Why do theists reject evolution?

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Xelasnave.1947, Apr 11, 2020.

  1. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    "You might well be "using the Bible" to wipe your ass, for all the actual comprehension you seem capable of applying to it." - Not something posted by someone who is calm and rational.
    Good for you! Now let's see if you can take the next step.

    You have already pointed out one contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. There are many more; consider where cows appear in both stories. (And no, you can't claim that God planted 'cow seeds' to explain that one away.) You've admitted you are no Biblical scholar. So what's your next step?
    You have discovered another discrepancy between the two stories. Again, how do you educate yourself from here?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    I thought your avatar gave it away.
     
    exchemist likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    Your presentism hinders your comprehension. In the age and culture it was originally written for, there was no ambiguity. And understanding that context, removes any for the reasonably intelligent. Books, of any kind, are written by men, no matter how they may be inspired. Men are not known for perfection, much less the kind of premonition it would take to make it plain for you, this long after it was written, or clarity among the verbosity it would no doubt require to both explain modern references to ancients and vice versa.


    Genesis 1:11&12a:
    "Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds."​
    And Genesis 2:5, 8, & 9a
    "Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground"
    "Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food."​
    The full context is all there, for anyone competent who has read the Bible. I can only fault a lack of basic English comprehension or downright willful ignorance for any confusion over this simple text.


    See the reply to Michael, immediately above.
    Assuming you really don't know how to look it up for yourself, sixth day.
    1. Become mortal that same day, hence "surely/certainly" die.
    2. Genesis 2:9 says nothing about God keeping Adam from eating of the tree of life.
    3. "And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him." (KJV) That's a lot less than "several million species". Nor does it say what God was looking for what animal might "strike his fancy" or "please him". Animals are not as good of "helpers/help meets" as other humans.

    Again, either a lack of basic English comprehension or downright willful ignorance on display here.


    One verse, without context, is called cherry-picking.

    Since when are so many so prudish over the word "ass"? I thought atheists would appreciate the allusion, seeing how they seem to have such contempt for the Bible.

    Yes, I know. You're so afraid of upsetting your apple cart that you wouldn't dare look up any Christian commentaries to find the board consensus of the interpretation. Don't worry, no one can force you to. But neither can you force anyone to take your silly arguments seriously. They just fly in the face of basic English comprehension.

    So you don't understand the difference between a chronological summary and a detailed narrative either, huh? I can't really say I'm surprise at this point. Carry on.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    I have no problem with you using the word "ass" - it's a great way to express your anger. And if you can express it here rather than in real life, you are doing society a favor.
    And you don't even understand the origin of the very material you are trying to defend. A pretty glaring oversight, no? Again, perhaps take the next step in your understanding, rather than retain a fixed and illusory belief in your intellectual superiority.
     
  8. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    So, you never use the word "ass" except in anger?
    If you erroneously projecting yours on me is the pressure-relief you require, I'm happy to provide it in this safe environment.

    Bare assertions against me quoting the source and explaining the historical context is obviously unfair to you.
     
  9. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    If you are using it in a sexual way - thanks, but not interested. Perhaps find another ape?
    Nope. You keep on believing that Genesis is self-consistent and doesn't contradict evolution, and give David and Justin my regards.
     
  10. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    Billvon used three verses to make his point, all of which were in context. You simple failed to make your argument, everyone knows it so you accused him of cherry picking. Now, you're lying about how many verses he used.

    Your avatar is fierce but your words are weak. The dog barks but the caravan passes.
     
    Xelasnave.1947 likes this.
  11. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    So it is my problem..I should have known.
    However I must protest...I seem to comprehend little things like the Scientific method to some small degree commensurate with my standing as a lay man, and I can follow the directions on the box of all my toys...nevertheless your higher understanding of stuff no doubt comes from a higher source than mine so I must accept that you must grab for any tool in your box to discredit my reasonable request for simple answers.
    Well I wonder if that could be the case ...how could we know. I wonder if interpretation was made by folk other than those other than who could read.
    I still don't see how your reply addresses my question in the least. I suppose you would dismiss the reference to slavery as something merely relevant to those past times but it would seem that the inspiration from a timeless entity was limited to a specific narrow era which again seems ungod like.
    Well the unintelligent may think that any god message may be somewhat timeless and written in a manner that the unintelligent could expect would be understood through out all times.
    And although your use of such a tactic does not address my unintelligent question to my satisfaction but suggests you really don't have an answer that one could take home and hang on the wall.
    I disagree..our science is perfect evidence that men can be exactly perfect. Think of the various manuals and procedure lists for things like say the Space program or the military or even a mission statement for any with it corporation seeking to identify where they are coming from or where they are going to...I suppose if you confine your assessment to those men involved as authors to any scripture your observation of imperfection will carry much weight but of course men have written mountains of sensible material outside mere scripture.
    Mmmm this seems to support my case.
    I guess my expectations that a god could dictate a better book, rather range of books, is unwarranted...
    Now look I like the Old Testament for what it is and I can see what it is ..but it is not a reliable history book, biology book or science book.

    You should discuss this with Jan.

    Alex
     
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Good try. No cigar. If you insist on literal translation, that is not what it says.
    It also says nothing about Adam eating from the tree of life (a potentially important historical fact), therefore condemning him to mortality and of course man was created mortal to begin with, making the tree of life an empty pipe dream. If you believe that people potentially could live a thousand years (give or take) you are of course mistaken.
    Well you are wrong. "Current estimates for the number of species on Earth range between 5.3 million and 1 trillion". If you do not believe in evolution where did all those NEW species come from?
    Right and that's why none of them struck Adam's fancy as help meets. No wonder, early horses (the help meet of humans) were as big as a dog.
    Perhaps that was a poor translation and should have read "help mate".
    These are not verbatim quotes, they are analyses of the negative implications contained in the scripture.

    You justify and interpret biblical scripture to suit your perspective, using only the positive implications contained in the narrative. Note that in your analysis you also use words which are not contained in the bible. You cannot have only interpretations that strike your fancy and objecting to the same right enjoyed by the critical reader. Objective analysis is a neutral labor, you don't get to pick only the declarations and their implications that suit you.

    The skeptics' perspective is drawing attention to the negative implications of scripture. When you literally unpack the statements contained in the bible, it reveals the lack of basic comprehension or downright ignorance on the part of the authors OF the bible.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2020
  13. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    The question is fallacious:

    If God is perfect, or infinite, as such, then God necessarily defies the boundaries of mortal, finite, imperfect comprehension.​

    There does exist a low-hanging temptation for retort, to remind that one thinks to play by some religious person's rules, but, generally speaking, that does not actually turn out to be what is happening. Playing by the religious person's rules, or some general semblance thereof, includes, especially in the Biblical context, that God transcends human comprehension. The imperfections in earthly representations of God's word, then, become a question of human frailty.

    Meanwhile, more responsible skepticism would arrive at a similar point about human frailty, according to the historical record and rational consideration thereof.

    Moreover, the proposition that, "mere mortals can express themselves clearly un ambiguously and factually and prepare books with no errors", is also subject to human frailty. Quite frankly, if we rely so confidently on our own perceptions of unambiguous, error-free, factual presentation, we will inevitably be surprised, and probably even horrified, by the magnitude of bungling that human beings have shown themselves capbable of accomplishing. It is also true that I might even agree with the assessment that what you say is not ambiguous, erroneous, or fictitious, yet we could find ourselves presented with a question of whether I should be surprised and horrified alongside you, or simply shrug and wonder what else you could possibly have expected.°

    Because we've never seen that version of the trick.

    (Did it not occur to you that you could, in fact, see Superman in discussion with Clark Kent°°, except both of them, as such, are smarter than that?)
    ____________________

    Notes:

    ° Think of the Requerimiento. No matter how unambiguous de Narvaez thought he was being, the first time his expedition presented the Requerimiento, the locals ignored the newly-arrived, shouting strangers as much as they could. Some years later, when a local, working as a scout, presented the Requerimiento to a tribe in the southwestern United States, on behalf of a conquistador, he did so in the tribal language, instead of Latin. Don't get me wrong, this wasn't the first time someone figured the vernacular solution, but that only makes the moment all the more puzzling, as the locals responded approximately as any reasonable person might expect, by pelting the conquistador with stones, even knocking him off his horse. Or, as one prominent American historian explained, "Poor Coronado!" We might wonder, was Coronado stupid, or actually sinister? How much can those conditions be the same thing?

    °° If I am wrong, it would be if that particular aspect of Superman's power is noncanonical, but if I've never heard of its exclusion as such, there is no reason why I would necessarily be aware; I don't follow those discussions closely. Additionally, it seems worth noting that within cult of fandom, some of what is noncanonical is simply noncanonical. This is also an important consideration when analyzing religious cult, creed, and code.
     
    Vociferous likes this.
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    I would often as others did also, remark on Jan's "ability" to redefine words and texts, to misinterpret, to lie, to be hypocritical, to play dumb, to be obtuse. The same qualities exist with this current clown.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    As Alex remarked, Superman and Clark Kent in the same room/asylum.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    I agree with the logic but it makes an a priori assumption that God exists and that is also a fallacious and questionable assumption. I can think of many abstract conditions which defy human comprehension. Sci Fi is full of them. The stories of Perseus and Beowulf are very popular too. That does not mean these characters exist or ever existed in reality.

    Personally I like an abstract Mathematical essence to the universe and interestingly, mathematical functions such as Evolution, based on the mathematically causal probability dynamics of the interaction of patterns with relative values, are perfectly demonstrable.

    When in doubt about evolution, who are you gonna call for enlightenment, Darwin or God?

    What I do believe is that each person is the God of their own human biome, but no one is God of all.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2020
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Also its interesting how our friend uses a photo of one of his ancestral cousins as his Avatar, and using the handle "Vociferous" which I must admit whose meaning I was not aware of...until now.
    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!


    Ahh yes quite appropriate methinks....loud and forceful, without any substance.
    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!
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2020
  17. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Precious.....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    The proposition pertained to a Biblical presupposition of the existence of God:

    I would ask you this..if mere mortals can express themselves clearly un ambiguously and factually and prepare books with no errors why is it that the Bible is ambiguous, a poor factual account and contains many errors given that it is in effect the word of God...could we not expect perfection?

    (#298↑; boldface accent added)
     
    Write4U likes this.
  19. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    No doubt it could not be the fault of any god..well not the god of the West from the Middle East...now if a Greek god we can measure faultit seems...again it is me I know it as here is me thinking that if a god took his presumably precious time to inspire a mere human that he would do it with a god competence such that the recipient would be well programmed to not get one single thing incorrect or indeed introduce any mortal's misunderstanding such that it would not be entirely clear that this which is written must no doubt be inspired by God.

    Sometimes I think that Theists think they have all the answers ..God plan etc...one could ask how do they know so much yet so little, how they exhibit such knowing and yet find the difficult questions can be best answered by placing a dead end sign on any road one mistakes to leading in the direction of truth. It's like talking to a great salesman who presents his product as perfect and a simply must have..give me a break.

    That is a pearler...give with one hand and take away with the other...now where did this start? What was my presumably irresponsible skepticism..is this the start? where I merely no doubt in ignorance of some mystersism my pea brain would be unable to manage...this? And I quote myself ..one rarely has such a pleasure...I said...
    "I would ask you this..if mere mortals can express themselves clearly un ambiguously and factually and prepare books with no errors why is it that the Bible is ambiguous, a poor factual account and contains many errors given that it is in effect the word of God...could we not expect perfection?"

    Yes that would be it...irresponsible to ask those simple childlike questions that would bring down the entire house of cards if not redirected and turned upon the one perhaps pointing to absurdity which could be clearly seen if there were ever a genuine attempt to answer these very simple questions...but it's ok I expected nothing less ..never ask a question unless you know the answer..well sort of..but hey one day just something different like maybe that god if after all just made up by ancients simply trying to create great stories for campfire entertainment and lay in there some sort of guidelines goat herders may benefit from and some sort of guide lines for decent conduct ..and if it was no more the question could be asked as to why it is treated as more and myths becomes real.

    Only for the purpose of accomodating the problems I hint at...now you are a mere mortal, of course more than mere but you get my drift, if in another place I suggested that you could not express yourself in a very competent manner I would be very disappointed if you accepted that incorrect conclusion...now you will not suggest that such ability is possessed by only one human..namely you..or will you?

    There is no validity in trying to pass the blame to humans in general or the unintelligent in specific..it is the standard response but heck I just want a little more...

    You tell me.
    Maybe it's like the ancient Eygiptian gods where when one exercised the powers of the other it became the other...maybe each have the same sourse of inspiration...who knows...we can only guess I guess.
    Alex
     
    Write4U likes this.
  20. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    My edit did not go thru???? Please forgive me and if something does not make sense that may be the way of it...if instead of is can be a deal breaker.
    Alex
     
  21. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Try some sincerity.

    Or, at the very least, reconsider your priorities:

    You're capitalizing, "Theists"?

    So, here's the ethical proposition to consider: If you do nothing, ten people will die on the trolley; if you throw the switch, it will kill someone working on the emergency track. If the douchebag you're working with decides to pray about it, are you going to argue about whether God exists, or complain about how he thinks he has all the answers, or will you actually apply the brake?

    More to the moment—

    —your childlike question is childish: First, it doesn't fucking matter what mere mortals can express compared to the infinitude or perfection of God; you simply cannot contain infinity within finite boundaries. That is, you are perfectly welcome to explain what finite number equals infinity plus one.

    Compressed data is necessarily incomplete.

    Right there is imperfection; it is introduced by the finity of the human mind, in receiving the communicated perfection. The answer to your question is that we cannot expect perfection according to any empirically affirmable standard.

    I am describing a logical result, not pandering to balbutive aesthetics.

    Maybe the missing edit is supposed to be in there.

    It is observable that no matter how unambiguous, factual, and error free we might presume ourselves, people still fail to understand. An offhand example might be this guy I know who gets confused by the word, "you", except I don't really believe him. To the other, I doubt the concept of putting effort into failing to comprehend would be so modern an innovation, but we need not waste our time on that. Meanwhile, once the plague has passed, get a roomful of atheists rarin' to prove something—or anyone else, but it might help to have politically sympathetic partners—and play the Telephone Game a few times.

    Additinoally, we might note that you are declaring the answer to your own question invalid, and it is not impossible for this to have been your point.

    Honestly, I just pay attention to the fucking story.

    1) Superman's powers are active even when his super suit is not visible.

    2) We have, before, witnessed multiple Supermans exercising physical effect in an environment; even Lois Lane fell for it.

    ∴ Clark Kent can manifest that same power and appear to be having a conversation with Superman, in the same place, at the same time. He would not do so for the reason that it does neither Clark Kent nor Superman any good to be seen hanging out with each other.
     
  22. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    You are unaware of my priorities and I would not have it any other way.

    I will be more careful in the future. Interesting that you should comment. No give them capitals they mean well.

    Well if childlike childish would seem appropriate and obvious.

    Firstly please do not upset yourself and resort to profanity. It is much better to find a suitable adjective or verb or noun than to be lazy and reach for the simple way out. You must know that.

    So you feel your reply explains away my question...well it has not. The question more simply put is in view of the involvement of this perfection why can we not see something of perfection in the "inspired works" ...oh wait I get it..the inspiration was perfect but it is those darn humans just messing it up...well given that continual stuffing up must be apparent to the perfect god, lets go with God, as that will keep so many people happy, you could understand why children, the particularly unintelligent ones, could ask "but couldn't God fix that situation and oversee the production of a perfect book"..that is what you could expect a kid to say who is ignorant of the higher level of understanding to know that such a question is just plain silly...well silly or not I would ask it.
    The proposition of this God being infinite raises another childish question..if infinite really why would it bother with one little group of humans when finite and infinite really just do not mix. By any standard the plot leaves much to be desired...I know I am too cynical to understand any of it..poor me.

    Probably more chance of me taking that on than to have my question reasonably addressed ...you know ..why the problem of getting the perfect inspiration in print...maybe your challenge is the easier of the two...but certainly there is a commonality there...no result can be expected I expect.

    I would have thought it's all there but just compressed Sortta like a zip file.

    Why not given God has a big interest apparently in the outcome... oh I bet he is kicking himself with that free will thing..it's free will isn't it...he can't correct a thing cause that would be going back on the free will to stuff up..got it.

    Yes so logical ..flawless... the perfection comes from the imperfection..got it.

    Sadly no.

    It was you..you must be the guy who said words to the effect..if you can't convince them with reason then baffle them with bullshit...or has what you wrote gone right over my head..yes that would be it..right over my head. Put me on the fail to understand list I am afraid even if a waste of time put me on that list thank you.

    Again do not get upset I won't participate if I cause you so much grief.
    I won't say another thing about any of it...just keep up the good work.

    Anyways we do seem to have drifted off topic.

    And maybe I missed it my thread is a failure as not one THEIST has explained why they reject evolution...the way I interprete the bible it says evolution was too complex to give to the ancient folk and that is why the inspiration was only delivered to Dawin at a time when humans were capable of the higher level of understanding required and the ability to recognise the evidence given to us in the fossil record. And no one say a thing as I am free willing it a bit I know but I know I am right cause, well I just know it.
    Alex
     
    foghorn and (Q) like this.
  23. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    What's hilarious is that Tiassa offered a reply a child would not even accept.

    "Daddy, why is the sky blue?

    It doesn't fucking matter why the sky is blue, eat your fucking oatmeal."
     
    Xelasnave.1947 likes this.

Share This Page