Changes

:How exactly is evolution anti-Christian? Just because Darwin experienced a loss of faith, doesn’t mean that evolution is inconsistent with Christianity. As I have said before, there are unscientific factoids in the Bible (even irrelevant to evolution) that many Christians ignore because of scientific evidence, thus a large majority of Christians accept evolution as a fact and still believe in God. But you also say that evolution was used as a tool to “replace God”, well remember that Christianity is not the only monotheistic religion in the world. If the intention of evolution was to “replace God” then evolution wouldn’t simply be anti-Christian but anti-theist. But since there are theistic evolutionists who have proposed evolution before Darwin, this goes to show that the idea that evolution was meant to “replace God” is wrong. Keep in mind that evolution is not a political position. If you are referring to Darwinism as having the motive of “replacing God”, that is no less dubious than the previous claim. Darwinism is merely the specific observations and hypotheses of evolution as Charles Darwin recorded it. It bears nothing of a political agenda in the scientific observations, regardless if some evolutionary theorists have suggested that this is the case. They have nothing to verify this with but speculation.

:How exactly is evolution anti-Christian? Just because Darwin experienced a loss of faith, doesn’t mean that evolution is inconsistent with Christianity. As I have said before, there are unscientific factoids in the Bible (even irrelevant to evolution) that many Christians ignore because of scientific evidence, thus a large majority of Christians accept evolution as a fact and still believe in God. But you also say that evolution was used as a tool to “replace God”, well remember that Christianity is not the only monotheistic religion in the world. If the intention of evolution was to “replace God” then evolution wouldn’t simply be anti-Christian but anti-theist. But since there are theistic evolutionists who have proposed evolution before Darwin, this goes to show that the idea that evolution was meant to “replace God” is wrong. Keep in mind that evolution is not a political position. If you are referring to Darwinism as having the motive of “replacing God”, that is no less dubious than the previous claim. Darwinism is merely the specific observations and hypotheses of evolution as Charles Darwin recorded it. It bears nothing of a political agenda in the scientific observations, regardless if some evolutionary theorists have suggested that this is the case. They have nothing to verify this with but speculation.

:You say that it is incorrect that “Evolution is based on the scientific method which requires experimentation and evidence, something which it has provided.” But you only select a specific example without observing the actual examples that have been tested in laboratories. Animals have been observed to have mutated through ancestral genes. Animals have been especially observed to mutate to adapt to a change in environment to sustain the survival of their kind (i.e. evolution). One of the most prominent examples of this mutation is that of Darwin ’s finches. When Darwin performed experiments in the Galapagos Islands , he introduced a species of finches in an environment of slightly larger nuts to crack with their beaks. Within a period of only a few generations of these finches, the width and strength of the beaks of the descendant finches had greatly increased to suit the environment of larger nuts as food. This observation was only a fig-leaf. However, the idea of introducing animals into another environment in which they must mutate to adapt to their surroundings in order to survive has been proven to be successful with scientific experiments. Given these scientific experiments and the fossil record of common ancestry with many animal species, evolutionary biologists are able to observe the DNA of the fossils and compare it with the DNA of the hypothetical descendants of these creatures to determine that the evolutionary mutations of these creatures over long periods of time are successful in providing evidence for evolution. And your statement that evidence today states that fish cannot evolve into amphibians is incorrect. Fossils of amphibious fish known as fishapods have been found and the experimentation I have just explained has provided scientific evidence that just as trout had to mutate to survive in brackish water and salt water, the common ancestors of many fish alive today had indeed mutated to survive in both water and air environments. And we still see evidence of close descendants of fishapods today (i.e. lungfish). So no, it is not merely “faith”. Faith doesn’t work in scientific experimentations. As I have said before, if you do not understand the subject, you cannot argue against it. No evolutionary biologist will tell you it is only their “faith” that assures them of the plausibility of evolution.

:You say that it is incorrect that “Evolution is based on the scientific method which requires experimentation and evidence, something which it has provided.” But you only select a specific example without observing the actual examples that have been tested in laboratories. Animals have been observed to have mutated through ancestral genes. Animals have been especially observed to mutate to adapt to a change in environment to sustain the survival of their kind (i.e. evolution). One of the most prominent examples of this mutation is that of Darwin ’s finches. When Darwin performed experiments in the Galapagos Islands, he introduced a species of finches in an environment of slightly larger nuts to crack with their beaks. Within a period of only a few generations of these finches, the width and strength of the beaks of the descendant finches had greatly increased to suit the environment of larger nuts as food. This observation was only a fig-leaf. However, the idea of introducing animals into another environment in which they must mutate to adapt to their surroundings in order to survive has been proven to be successful with scientific experiments. Given these scientific experiments and the fossil record of common ancestry with many animal species, evolutionary biologists are able to observe the DNA of the fossils and compare it with the DNA of the hypothetical descendants of these creatures to determine that the evolutionary mutations of these creatures over long periods of time are successful in providing evidence for evolution. And your statement that evidence today states that fish cannot evolve into amphibians is incorrect. Fossils of amphibious fish known as fishapods have been found and the experimentation I have just explained has provided scientific evidence that just as trout had to mutate to survive in brackish water and salt water, the common ancestors of many fish alive today had indeed mutated to survive in both water and air environments. And we still see evidence of close descendants of fishapods today (i.e. lungfish). So no, it is not merely “faith”. Faith doesn’t work in scientific experimentations. As I have said before, if you do not understand the subject, you cannot argue against it. No evolutionary biologist will tell you it is only their “faith” that assures them of the plausibility of evolution.

:You’ve already said before that evolution is storytelling (although are unable to support this statement). Now you ask how an eyewitness account counts as storytelling. Well, for all we know, Genesis isn’t even an eyewitness account. But that’s beside the point. Look up “storytelling” in a dictionary. It fits perfectly with your description of Genesis. It is merely the telling of a creation story, hence storytelling. How this is any more plausible than any other versions of creation storytelling is something you have yet to explain.

:You’ve already said before that evolution is storytelling (although are unable to support this statement). Now you ask how an eyewitness account counts as storytelling. Well, for all we know, Genesis isn’t even an eyewitness account. But that’s beside the point. Look up “storytelling” in a dictionary. It fits perfectly with your description of Genesis. It is merely the telling of a creation story, hence storytelling. How this is any more plausible than any other versions of creation storytelling is something you have yet to explain.