each other.
 

Aboulia

Woodpecker
Orthodox
Scientific method is where people are honestly trying to derive knowledge of the natural world, who have no more motive than truth; truth based on observable facts. Religion is faith based; that is where they contradict because salvation is based in faith; not on observable fact. They are two different things. The insanity arises when making rational decisions based upon observable fact is not really, because what it is, is somehow evil? ; because it contradicts something written over 2000 years ago when mankind did not have the knowledge we have today? They would have thought it was witchcraft to cure the diseases we now have cures for. They would have thought it was an abomination that we fly because only angels can fly!

Except when they aren't, the modern world is filled with irrational power hungry "Science" pushers. Science is a tool, and when divorced from Philosophy can only be an abomination, for the reason why you want to investigate things is more important than investigating the things themselves. This is why "Science" is used as a bludgeon, and doesn't accurately portray reality nowadays. The Covid nonsense is irrefutable proof of this.

So until humanity learns how to properly orient their thinking/vision, they should really stay away from science, until they research their way into a technological collapse.
 

Ben Boatman

Chicken
Orthodox
God is the "who dunnit" and evolution the "how dunnit". These are the answers to two separate questions, which together explain creation.
 
Top