Why do theists reject evolution?

After being gone so long, one would expect you'd come up with something new, but you're just saying the same dumb things you've said before. At least have the fortitude to be an innovative troll.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

1) That wasn't me; you got it wrong again.
2) Whale evolution is a fact supported with a ton of evidence.
3) Only you think that evolution replaces God for atheists. There are plenty of people who believe in God who understand evolution as well - many scientists, for example.

You should not assume everyone shares your cognitive limitations.

They are, for the purposes of this discussion, identical.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

We have plenty of evidence for Darwinism evolution...That's called science.
You have absolutely no fucking evidence for any magical spaghetti monster or its equivalent.
And what has communism to do with Evolution?
Or is this simply more of the only source of debating style open to dishonest, ridiculous silly ignorant IDers and God Botherers ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Everybody believes in “evolution”, even you. How many times do you need to be told?

You missed out “homosexual priests”, any reason for that?

Unanimity doesn’t make it true.
It is not true that doggy types turned into whales.

 

You don’t, and it isn’t.

Spaghetti Monster, is atheist nonsense, like doggy types turning into whales.

Who said it did?
Darwinism on the other hand...

Just lil ole me opening your eyes

 

You believe it don’t you?

It has been deemed a fact. Not the same as “is a fact”.

I don’t think it does. It does.
Those people who accept darwinism as a fact, do not believe in God. Otherwise they could never entertain such a crazy idea as doggy types turning into whales.

More importantly, neither should you.

They’re not even alike, let alone identical.
Stop kidding yourself.

 

No factual on both counts, other then in the addled mind of some fanatical god botherer.

Partly correct actually...we have no evidence for any spaghetti monster, just as we have no evidence for any other mythical supernatural entity. hence my relevant analogy.

Again only in the addled brain of some fanatical religious nut.

And delusional to boot.

 

Ignoring the ravings of religious ratbags, spewed more for effect then anything else, dogs and whales and Jan and the grubby grubs I dug up in my veggie garden today, all have the same ancestor.
Jesus fucking Christ! that means we are related Jan!!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1103713/

Why Intelligent Design Isn't Intelligent:

As an evolutionary biologist, I am always somewhat vexed by the appearance of each new book aimed at refuting creationism and antievolutionism. After all, evolution is the central unifying principle of biology, and it is a well-established component of mainstream scientific thinking. I don't see cell biologists constantly having to defend the cell theory or astronomers having to defend the heliocentric model of the solar system. (I do realize, of course, that there are “biblical astronomers” who do claim the Earth is at the center of it all, but even among creationists these folks are viewed as being on the fringe.)
more....................

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up

more.........................

 

Yes, you are alone in the wilderness.

It was irrelevant to the subject. You're just a muck raking, Trump loving rebel, aren't you?

Nor does it make you right.

Strange, I could swear I saw you turn into an ass, overnight at that..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Then you are a fool who does not accept reality.

I can think of several doctors and biologists who I know personally who believe in God and understand evolution (what you call darwinism.) Your inability to understand evolution does not change that fact.

They understand the process because they are intelligent enough to understand it.

 

Because it is quasi-intelligent.....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I see, the Catholic Church and the Papal Academy of Science don't believe in God. Holy crap, who'd have thought!!!

 

It seems that our confused friend Jan, believes he has some sort of argument invalidating Darwinism...probably of course at the bequest and direction/s of his overlords...he hasn't of course.
Darwinism and Evolution, like GR and the BB, go together comfortably like a finger in a bum!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

or a hand in a glove.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

the following describes the differences and why they do by necessity, go together as described in the preferred way of the reader, and as noted in the previous paragraph.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

https://pediaa.com/difference-between-darwinism-and-evolution/#:~:text=The main difference between Darwinism,evolution, which results in speciation.
some extracts:
Difference Between Darwinism and Evolution:

The main difference between Darwinism and evolution is that Darwinism is a theory of evolution based on natural selection whereas evolution is the change in the genetic composition of a population over successive generations. Darwinism describes organic evolution, which results in speciation. But, evolution is driven by natural selection, gene flow, genetic drift, inbreeding, hybridization or mutation.

Darwinism and evolution bring phenotypical changes in the individuals of a particular population with time. Both occur in response to the long-term changes of the environment.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Darwinism refers to the theory of evolution of species by natural selection advanced by Charles Darwin. Natural selection is one of the main mechanisms that drive evolution.

Similarities Between Darwinism and Evolution

• 
  
  
  • Darwinism and evolution bring changes to a particular population.
  • Both occur in response to the long-term changes of the environment.
  • Each and every population on the earth undergoes Darwinism and Evolution.
  • Extension or death is the result of both.
  • Extension leads to speciation.

Conclusion
Darwinism is the theory that describes the proceeding of evolution by means of natural selection. Evolution is the process that gives rise to phenotypical changes within a particular population due to the long-term changes of their environment. It occurs through natural selection, gene flow, genetic drift, inbreeding, hybridization or mutation. This is the difference between Darwinism and evolution.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

Yours is a detailed, good quality, but potentially misleading post. A couple of examples:

• Darwin's own views changed (in some cases vacillated) over time. Thus he placed varying weights on a role for some form of Lamarkism.
• He definitely recognised the existence of evolutionary mechanisms other than natural selection.
• One thing his opus, On the Origin of Species, did not not do was to document the process of speciation.

I think a more measured comparison would be to say that Darwinism was the first effective attempt to describe the means by which evolution occurs, while elements of the theory have been incorporated within the Modern Synthesis (which recognises population genetics, the role of mutation, evolutionary mechanisms, etc.) and developments thereof.

 

I agree that Darwin's Theory has been expanded and refined in several ways.

However, IMO, the concept of "natural selection" is fundamental to any theory of evolution. Natural selection of physical integrity, efficiency, and functionality already occurs in the chemical and mineral domains at molecular scale. It is part of the self-ordering search for mathematical functionality in the face of Necessity and Sufficiency.

Robert Hazen demonstrates this in his Carnegie lecture "Chance, Necessity, and the Origin of Life". (Youtube)

A wonderful example of "natural selection" may be found in the emergence of the Fibonacci Sequence in vertically growing objects.

Fibonacci, quasicrystals and the beauty of flowers
John Gardiner*
Author information Copyright and License information Disclaimer

Abstract;

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3578919/

 

Nice, I can live with that..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I agree and did not say anything to the contrary. If you point me to the ambiguity in my post that led you to think so I shall amend or retract it.

I don't see this necessarily as an example of natural selection, since it may have been inevitable. Selection on the other hand involves choice from a set, some of which may not be selected. Can you explain your thinking.

 

No need, I agree...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

IMO, every "functional" pattern we can observe is a result of evolutionary processes. It all started from chaos from which orderly and functional patterns emerged, by means of "natural selection" over time.

The Fibonacci sequence is no mere mathematical accident. It fills the required needs for efficiency in several growth patterns, such as the efficient organization of maximum number of seeds in a sunflower head.
Over time Nature favors those patterns which have gradually increased in mathematical complexity for the most efficient use of energy.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Sunflowers show complex Fibonacci sequences
By John BohannonMay. 17, 2016 , 7:15 PM

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/sunflowers-show-complex-fibonacci-sequences

IMO, the patterns arise in response to necessity of efficiency and the maximum number of surviving seeds in the new generation. It is a extended function of "natural selection" affording the greatest chance for succesful reproduction, but real life is messy and offspring is not always perfect in spite of the mathematical "guiding equations" in the DNA growth coding.

The occasional reproductive errors are often the deterministic factors for "natural deselection" (culling) offspring for everything. Farmers practice this type of natural selection intentionally. It just takes Nature longer as it is more probabilistically distributed and functions without intent.

p.s. Wireless communications now use the Fibonacci sequence in the production of the most useful antennas, with the greatest surface area and response to a large range of wave frequencies.

Natura Artis Magistra (Nature is the teacher of Arts, and Science).
Humans did not invent mathematics, Nature did and all we did was codify and symbolized it.