The Theory Of Evolution Is Incompatible With Christianity

Brod

Chicken
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.

I never argued for abiogenesis, didn't even use the term, in my text it specifically says the revolutionary phenotype explains much better how life emerges.
 
Roosh and others, I respectfully disagree with you about evolution. Hopefully we can discuss in a reasonable manner.

I do not know if God created the Earth several thousand, or several billion, years ago. I know Biblical years and times are open to interpretation and often do not have a literal meaning. However if God wanted to create the world several thousand years ago, he could have easily created it "already aged" as Jesus created wine out of water as His first miracle, wine being already aged but created new out of water. When we look at the world through the lens of natural science i.e. using the senses, mind, logic and reason God gave us to the best of our ability, the world certainly looks as if it's many billions of years old. So I will write as if the world is billions of years old, although it may simply appear that way. The aged wine looked, smelled, and tasted aged to the master of the feast at Cana, and the world we live in absolutely appears to be billions of years old.

Also, using the senses and reason God gave us, we notice all animals including ourselves form one large family tree. No human, animal, or plant fossils have ever been found that do not fit into the family tree in a logical and expected way, both in time and geography. So personally I find it impossible to deny that God uses environmental, competitive, and other pressures to cause His creatures to survive or die based on His will, and causes new creatures to come forth and others to go extinct as He wills, to bring about the diversity of life we see on Earth today and in the fossils of past ages. It is an incredible work of genius that God brought forth all life on Earth by an extremely complex yet perfectly orchestrated process of evolution by natural selection.

I realize that is not the standard Christian view, but it's my view so I'm hoping it can be tolerated and reasoned with. I am not holding any "alternative" view to scripture, I view all scripture as absolutely true, and my interpretation here is how I make sense of everything humans have observed about the world around us, in light of the truth of Scripture.

To get to the OP's question about human origins, here's my personal view. Humans came forth according to God's will from the dust of the Earth as all creatures before them, being placed first on both the Eastern and Western sides of the Sahara as well as the farther southern regions of Africa. This is the first (Genesis 1) creation of man, the original mankind who preceded Adam (Genesis 2) and did not till the earth, but lived as hunters and gatherers in the African jungles and grasslands for hundreds of thousands of years, learning to use fire, stone tools, and advanced brains to communicate, pass knowledge down generation-to-generation, coordinate large actions as a tribe with leader(s), hunt large prey animals using weapons and teamwork (yes we are meat-eaters by design, look at your pointy incisor teeth that are specifically designed to tear meat, not chew plants like your molars), create art and religious items showing a consciousness of God i.e. something higher and more sublime than the simply material, and many other things that make us human and different than any other animals. This creation of original, "caveman" prehistoric man corresponds to the following from Genesis 1:

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Genesis 1:26-28

There were cyclic periods of warmth and wetness in both the Sahara and Arabian desert in recent history (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_humid_period). During these periods both deserts had abundant rainfall, were lush and green with flowing rivers which are now dry "wadis" or dry riverbeds, and would have allowed the humans living in East Africa to easily migrate through the now-desert Arabian Peninsula. There were many of these periods when various groups of pre-Adam humans left Africa via Sinai and the Arabian peninsula and spread across the world. The map below shows rough dates for various waves of these migrations which are educated guesses based on distribution of human remains that have been found and dated:

pic2.PNG




The latest warm, wet period began about 14,000 years ago and lasted until about 6,000 years ago. I believe during that time, the latest wave of African humans migrated out of Africa and settled in Arabia, the Levant, and Mesopotamia, and became the ancestors of Adam, and eventually Abraham. The map below showing the distribution of Semitic languages shows where these people lived and established their own languages which became modern Hebrew and Arabic, among others. Notably the Semitic languages are very different from the Indo-European languages that were already established across Europe and Asia and eventually diversified into all modern Western, and many Eastern, languages from Latin and Greek to Sanskrit. That is because the Semitic languages come from a people who lived in Africa much more recently. In my mind that could also be why these people had a much closer spiritual connection to God. They came more recently from the prehistoric homeland of man (our spiritual roots) so they had a stronger inborn awareness of God. Now the Gospel has gone out to the whole world and the Holy Spirit has been given to Jews and Gentiles alike, but I'm talking about the initial human times before Christ came.

pic1.PNG




About 6,000 years ago God caused the desert regions to dry up again, leaving this distribution of fertile land known as the "fertile crescent," where the first agriculture and settled towns (civilization) began.

pic3.PNG



At that time man was suddenly expelled from his easy existence in a warm, wet paradise with abundant food and forced to live on the east and west regions instead, forced to settle in one place to plant, harvest and store grain, and till the ground for his existence.

In my mind this event corresponds to the creation of Adam to till the ground in Genesis 2:

"Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground the Lord God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil... The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it." Genesis 2:7-9,15

The oldest evidence of agriculture found to date is in the northern part of the Levant, between Israel and Syria. In my mind that is the location God placed Adam, the first settled and agricultural man who did not roam, hunt and gather as his ancestors, but was the first modern civilized man who built towns, developed division of labor, social hierarchy, began domesticating and selectively breeding crops and livestock. Also with social hierarchy, increased commerce, and many people living in one place which required authority to keep order and could be abused, all manner of evil and sin were also born as people lived out of harmony with God's will for the first time.

I realize these views may cause me to be condemned and hated on this forum, but they are my views regardless and I would love to hear any well-reasoned point of view beyond "but that's not what the Bible says," or "my pastor told me believing in evolution is a sin," because I firmly believe this is what the Bible says, and this is how God created everything. I am commanded to love God with all my mind. Denying the reality of what God placed before our eyes, how He created the diversity of living creatures, is willfully turning my mind off against His will. That would be denying the truth on purpose just to conform to a man-made church tradition of human origins that is by no means the only way to interpret Genesis 1 and 2.

A similar example of a huge "controversy" between science and religion that was actually no controversy at all, is the question of the Earth orbiting the sun. The church (not God) was spectacularly wrong on this question. I believe it took until the 1960s for the Catholic church to formally admit that the Earth revolves around the sun, not the other way around. Not sure when other churches recognized this fact. And this was not because the reality of God's creation contradicted His Word in any way, it was because of the stubbornness of the Church who thought it was somehow against God to have a different view based on actual observed facts. I would stand with Galileo, who was a devout Christian, and said the following: "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect intended us to forgo their use."
 
Don't believe anything the experts say on dating. All complete nonsense.

What is more interesting is how the dating could be accurate, but God could still have created the world 6,000 years ago.

God is able to create things already aged. Wine from water at Cana, and the Earth from water in Genesis. Roosh had a good article about this a few months back.

This is a convenient way to explain why the earth looks old when you look at it with basic science, like carbon dating, which doesn't really take an expert to understand.
 
It is possible to believe in (macro)evolution, while being a Christian. However, there are certain conditions that make this unlikely:

  1. You cannot believe that human beings evolved. To do so contradicts Scripture, which claims that God uniquely created man in His own image. Also, to believe otherwise implies that Jesus Christ has ape ancestors -- anathema!
  2. Genesis tells us that Creation was perfect prior to the Fall. This does not fit with evolutionary theory, which assumes corruption. Thus, you'd have to believe that the Garden of Eden existed in some other realm besides the earthly, or that there was a 'pre-Fall' corruption prior to the Garden. So you'd have to construct an elaborate view of the Garden of Eden that does not square perfectly with the Bible, or you'd have to claim that the Garden is a metaphor.
  3. You must believe that God guided evolution towards a final goal.

These three points are of course strange bedfellows, and it's much simpler to just believe the Biblical account. That doesn't necessarily mean Young Earth Creation, but it does preclude evolution.
Good post.

They are not automatically at odds, as evolution is merely evidence of God's design (not a refutation of it).
 

Sword and Board

Kingfisher
I’ve questioned friends/family/workmates when they’ve gone on their programmed rants about religion (mostly Christian) being the cause of all wars and atrocities.

I point out the most bloodshed, oppression and violence in recent history has taken place under atheist communist rule.

Further, if they are to believe that evolution and “survival of the fittest” is all there is then Genocide and merciless slaughter and enslavement of competition is “evolutionary success”

I mean without Christian morality and it’s civilized foundations we would be barbaric savages. “Evolutionary success” for me as an individual would be to pillage, steal, extort and murder my way to acquiring resources whilst raping and impregnating as many females as possible.
 

Elipe

Pelican
I’ve questioned friends/family/workmates when they’ve gone on their programmed rants about religion (mostly Christian) being the cause of all wars and atrocities.
Vox Day destroyed that argument many years ago. No respectable professional atheist uses that argument anymore. I uploaded his powerpoint slides because his original website got nuked and the link on his new website for it is broken.

PPT Link
PDF Link
 

Blade Runner

Ostrich
Orthodox
God created things good, there is nothing to argue about here. The only thing that is complete is God, if you are arguing the point, it is self evident (blame it on the gift of the will) that humans, in being able to err are not, and could not be perfect. We may have had a level of perfection, but it isn't even worthwhile to understand it that way. Our story is more about cooperating with God than anything, so even saying humans were in some sort of perfect state is missing the point - since that also by its very definition was a contingency.

Not heresy at all, explanation of the truth of the matter.
 

Elipe

Pelican
God created things good, there is nothing to argue about here. The only thing that is complete is God, if you are arguing the point, it is self evident (blame it on the gift of the will) that humans, in being able to err are not, and could not be perfect.
But good is, by Biblical definition, perfection. You cannot be good without being perfect. This is alluded to throughout the various sacrificial rituals required of the Israelites in which not only a "good enough" animal could be used, but the absolute best that had no blemish on it. It is also clear that God expects nothing less than perfect conduct from post-Fall human beings, which is impossible, yet God still expects it because He is perfectly and infinitely holy and just. Even Jesus Christ Himself asked a young rich man, "Why do you call Me good?" Because to be good, one must be absolutely perfect, and only through the simultaneous divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ could that be achieved on behalf of mankind. Yet, it is also clear that Jesus Christ, as He walked the earth being fully man, had the ability to err. But merely because He had the ability does not mean that He did.

When God called creation "very good", He meant unblemished. He meant perfect. The potential to err does not make you imperfect; rather, it is when the error is made that you become imperfect. And it can actually be argued that if we were made into mere sock puppets without free will, forced to serve God without a choice in our bones, we would not have been perfect at creation. Free will was part of the perfect package, because it engendered true love.
 
Last edited:

Hannibal

Ostrich
Gold Member
What about goose bumps when we are cold or frightened?

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

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

For the record, I don't have a firm opinion on Evolution, and I find the Creation - > Fall hypothesis quite satisfying intellectually. However, I do think that the arguments used against Evolution are usually of bad quality (not saying this is your case, I say this in general). I also think that there is no definite opposition between Evolution and Christianity, although Evolution can definitely make it easier for atheism to seduce.

Neanderthal etc could all breed with modern humans, as evidenced by all the modern humans with neanderthal dna, which is basically every single race except african because the neanderthal never went so far south.
 

josemiguel

Sparrow
Orthodox
There is no point in trying to make the faith compatible with current cosmoligical or scientific theories. I know St John Damascene addressed that in his On the Orthodox Faith 1300 years ago when people were apparently debating spherical vs hemispherical cosmology. To paraphrase, whichever is correct or if both are wrong, divine revelation is true because it is of Truth.

Concerning Neo-Darwinian Evolution, it is absurd to try to mold the Faith to it, a theory that is by basic math and logic wrong. Vox Day made it popular, but the mathematical proof that common descent of species 100% never happened has been around for a while, first taught to me by an agnostic computer engineering professor of mine on why biologists can't do math in 2009.

In short, it concerns the average rate of fixed mutations across a species, aka the average rate a mutation is spread and locked into a species genome. To give NeoDarwinian evolution the best possible chance of success, we'll assume all fixed mutations happen in one direction, towards modern man, no mutation that is fixed gets replaced or unfixed, and no mutations happen that are gravitating away from modern human and chimp genomes.

To give evolution the most time to work with, we'll go with the last common amcestor of humans and chimps being 15 million years ago. We'll assume 50/50 spread of mutations for the two species, and 1% genome difference, even though that is now known to be bunk.

Effectively this means 20 million mutations need to have been fixed over 15 million years, or 500,000 generations to get modern humans. This means there has to have been an absolute minimum of 40 mutations fixing across all of humanity every generation. This is an observable number, we've dug up humans from 3 centuries ago and gotten their DNA. We expect an absolute minimum 300 mutations that we all have that was not fixed across humanity 10 generations ago.

Since this is observably not true, humans and chimps are thus not related. One can do the same between chimps, bonobos, and the other great apes. With the decoding of the human genome and chimp genome, plus the startling discovery that Junk DNA isn't Junk, we're looking at 86.5% similarity between Humans and Chimps at best, meaning an absolute minimum of 530 mutations being fixed across every generation for 15 million years. This would mean we would be a different species than the humans who founded the USA, let alone the Roman Empire or the Architects of the pyramids in Gaza. This is observably false.

The Common Descent of Species via NeoDarwinian Evolution through Natural Selection, Sexual Selection, Genetic Drift, etc. 100% did not happen. Why try to mold the faith to a hypothesis that is false on its own premises?
 

Elipe

Pelican
Why try to mold the faith to a hypothesis that is false on its own premises?
"But science is self-correcting!"

... after centuries of feeding into dyscivic and dysgenic beliefs that have destroyed the social cohesion of some of the greatest civilizations on earth, utterly devastated the credibility and ethos of the scientific institutions and reduced people to being absolute, ignorant and ignoble ill-behaved retards. And worst of all, it all undermined people's capability for faith, having a horrendously disastrous effect on Christianity in the West that may very well take a thousand years to fully heal.

But hey, it was all so we could say that Adam and Eve never happened and that we're a bunch of smelly, retarded apes! Mission accomplished?
 

Blade Runner

Ostrich
Orthodox
But good is, by Biblical definition, perfection. You cannot be good without being perfect. This is alluded to throughout the various sacrificial rituals required of the Israelites in which not only a "good enough" animal could be used, but the absolute best that had no blemish on it. It is also clear that God expects nothing less than perfect conduct from post-Fall human beings, which is impossible, yet God still expects it because He is perfectly and infinitely holy and just. Even Jesus Christ Himself asked a young rich man, "Why do you call Me good?" Because to be good, one must be absolutely perfect, and only through the simultaneous divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ could that be achieved on behalf of mankind. Yet, it is also clear that Jesus Christ, as He walked the earth being fully man, had the ability to err. But merely because He had the ability does not mean that He did.

When God called creation "very good", He meant unblemished. He meant perfect. The potential to err does not make you imperfect; rather, it is when the error is made that you become imperfect. And it can actually be argued that if we were made into mere sock puppets without free will, forced to serve God without a choice in our bones, we would not have been perfect at creation. Free will was part of the perfect package, because it engendered true love.
I see you train of thinking here, but your supports are off in analogy, mainly because creation can never be good like God is good, thus your definitions are already proven wrong. You betray your own argument by showing that "only one is good ... God" meaning that his creation can't be perfect, just like he is.

Think about it.

ps - being called to perfection is as much a lesson and teaching point, not a reality in the strict sense. At best, it is cooperating in the beset way one can to do what he is called to do, and by grace become that with God's help. "Being made perfect" or "having been perfected" is actually being complete or "fulfilling your purpose" (the best translation) in Greek, the verb being τελέω, where we get "the end" (telos, as in telomeres) from.
 
"That which is cannot come from that which is not" -- Parmenides

The whole big bang theory suggesting that atoms all of a sudden randomly formed is just a fancy way of saying "sh#t happens". That the universe created itself out of nothing. But in order for it to do that, it would have had to exist before it existed, which is impossible.

Atheists and evolutionary theorists fail here.

I would highly recommend Logos Rising by E Michael Jones. It's essentially a Christian response to Yuval Harari's massively popular book Sapiens. Harari is a Jewish homosexual athiest, so his connection to reality is tenuous. And he definitely has an animus towards Christianity and an axe to grind against logos.
 
Last edited:

Elipe

Pelican
It's funny because the big bang used to be considered proof of theism, so atheistic scientists were very shy about adopting big bang cosmology. They wanted to believe in an eternal universe in order to avoid the infinite ontology problem (what caused the big bang, and what caused the thing causing the big bang, ad infinitum). Of course, it's unsurprising that as the evidence piled up and they couldn't just ignore that the universe had a fixed beginning, they just started circularly arguing that the big bang was proof of atheism because "science is materialistic, so the big bang must be a materialistic phenomenon".

Just further evidence that atheism is a midwit belief.
 

Solitarius

Sparrow
It's funny because the big bang used to be considered proof of theism, so atheistic scientists were very shy about adopting big bang cosmology. They wanted to believe in an eternal universe in order to avoid the infinite ontology problem (what caused the big bang, and what caused the thing causing the big bang, ad infinitum). Of course, it's unsurprising that as the evidence piled up and they couldn't just ignore that the universe had a fixed beginning, they just started circularly arguing that the big bang was proof of atheism because "science is materialistic, so the big bang must be a materialistic phenomenon".

Just further evidence that atheism is a midwit belief.
Indeed, the religion of the ape is held by those whose heads are filled with a pile of what chimps in the zoo like to reach behind themselves, catch & throw at you if you get too close to their enclosure ha ha.
 
Top