Why do theists reject evolution?

Yes we can. Mathematics potentially gives us a perfect tool for measuring everything to any degree of perfection. Our measuring instruments are not perfect, but that does not affect the workings of the universe, it affects our ability to measure everything. We seem to be able to measure most things and the term (universal mathematical) "constant" is recognition of a perfect universal function.

IMO, determinism is a result of perfect mathematical functions, based on extant relative values, no?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Completely ignoring the whole preceding chapter and first three verses of the one he did cite. You need to look up the word "context".

No higher source for understanding involved. Just no willful ignorance getting in the way. Since I can understand both science and the Bible, one has to wonder why you can't seem to understand the latter. When I explain it simply, most here, as demonstrated, refuse to accept it. And expecting an over 3,000 year old book to explain things in simple, modern terms is outright unreasonable.

No major religion would be what it is today by ignoring the practical necessity of first speaking to the people of the time. Again, expecting anything else is unreasonable.

Willful refusals to accept my simple answers are not my doing.

No men are perfect, but your idealism is cute.

You cannot dictate anything in a language the transcriber does not understand. Who say the Bible was "a reliable history book, biology book or science book"? I certainly didn't. And again, it seems wholly unreasonable to expect it to be.

Who insisted in literal translation? I certainly didn't, and I'd challenge you to show me where you imagine I did.

It also didn't mention Adam crapping or eating anything else, at all. So you'd have us believe he did neither of those either, huh? I don't believe people could live a thousand years. I think they counted years differently.

Again, it only says Adam named the cattle, birds in the air, and beasts of the field. It doesn't say the beasts in every field, nor insects, fish, etc.. So this argument contradicts your previous argument that what it doesn't say didn't happen.
I believe in evolution, which again, doesn't include abiogenesis.

No, it's just that most rational humans see other humans, intelligent with opposable thumbs, etc., as far more generally helpful than any animal. So that only makes me question your rationality.

Whatever you gotta tell yourself, huh?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I pointed out that the whole preceding chapter disagreed with the order listed in Genesis 2. That is the opposite of ignoring. Can't you read?

You. You insisted over and over that Genesis literally (not 'if you use your imagination,' not 'if you change it all around') supports evolutionary theory, and that anyone who disagreed was an ass, or had their head in a hole, or some other insult.

So either it literally does support evolution, or it literally does not and only supports evolution if you reinterpret it via your own formula to support evolution. Can't have it both ways.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yet you failed to know what the BB actually entailed...until of course I informed you, then you continued with your pretentious nonsense.

When you explained it??You mean when you preached your version, purposely misinterpreted to support the flagging matchsticks supporting your temple.

We look at you and Jan, and see that built in fear of the finality of death, to re-enforce the myths imagined by ancient people from ancient times.

Oh yes oh holy one! Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'll let you answer that first...

Once there was no life: then there was. All the elements that make up you and me and even Jan were forged in the belly of stars...Abiogenesis while we lack detail and exact methodology and whether Earth based or universally based, is the only scientific answer.
And any scientific answer is 100% better then any mythical dreamed up fabricated story.

 

You ignored the different between a chronological summary and a non-linear narrative.

No, I did not. I challenge you to show me where you imagine I ever said anything to the effect of "Genesis literally supports evolutionary theory". There's a big difference between "support" and "not contradicting". But I really don't expect you to understand the different at this point.

 

Just as you fail to understand the differences between unsupported myth, and science.

 

So you are interpreting the bible like everyone else? Do you have more qualifications to judge biblical truth than others?

You're right, there is no further mention at all of the Tree of Life. But then of what possible use would the creation of a tree of life be, which has no causal value to any living thing? It wasn't used by Adam, in fact apparently no one ever used the tree of life, except maybe an "immortal" jellyfish, which of course did never ate from the tree of life to begin with.
Adam did not eat from the tree of life or else he would have become immortal., but he did not surely die that day nor did any of his progeny die. In fact, were all still here aren't we?
Without Adam having had offspring the human race could never have evolved.

Are you suggesting that when something is not mentioned in the bible it may be assumed to have occurred anyway. Well, that's convenient for everybody....., I rest on my interpretation.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Ah! So now the Bible is a non-linear narrative when its order aligns with your agenda, and a chronological summary when its order does align with your agenda! Congratulations, you now join a long line of people who twist the Bible to suit their agendas, from creationists to papal Crusaders to witch burners. I am sure you will get along swimmingly.

 

Yes I understand however given the claims I would nevertheless expect a higher level of correctness and even perhaps morality...how do you think I fail to understand the Bible?
Alex

 

Since you're the only one who fails to grasp it's context, that would speak volumes of your reading comprehension skills.

 

You corrected a straw man no one here ever refuted or contradicted:

But no, you are scientifically illiterate if you really think that:

The Bing Bang occurred at time zero, with t=10^-43 seconds being the end of the Plank Era of quantum cosmology. You've muddled the two facts in your head. And the Big Bang doesn't tell us anything about the evolution of the universe. Inflationary cosmology does that. So not only have you failed to understand simple English, in the Bible, your attempts at science are laughable.

No, when I explained how simple English works. Too bad so many here are functionally illiterate.

And that is scientism. Just own your faith.

You've yet to justify that bare assertion.

There is no need to interpret what can be readily taken at face value. Literal interpretation means that you belief it actually happened as written. The two are not mutually exclusive.

There is no guarantee that eating form the tree of life once ensures immortality. It could just as readily require a regular diet from that tree, which is why God, in Genesis 3, posts an angel with a flaming sword to keep man away from it. See, you've simply abandoned all reason when reading it.

No, elements of Genesis 2 are introduce non-linearly, compared to chronologically, as they are needed in the narrative. No one said anything about the whole Bible. One has to only accept the context of the Gen 1 chronology to understand that Gen 2 is a narrative. But this appears forever beyond your comprehension. Just a victim of Dunning-Kruger bleating about the unawareness of your ignorance and projection.

And aliens could have already communicated with us. But if we lacked the ability to comprehend it, it's completely moot.

That's cute that you really seem to think argument ad populum is valid.

 

No strawman, only fact/s pertaining to your preaching, and which most here now support.
​

Your pretentious denial and lies impress no one. The BB pertains to the observable universe only....
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html
Let me add, that like most pretentious creationists, if you actually knew half as much as you pretend to know, you'd be a genius. Obviously percentage wise, its far less then that.

No that's just you, preaching your fire and brimstone as usual, and making out with your usual ad-homs, that you are so quick to accuse others of.

It's been justified a hundred times by others as well as myself. ID and any form of creationism and supernatural/paranormal nonsense is unscientific as well as nonsense, plus of course the explanatory nature of science, albeit still incomplete, shows any need for your sky daddy to be superfluous at best.

What a fraud you be!

 

Oh brother here we go again! Pot, kettle, black!!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

“There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, and science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works.”
― Stephen Hawking
And to repeat a previous post...a nice reminder as evidence to the preaching of this bloke and Jan also...
Definition of Vociferous:
Vociferous...."expressing or characterized by vehement opinions; loud and forceful"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Or this description/definition at...
https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ALeKk00ncS09_ZUE6R9kaYHxsQEFueQPHw:1590552691819&q=What is a vociferous person?&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwia1MTBltPpAhVp7nMBHbTcCZgQzmd6BAgOEAs&biw=1163&bih=554
"Vociferous derives from the word Latin vox, which means "voice." But other English words can be used to describe those who compel attention by being loud and insistent. "Vociferous" implies a vehement shouting or calling out, but to convey the insistency of a demand or protest, "clamorous" might be a better choice".
So by his own words, a self confessed loudmouth?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Proves my claim that he is simply here to preach to us evil bastards!
Ahh yes quite appropriate methinks....loud and forceful, without any substance.

 

Ah, so you have gone from "you can't understand simple English" to "you have to read it non-linearly and reinterpret it to get it to make sense." Sounds like you are confused.

Perhaps if you learned a little more about the Bible you'd understand it a little better? It's great that you can admit that you're no Bible scholar, but perhaps you'd be open to improving your understanding?

I will take that as a "no" then.

 

Have they? What's your evidence?
You have nothing to say and you say it...anyways your response is insufficient to keep me interested..bye bye
Alex

 

Prima Facie

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie

 

Faith does not need that sort of nonsense.
Can you imagine a prosecutor getting up and saying to the court..I have faith that the defendant is guilty I rest my case.
I would love me to see some believer convicted with the prosecution using what believers consider good evidence.
Anyways what can you do..they have no idea and twist and wiggle, anything at all, to convince themselves they have not been conned.
I am over it.
Alex

 

That's a good point, it might not be your reading comprehensions skills, but instead, your lack of honesty. Well spotted.

 

“Believe” being the operative word.

And you know this... how?

How do you know the pope is a theist?
I’m okay with evolution.
You accept an extrapolation, which has no evidence to support it.

In stripped down, real terms; Two men from the same organisation accept the lie of darwinism. So what?

Why single them so out.
The whole thing stinks.