Why do theists reject evolution?

Exactly.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nope. Only 30% of Christians accept evolution. Of the remainder, about 40% believe in intelligent design and the remaining 30% believe in Biblical creation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Which God placed places humanity first and how do we know?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Theists claim that God is much older than the BB, but at the same time claiming that Genesis is much younger than the BB.
How does that work? In the trash can it goes?

 

OK, enlighten me.
What part of Darwinian evolution do theists reject, whereas the Papal Academy of Sciences have conceded that Darwinian evolution is true and proven? Do you object to the Vatican joining science in this respect?

 

That's good to hear I guess they gained a deeper understanding from seeing the dog to whale video ...did you show your mates?
More importantly Jan are you surviving lock down ... Hope it's all.good.

Alex

 

Not too good with the chemistry of amino acids yet I came across this https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/tagish-lake-meteorite-amino-acids-1.5575820
"It actually changes its weight throughout the year. You can see the weight change through the summer because it's absorbing water, and it's [so] porous I could crush it in my hand because it's a very light, fluffy weird rock."

I want a 4.5 billion year old meteorite too! The article said that only 4% of meteorites found are like it and it could give clues as to the origin of life.

 

The US.

Interestingly, if they are asked "evolution vs creation" initially, then 31% choose creationism. If they are asked "intelligent design" vs "standard evolution" vs "creationism" then only 18% choose creationism, and 33% accept evolution. This, IMO, highlights the "safety valve" provided by intelligent design. Otherwise-intelligent people, when confronted with a choice between science and religion, will more often that not choose science. But when presented with a choice that allows a compromise position, they more ofteen choose a compromise that allows them to both express their understanding of science and their religious beliefs.

https://www.pewforum.org/2019/02/06...the-origins-and-development-of-life-on-earth/

 

Thanks for being another example of someone who thinks evolution directly contradicts creation.
It doesn't. Only abiogenesis contradicts creation, and evolution doesn't necessitate abiogenesis.

 

No, we don't. We have evidence of chemical/protein precursors to life, but zero evidence of life itself coming from matter. Otherwise, it would be reproducible.

Seems you're projecting, as it's clear you don't understand the results. Just blind faith in scientism. "We'll know it's science...eventually!!"

 

It directly conflicts the Biblical story of creation, yes. Man was not created in toto from dust. The first woman was not created from one of Adam's ribs. Birds did not come into being after mankind. Intelligence did not evolve due to eating a fruit off a tree. We know this due to centuries of science.

That as well.

 

No, nonsense. Nature has had 13.83 billion years to facilitate the emergence of life from non life.
And in the many periods of time since that life did emerge, and evolve into what we call humanity today, there have been numerous moments when science has been deliberatley hamstrung and forbidden....ancient man before science...the periods around the middle ages and the inquisition when the church forbade any progress that in any way threw doubt on any magical spaghetti monster or similar creature.
And of course speaking of being reproducible, please show me where any creature matching the properties you assign to a creator or IDer, can be reproduced, or for that matter, any evidence of it ever existing.

 

No, it doesn't, and it takes a pretty serious misunderstanding of evolution to think it does. Evolution is about the development of later species from earlier ones, not the origin of the first lifeform. Many Christians and all Jews don't take the Biblical story of creation to be literal. But people like you sure do enjoy using it as a straw man.

That only.

You know, if I were an atheist/materialist/etc. being schooled on such basic science by a theist, I would be awfully embarrassed. But then, Dunning-Kruger would likely preclude me from every being able to realize as much. Ignorance must be bliss.

 

The only blind faith is that shown by the generations of hand-me-down mythical stories without any real hard evidence, for any IDer or creator. Blind faith because many simply cannot, nor do not want to accept the evidence backed faith in the finality of death, with no sign of any mythical soul winging its way to any heaven or hell..

 

Aside from none of that even remotely refuting what I said (basically just whataboutism), everything after "nor do not" is made nonsensical.

 

It does more then refute all you have said, it also conveys the truth as to why such mythical nonsense still persists, despite science explicitly showing that any need for any creator or ID, is superfluous at best and just fairy stories at worst.
Your avoidance of those facts are now approaching that of Jan, who had threads closed because of such tactics and nonsense.

 

Whataboutism is not a refute. It's tantamount to just saying "you too" (tu quoque).
Your bare assertions don't offer enough to even warrant avoiding. Learn to make a justified argument instead of whining.

 

In that case it will be easy for you to answer a simple question. Did homo sapiens or birds come first?

Yes, I would. However, I am not.

Like most Bible thumpers you seem remarkably ignorant of what is actually IN the Bible.

It directly contradicts the Biblical version of creation, as I have explained.

 

What are you on about?

The Bible doesn't say birds came after man. You're really showing off your ignorance today.

This from the guy who just claimed the Bible said man came before birds. Way to embarrass yourself, without any help from a theist at all.

All you've explained is how your own ignorance is so broad that you embarrass yourself on evolution and the Bible. Again, Dunning-Kruger is working overtime.