The Theory Of Evolution Is Incompatible With Christianity

OrthoLeaf

Sparrow
Orthodox
"how dunnit".
He spoke and it was so.
which together explain creation.
They are two separate creation narratives, built upon two separate and wholly incompatible worldviews. Evolution presents itself as a scientific theory, when in actuality it is nothing but a demonic inspired creation myth that fits within the presupposed godless materialistic worldview of modern man. A creation myth that is quite literally the inversion of Christianity. Christianity posits that Life descended into the world of death, allowing us to join ourselves to Life and thus liberating us from the bondage of death; and through our participation in the uncreated energies of God, we may transform ourselves into the likeness of God and thus becoming what God is in His essence, through His grace - Theosis. Evolution posits that death (nothingness) mutated into something, became self-aware and now ought to consciously further the inexorable evolutionary advance, through death, into something post-human by the use of science and technological advancements. Thus, man is responsible for his own apotheosis and death triumphs over God through the destruction of man, who is made in the image of God. In one, Life conquers death and in the other, death conquers Life.

You can say I'm being too harsh on evolution and that this logical conclusion of the presupposition need not be accepted; but unfortunately ideas have consequences and given enough time, ideas will always reach their logical conclusion. If you accept the theory of evolution as the answer to creation, you have two choices. You can go the route of Hitler and say it's each nation for themselves in the battle for survival. But even this, as I will explain, is incomplete. Or you can go the route of today's elites - transhumanism. Which, as we have seen, is at the foundation of the justification of mass sterilization, global depopulation and the coming technocratic "utopia". After all, death is what brings about progress so who cares if 98% of the human species needs to be wiped so that man can ascend into something beyond human? That's just the cost of progress. How often do we hear these remarks by evolutionists in regards to every other species? It is only the God given moral law written on your heart, that steers one away from applying this exact same reasoning to man himself. Indeed, it is not uncommon to see Nietzschian minded atheists positing this very transhumanist notion themselves. Of course, they fail to see that the elite have no intention of allowing us plebs ascend into "godhood" as that is reserved exclusively for them - and why wouldn't it be? They are the ones who accumulated all the resources and power for themselves. If survival of the fittest is true, then they are the fittest and we're just the genetic trash waiting to be wiped out by the inexorable evolutionary advance... Which is exactly how they see us, btw.

You can disagree with this conclusion all you'd like, it makes no matter. You would be just like the classical liberal revolutionaries ("conservatives" or libertarians) who scoff at the modern day liberal revolutionaries and proudly proclaim that the revolution should stop at their arbitrary finish line. They can kick and scream all they'd like, but once you bite from that apple of ideological revolution, the revolution will continue...and continue...and continue, eating its own with every turn. Until there is nothing left but chicks with dicks and overweight pink haired banshees screeching at the top of their lungs about the injustice of truth itself. And even then, the revolution marches on. In other words, you can proclaim that the evolutionary process should stop with mankind, but this is entirely arbitrary. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that the evolutionary process which created all living things should, for some reason, cease with mankind. Therefore, transhumanism is the only logical conclusion of the evolutionary worldview.

By their fruits, ye shall know them (Matthew 7:20). The fruits of the evolutionary worldview is genocide and the total destruction of man himself. It is no surprise therefore, to see that it is evolutionary transhumanism that is the religion which is currently ushering in the reign of the anti-Christ. It's satanic, plain and simple.

Also, evolution is fake and ghey.
 

Ben Boatman

Chicken
Orthodox
If it's a tool of our God, then evolution is not "fake and ghey". Therefore, you should be absolutely sure it isn't, before calling it such.

I will likely never risk that error. For starters, there is a preponderance of evidence for a relatedness among the species (sterile equus), and for a blurring between them (fertile panthera & ursus). Besides the mules, ligers and pizzly bears, we ourselves are under these effects.

The genomes of Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis have been completely sequenced. Our skeletons are completely different. Yet, my Neanderthalic genome and phenome indicate I'm living proof that all humanity is a fertile blend of hominin hybrids.

Evolution could be the way God brought all creation to its present point, including his final lifeform design (Adam & Eve). God knows when to stop. For example, how many prophets have appeared since the Forerunner? And how many species since Homo sapiens?

"Transhumanism" is as much insanity as "transsexualism". Man cannot create sex organs, mental capacity, or physical performance, but can only transform pre-existing material. As a tool of creation, evolution can and did stop, by God's design.

Because some are ridiculous, doesn't mean others won't ridicule them. A proper understanding of evolution, and our Creator's use of it, precludes one from making the "transhumanists'" error. Again, I'm living proof. I can differentiate creation from transformation.

Yet, you've implied I can't exist? The statement is so presumptuous, and obviously incorrect. So too the "inevitable leap to Hitlerism" argument. Simply because Negroids exist (sans-Neanderthalic IQ), doesn't mean I want them all dead.

Yes, I may want them to get off my lawn, so to speak. After all, fences make good neighbors. But we can still meet up to talk Christianity. They are God's children, and He came for their salvation too. We just aren't meant to live together.

In conclusion, I've proven both of your arguments false. I am wholly Christian, and neither a "transhumanist" nor a Hitlerian. In fact, it's the very Christian in me which defeats both. Evolution can be a tool of creation, so long as there is a God.
 

OrthoLeaf

Sparrow
Orthodox
If it's a tool of our God, then evolution is not "fake and ghey". Therefore, you should be absolutely sure it isn't, before calling it such.

Evolution could be the way God brought all creation to its present point, including his final lifeform design (Adam & Eve). God knows when to stop. For example, how many prophets have appeared since the Forerunner? And how many species since Homo sapiens?
God did not use death to create man. Especially since death entered the world through Adam and Eves sin. No Church fathers speak about billions of years of random mutations and death to reach man, nor does Scripture speak of this. In fact, both say the contrary. It doesn't come from Christ, or His Church. Evolution is not only compatible with the ethos of modernity, which is objectively evil, it's a central dogma of it. Evolution has been one of, if not the greatest tool of apostasy and unbelief in the modern era. You are free to think it's true if you'd like, you can try to reconcile the two religions if you must, but none of that will stop the rest of society continuing down the path that the worldview of evolution creates - that's the point. It's not about what you believe, people believe contradictory things all the time, it's about the logical conclusion of the idea itself. You yourself even admitted that the only thing keeping you from reaching these inevitable conclusions is Christianity.

And no, obviously I never implied you cant exist, only that your worldview is incoherent and would, if you were to be consistent, lead you to the same worldview as Bill Gates.

 

Elipe

Pelican
I will likely never risk that error.
There's no risk here in rejecting the theory of common descent by evolution. It is fully incompatible with Christian theology.

The genomes of Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis have been completely sequenced. Our skeletons are completely different. Yet, my Neanderthalic genome and phenome indicate I'm living proof that all humanity is a fertile blend of hominin hybrids.
All descended from Adam and Eve, and that is false about their skeletons being "completely different" - they are very similar to modern human skeletons. The biggest differences are in the ribcage (we're slimmer), nasal cavity, and bigger eye sockets.

For starters, there is a preponderance of evidence for a relatedness among the species (sterile equus), and for a blurring between them (fertile panthera & ursus). Besides the mules, ligers and pizzly bears, we ourselves are under these effects.
Common design does not necessarily imply common ancestry. In the software engineering world, it is considered good design when code is written to be reused. We should expect that God would reuse designs across various lifeforms. In fact, this would be a sort of "signature" that shows that all was created by one God.
 

Sa6re

Robin
In my journey to understand todays scientific corruption I compiled this list of incontrovertible proofs, based upon their Science, to show that neo-darwinist evolution is at best, impossible. And therefore the promulgation of it, is through falsified interpreted evidence, the cause of promulgation is through dogmatic ideological belief and those who promulgate it, are deceivers by nature.

• Acquired physical traits are NOT passed down, only genes are passed down, to subsequent generations. Disproving Darwins notion that acquired traits accumulated over subsequent generations and generated different living species. There were no inheritable variations for natural selection to choose from. They re-wrote the theory to include Mutation.
• Mutation. Mutations do not add genetic information for species to achieve macro-evolution.
• The fossil record shows all forms of life, many of which currently exist, coming into existence almost simultaneously in the Cambrian Explosion, this is contrary evidence to a slow mutating naturally selective tree of transforming species.
• Abiogenesis has not been seen to be possible for 170 years and counting.
• Minimal Gene Set concept. Evolutionists needed a beginning from 0 gene but you cannot get down to below 397 gene sets to create a functional cell. That is the minimal gene set for a living cell.
• Dembski’s 1995 Complex Specified Information theorem (CSi) shows that it is impossible for the complex genome of biological cells to have been formed by horizontal causation and a vertical cauaslity Or intelligent design Or a structure to follow, would have to be integrated into the calculation for it ever to be realised in physical nature.
 

jeremy

Chicken
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.
When you speak of science you're really speaking very broadly and in a very general way. I've said before; science can be used for good as well as evil. To say science in general should be avoided because science has been used badly in specific ways, does not preclude the many benefits derived from the study of science. As well; your current state of comfort is much greater then your average person had at any time in the distant past. Most of your comfort is a result of modern science. You probably have family members who are hundred years ago would have died where medicine was not available. You may have visited another state that you would not have been able to walk or drive to.
And I know many people on this forum will wholeheartedly disagree with me; but the covid-19 was and is real. I lost both my grandparents, and I've known various people who have had it. It is not a conspiracy to control the world's population. Much more people died from it then your average yearly viruses. More people died where social distancing was not put in place. Those are proven and unrefutable facts. I think it's kind of a sin to not look at the facts and not give a life-or-death situation it's do precaution based on what you want to believe. However the "party of God" does not seem to have a problem with this deadly outlook.
To believe a person just because they passionately incorporate an ideology that you agree and try to tell you something is true when it is not, is crazy. Science and the scientific method largely avoid such insanity, being based on the rational observation of facts. It's not science that does evil; it's people who do evil. You should not blame the means for the cause. You might believe otherwise, because you have a need to, but reality exists outside of what we wish.
I will tell you this; if this world ever has another "real" life-threatening emergency where we either deny or accept its reality based on our political ideologies, If any kind of coperation is needed; we are f*****!
 

jeremy

Chicken
In my journey to understand todays scientific corruption I compiled this list of incontrovertible proofs, based upon their Science, to show that neo-darwinist evolution is at best, impossible. And therefore the promulgation of it, is through falsified interpreted evidence, the cause of promulgation is through dogmatic ideological belief and those who promulgate it, are deceivers by nature.

• Acquired physical traits are NOT passed down, only genes are passed down, to subsequent generations. Disproving Darwins notion that acquired traits accumulated over subsequent generations and generated different living species. There were no inheritable variations for natural selection to choose from. They re-wrote the theory to include Mutation.
• Mutation. Mutations do not add genetic information for species to achieve macro-evolution.
• The fossil record shows all forms of life, many of which currently exist, coming into existence almost simultaneously in the Cambrian Explosion, this is contrary evidence to a slow mutating naturally selective tree of transforming species.
• Abiogenesis has not been seen to be possible for 170 years and counting.
• Minimal Gene Set concept. Evolutionists needed a beginning from 0 gene but you cannot get down to below 397 gene sets to create a functional cell. That is the minimal gene set for a living cell.
• Dembski’s 1995 Complex Specified Information theorem (CSi) shows that it is impossible for the complex genome of biological cells to have been formed by horizontal causation and a vertical cauaslity Or intelligent design Or a structure to follow, would have to be integrated into the calculation for it ever to be realised in physical nature.
 

Aboulia

Woodpecker
Orthodox
When you speak of science you're really speaking very broadly and in a very general way. I've said before; science can be used for good as well as evil. To say science in general should be avoided because science has been used badly in specific ways, does not preclude the many benefits derived from the study of science. As well; your current state of comfort is much greater then your average person had at any time in the distant past. Most of your comfort is a result of modern science. You probably have family members who are hundred years ago would have died where medicine was not available. You may have visited another state that you would not have been able to walk or drive to.
And I know many people on this forum will wholeheartedly disagree with me; but the covid-19 was and is real. I lost both my grandparents, and I've known various people who have had it. It is not a conspiracy to control the world's population. Much more people died from it then your average yearly viruses. More people died where social distancing was not put in place. Those are proven and unrefutable facts. I think it's kind of a sin to not look at the facts and not give a life-or-death situation it's do precaution based on what you want to believe. However the "party of God" does not seem to have a problem with this deadly outlook.
To believe a person just because they passionately incorporate an ideology that you agree and try to tell you something is true when it is not, is crazy. Science and the scientific method largely avoid such insanity, being based on the rational observation of facts. It's not science that does evil; it's people who do evil. You should not blame the means for the cause. You might believe otherwise, because you have a need to, but reality exists outside of what we wish.
I will tell you this; if this world ever has another "real" life-threatening emergency where we either deny or accept its reality based on our political ideologies, If any kind of coperation is needed; we are f*****!

If "science" can be used for both good and evil, then you must agree with my statement that "science" is a tool. Tools naturally depend on the morality of the user. As for the benefits of "science" it's a two-edged sword. "Science" can provide power, but to those it provides power, it makes them dependent on the "science" and thus weaker if the technology is lost or breaks. Comfort is the similar, it makes people weak. Nobody became strong by being a couch potato and skipping the gym.

Entire giant threads exist on Covid, and there's no reasoning to rehash the religious dogma surrounding it. All I can say is that no solid science exists justifying mask mandates nor is 6 ft social distancing proven to protect people from viral respiratory sicknesses. If you can find a rebuttal for the work of Denis Rancourt, I'm open to hear it.


Science is anything but the rational observation of facts. There can be no rational observation of facts because A) there's an infinite amount of facts in the world, and B) facts don't tell you how to act. If you act at all without aiming towards the "good", you're acting entirely irrational. For there's no reason to do anything at all unless it would be better to do so. But to distinguish between good and evil requires philosophy, and the ultimate philosophy is rooted in God, for he created all things, and naturally knows their ordering.
 

Bluto

Kingfisher
I have always separated out the mechanics of evolution, from the philosophy of evolution. Honestly, evolution was never really taught to me as a philosophical replacement to God, but evolutionary science certainly has its issues. They can't figure out how to make multi celled organisms from one celled organisms, cant replicate any of their theories of creation, or progress animal evolution where apes can talk to us, and thank God for that. I certainly don't want to live on the planet of the apes. On top of that their philosophical explanations of how we were made take as much of a leap of faith as any other creation story out there. I conclude that they are just as much in the dark on the topic of how we were created as the rest of us, but they just don't want to believe in God, so they leave a lot of the steps out, or create something out of a cult like alien seeding.

When I look at a piece of furniture that I own that was made of wood. Someone may have used a tool like a lathe or a saw to make it, but it was the person who made the furniture. You don't thank the saw for making your furniture, you thank the guy who made the saw do his bidding. I equate that to how evolution works. It is a tool, or a result of a tool, but God made us one way or another.
 

jeremy

Chicken
If "science" can be used for both good and evil, then you must agree with my statement that "science" is a tool. Tools naturally depend on the morality of the user. As for the benefits of "science" it's a two-edged sword. "Science" can provide power, but to those it provides power, it makes them dependent on the "science" and thus weaker if the technology is lost or breaks. Comfort is the similar, it makes people weak. Nobody became strong by being a couch potato and skipping the gym.

Entire giant threads exist on Covid, and there's no reasoning to rehash the religious dogma surrounding it. All I can say is that no solid science exists justifying mask mandates nor is 6 ft social distancing proven to protect people from viral respiratory sicknesses. If you can find a rebuttal for the work of Denis Rancourt, I'm open to hear it.


Science is anything but the rational observation of facts. There can be no rational observation of facts because A) there's an infinite amount of facts in the world, and B) facts don't tell you how to act. If you act at all without aiming towards the "good", you're acting entirely irrational. For there's no reason to do anything at all unless it would be better to do so. But to distinguish between good and evil requires philosophy, and the ultimate philosophy is rooted in God, for he created all things, and naturally knows their ordering.
Firstly let me ask you if this person you're speaking of is a right winger? And where is the rational basis for such a belief other than political?
Secondly,
to say science which uses the scientific method, which is a rational observation of facts, is not, because there's a lot of facts in the world, makes absolutely no sense.
Next you're going to tell me there's no "self confirming bias" because the expression does not use all the letters of the alphabet!
It is the point of view, such as yours that has killed a lot of people, because you probably confuse your testicular fortitude with having an "us and them" mentality, and it's easy to find a "them" when there is unfortunate circumstances.
 

Brod

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
Roosh, evolution does not explain the origin of life, this was never a claim that was solidly made except by those who don't understand the topic. The revolutionary phenotype, on the other hand, does explain the origin of DNA, RNA, and protein-based life, you're fighting the wrong fight. There's no difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution, "species" aren't created magically and even the term doesn't consistently apply to mean "creatures who can't mate with each other" since there are animals we call as "different species" yet they can, in fact, mate. It's a loosely defined term just like "race" and "colour" are used to categorize groups of humans and wavelengths of light. There's no clear line.
 

DanielH

Ostrich
Orthodox
Roosh, evolution does not explain the origin of life, this was never a claim that was solidly made except by those who don't understand the topic. The revolutionary phenotype, on the other hand, does explain the origin of DNA, RNA, and protein-based life, you're fighting the wrong fight. There's no difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution, "species" aren't created magically and even the term doesn't consistently apply to mean "creatures who can't mate with each other" since there are animals we call as "different species" yet they can, in fact, mate. It's a loosely defined term just like "race" and "colour" are used to categorize groups of humans and wavelengths of light. There's no clear line.
Your whole post can be boiled down to "I disagree," which is just a waste of time. You don't actually explain why, you just posit the title to a different hypothesis without explaining anything about that hypothesis, such as how it explains how series of proteins randomly form and then randomly assemble into RNA/DNA which not only is stable, but reproduces. Your statements on "species" just muddy the waters as if none of us know that a donkey and a horse can produce a mule.
1624915802702.png
This isn't random. There is an Omnipotent Creator who did this.
1624915906862.png
 
Last edited:

Sa6re

Robin
Roosh, evolution does not explain the origin of life, this was never a claim that was solidly made except by those who don't understand the topic. The revolutionary phenotype, on the other hand, does explain the origin of DNA, RNA, and protein-based life, you're fighting the wrong fight. There's no difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution, "species" aren't created magically and even the term doesn't consistently apply to mean "creatures who can't mate with each other" since there are animals we call as "different species" yet they can, in fact, mate. It's a loosely defined term just like "race" and "colour" are used to categorize groups of humans and wavelengths of light. There's no clear line.
There is enough evidence, using the Scientific method itself, to firmly ascertain that Neo-Darwinist Evolution could not have happened in any of its currently variated explanations. I’m not sure what happened but life, as we know it, could not have appeared through abiogenesis, have evolved through tiny random mutations or survived through a survival of the fittest. Not only is it Scientifically implausible but this makes no common sense either.

The only belief system you are trying to uphold is atomized physicalistic materialism. This is a corruption of Science, into a religion, an unfalsifiable ideology of the modern State and Corporate propaganda, known as Scientism. You were indoctrinated into it from birth, we all were, and it’s a dying paradigm because it refuses to accept it’s own evidence and is demoralising humanity, for it is a religion with no purpose or positivity. It is an ideology of disintegration. Evolution is not based on empirical Scientific evidence but conceptualised abstractions of observations. That leap of faith is not Science and the end result is an utterly dehumanizing nightmare that is tearing our civilisation apart. And the Corporations love it.

“A scientific hypothesis should be potentially falsifiable...however the idea of slow evolution by infinitesimally small variations etc. has been falsified by the findings of palaeontology...as well [as] genetics. Yet its adherents principally reject any scientific proof against neo-darwinism, so that, in fact, their theory has become a non-falsifiable worldview, to which people stick in spite of all contrary evidence” Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig
 
I tend to think of evolution as merely an extension of the old idea of spontaneous generation, which was finally discredited by Louis Pasteur's discovery of germ theory -- coincidentally, not long before Darwin's theories first rose to prominence.

I'd recommend that you read and review "The Last Superstition" by Edward Feser, a Catholic philosopher, who claims that the science vs. religion debate is really not about science at all, but about two competing philosophical views of reality and the universe. He argues in favor of a classical Artistotelian-Thomistic metaphyisic based on natural law and a holistic understanding of creation over the mechanistic view of nature that has been promoted by modern philosophy and "science" (and by Deists, Freemasons and Protestant Christians of the William Paley "Divine Watchmaker" persuasion) ever since the time of Descartes and Newton.

I think the terminal decline of mystical vitalism as an acceptable philosophical view of biological processes in favor of mechanical materialism, which finally came about in the 1930's after Henri Bergson and Georges Canguilhem, also bears further investigation and consideration. I would be curious to know your take on that particular topic as well.
 
Last edited:
Evolution could be the way God brought all creation to its present point, including his final lifeform design (Adam & Eve). God knows when to stop. For example, how many prophets have appeared since the Forerunner? And how many species since Homo sapiens?
Genesis 1:11, 12
Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so.The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:20, 21
And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:24, 25
And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

Directly created, according to their kind; no evolutionary transitions used.


Genesis 1:26, 27
Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

Man himself, directly created in the image of his Creator; no evolutionary transitions used.
 

Sa6re

Robin
If it's a tool of our God, then evolution is not "fake and ghey". Therefore, you should be absolutely sure it isn't, before calling it such.

The genomes of Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis have been completely sequenced. Our skeletons are completely different. Yet, my Neanderthalic genome and phenome indicate I'm living proof that all humanity is a fertile blend of hominin hybrids.

Evolution could be the way God brought all creation to its present point, including his final lifeform design (Adam & Eve). God knows when to stop. For example, how many prophets have appeared since the Forerunner? And how many species since Homo sapiens?

"Transhumanism" is as much insanity as "transsexualism". Man cannot create sex organs, mental capacity, or physical performance, but can only transform pre-existing material. As a tool of creation, evolution can and did stop, by God's design.
I am wholly Christian, and neither a "transhumanist" nor a Hitlerian. In fact, it's the very Christian in me which defeats both. Evolution can be a tool of creation, so long as there is a God.
There is much more intelligence behind the Neo-Darwinist propaganda, its a philosophy that has a malign influence.

For one thing, it has built into it a Patricidal effect, by giving creation over to the female essence. It says ‘Mother nature is now your creator’, this is a profound corruption of truth. The fathers acts, he has the seed and plants it, the mother only nurtures it. It also causes a submission in mankind to whoever can control nature.

Evolution also says ‘you are not yet built, you’re an unfinished project, a process in the making’ this is a disgusting perversion and leads directly to transhumanism and corrupt pharmaceutical medical practice. The excuse new-age spirituality has by saying ‘we are evolving spiritually into higher beings’ is also bogus baloney, the human body is created perfectly for spiritual awakening, every organ, every sense, every neurological path is a profound book of wisdom. You don’t have to evolve, you just need to read it. Study medieval medicine. For instance the liver was called the seat of anger, it holds the wrath, it leads to alcoholism to numb it when it is repressed. Depression is anger directed inward, and leads to all kinds of symptoms that are from liver problems. The ancient medicine men knew what they were talking about, and they understood the human body was divinely created with emotion and sentience (soul) essentially aligned within it.

Evolution isn’t, taught in schools and propagandized on television, ‘cos its scientifically true, its pushed for philosophical reasons and social purposes. It supports the Oligarchical structure of modern rulership and economy. And it has diverted (much of) humanity away from the purpose of being, and into a soulless consumerist drone.
 
Last edited:

Brod

Chicken
Your whole post can be boiled down to "I disagree," which is just a waste of time. You don't actually explain why, you just posit the title to a different hypothesis without explaining anything about that hypothesis, such as how it explains how series of proteins randomly form and then randomly assemble into RNA/DNA which not only is stable, but reproduces. Your statements on "species" just muddy the waters as if none of us know that a donkey and a horse can produce a mule.
View attachment 31661
This isn't random. There is an Omnipotent Creator who did this.
View attachment 31662
Feel free to look up the revolutionary phenotype, there's tons of info out there on it, my intent was to simply draw attention away from a fruitless subject of evolution that will not address the main question - how does life come to be?
I'm glad you know that the horse and donkey can mate and reproduce. Thanks for steelmanning my point about how the term is simply a loose grouping of creatures that is useful in certain circumstances and not others, just like this one where we talk about evolution.
 
Top