Why do theists reject evolution?

So you are too lazy to look it up for me...and you say that I am lazy...well look at you.

Yes I learnt to do that from observing the various theists post here. Make up what you like believe who ever... Evidence is so cumbersome isnt it.

Like godism?

Yes and I blame you for providing so much evidence of God that I find myself hopelessly insecure...I am so angry I can't stop laughing.
But you seem like a nice chap..that's why I go easy on you...

Thank you for your reply I admire the fact that you did not sidestep or ignore the question....and it sounds reasonable in fact.
You have reached the first level of enlightenment.. where shall I send your pointy red hat?
Nice talking with you as always have a great day.
Alex

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

As I told paddo, "uh-uh, you are" is just silly.

The difference is that I have the intellectual honesty to admit it's just belief. You keep trying to pretty it up with words like "confidence".

Go check that again. It wasn't addressed to you.

It's not admirable, it's just intellectually honest.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Is not.

Well I will put a star on your pointy red hat...and I do think there is indeed value in self recommendation...please tell me about all the good points of your character...I have all day.

Am not.

Opened by mistake? Sorry.

I insist that being intellectually honest is admirable.

Must go

Alex

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Should be the default, especially on a science forum. Too bad it ain't.

 

Generally of course totally applicable to the creationists/IDers and other God botherers.

 

Not as much as atheists, who tout reason and objectivity, which are two ingredients of intellectual honesty. Intellectually dishonest creationists thus at least avoid being hypocrites to boot.

 

You have your head in the sand, weighed down by all that baggage...Atheists, generally via reason and objectivity, see those same qualities in science....And subsequently, and obviously, are then able to see the lack of objectivity and reason from creationists and IDers, as well as the hypocrisy to boot.
We have pages and pages of that from the three currently conducting crusades at this time.

 

That is my point. That's what makes them hypocrites when they aren't intellectually honest.

You keep saying "uh-uh, you are", without the least bit of justification. Here, you offer no reason to think creationists are hypocritical. Seemingly just trying to distract from your own.

 

You don't have a point worth considering, other then the usual obfuscation and dishonest interpretation.

Uh uh, you are actually saying it, and as usual trying to distract from whatever it is you are trying to distract from, which obviously has no substance anyway.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Want to try again?
Or perhaps discuss it with Kavic.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Lol, it's cute that you think you're intellectually honest.

 

Do me a favor. Let's see if you can even define intellectual honesty. You can even cheat and use Google.

 

Why would a thiest reject evolution?

There is no moral ground to reject evolution. It does not interfere with virtue nor neglect a Godly design.

Theologically it only interferes with origin stories. So far as I know no origin story has been directly given to man by God. And even if a story were so sanctimonious no religious story has ever presented evidence against the types of change evolution provides.
It is not blasphemous nor will evolution cause me to sleep with my neighbors wife... I did the latter because her husband treated her poorly and I didn't know she was married.

 

I'd wager you had to cheat and look up the word 'honest'.

 

I will wager further that at some point he will attempt to redefine it so he can claim he is honest.

 

Good question. Many do because it conflicts with the Biblical story of creation. But for those who knows where the Genesis stories came from it's clear that there is no real conflict, because the Genesis stories are just two concatenated (and unrelated) oral traditions, no more literally valid than much of the rest of the Bible.

Well, it does show that God did not create mankind as described in Genesis, and many religious types have a problem with that. But if you believe something like "well, God didn't have anything directly to do with it, he just set this one cosmological constant" (or equivalent GooG theory) then I agree - there's no interference.

Holy tangents batman!

But if you want to make it related - the reason you slept with her was (partly) due to lust, a drive provided to you by evolution in order to make procreation more likely and therefore more effective from an evolutionary standpoint.

 

So, your cognitive dissonance couldn't even bear to look up what "intellectual honesty" means.

You wouldn't know it is it bit you in the ass.

No, it really doesn't. 2 Peter 3:8

No, it really doesn't. Only abiogenesis would conflict with creation, not evolution.

 

I wouldn't say "conflicts with" I would say completely annihilates
any form or need of some magical creator or IDer. Plenty of evidence for Abiogenesis, so much so, and taken with the fact that it is the only scientific answer, it stands as a scientific fact...The methodology is being researched as we speak.

 

2 Peter 3: "For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance."

So we get two things:

1) That the claim that the entire Earth was covered with water in Noah's time, which we know is false.
2) That one day is a thousand years when you are with the Lord. So it was not seven days of creation from nothingness to man; it was seven thousand years. Which is just as wrong.

So where did women come from? And which came first - cattle or mankind? Surely these should be easy questions for a guy who claims there are no conflicts.

 

No:
1) "the world that then existed" was the known world of the writer. IOW, a regional flood would have sufficed.
2) A thousand years is an example, from people who likely couldn't fathom millions or hundreds of millions of years.

Again, Jews know Genesis is not literal, and you'll continue to ignorantly see inconsistency regardless anything I say, as you've amply proven last time you brought this up.

 

I LOVE it! You post a quote from the Bible saying "one day is as a thousand years" then you immediately say that's wrong, they were too stupid to describe the actual number - and you use this as proof that the Bible doesn't contradict science! Because they contradicted science but were too ignorant to know it!

What we are seeing here is the latest in several pitiful attempts to twist the Bible to say what an extremist wants it to say. You're in good company - that's been going on for at least a thousand years now.

So you cannot even answer the simplest questions about the Bible - and you call me ignorant. You are a perfect Trump supporter.