Why do theists reject evolution?

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

  1. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    Poor paddo is reduced to "nuh-uh, you are!" Yeah, cognitive dissonance can do that to a person.

    Blind faith in science (scientism) refuses to accept that there may be other than scientific answers, even when we have philosophy, metaphysics, ethics, etc., all outside of scientific methodology.
    IOW, you're just proving my point. Thanks.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    I don't know about that ...it seems to me, and I generalise, that creationists present their case as a matter of fact...
    Surely life is the result of a chemical process there is no other answer.
    Of course the universe could be eternal and life has always existed.
    Alex
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    I don't have blind faith in science and actually think the Big Bang is not necessarily the correct interpretation of observation and apparently some of its predictions have not been observed ... But I recognise it is the best model we have to date.
    I prefer to admit I really don't know although given the absence of evidence I really don't see any necessity to insert a made up intelligence to answer a question best answered with "I really do not know".
    I personally like the idea that the universe is eternal.
    Alex
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    Of course. Blind faith in science got us the printing press, the airplane, the nuclear reactor, the atomic bomb, the computer, the internet and the satellite. Blind faith in religion got us the Crusades, the Inquisition, 9/11, and justifications for genocide and slavery.

    Blind faith in either one is bad. Blind faith in religion is a bit worse.
     
  8. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    Yes, that seems unlikely atheists would conflate abiogenesis with evolution as their arguments for creationism. It's really quite simple to understand evolution is change in living things while abiogenesis is life from non-life. But since you say there are many examples, it shouldn't be that difficult to produce a few, would it?

    If life didn't come from non-life, then life would have to be eternal, existing forever, long before the Universe existed. How is that possible?

    That's an ignorant thing to say. Ignoring the magical creation of life from Scriptures, it's obvious life would have to come from non-life, that is the logical conclusion. The fact scientists have yet to pin point with a high degree of accuracy that exact process, it doesn't mean they haven't figured out what that process would entail based on the evidence they do have.

    That's all complete rubbish. Can we conclude you are a Creationist?

    You're certainly insulting our intelligence while lying about what atheists think and say.[/quote][/quote]
     
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    And there we go again ladies and gents! Upset at being confronted with the truth of being nothing more then a hypocrite like his two partners in crime that also have taken that hypocritical and dishonest approach, in an effort to boost their sky daddy of choice.
    Other "scientific answers" all outside of scientific methodology??
    Thanks Voci old son for proving my point...we can now add another "quality" of confusion to hypocritical and dishonesty.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    Being sure of what they believe they "know" is not the same as claiming it a fact. Again, denying any but scientific answers is blind faith.


    No, human ingenuity and discovery got us all those technological advancements. Blind faith is not involved in actually producing things or having actual evidence. Blind faith in science got us things like Nazi eugenics. You know, justifications for genocide and slavery.
     
  11. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    This is going in Word of the Day thread as well

    A sophomaniac is somebody who is inordinately proud of his intellect. If you were a sophomaniac, you would not be as smart as you thought you were

    *****

    Pantomath. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. A pantomath is a person who wants to know and knows everything

    The word itself is not to be found in common online English dictionaries, the OED, dictionaries of obscure words, or dictionaries of neologisms.

    *****

    neologism

    noun

    a new word or expression or a new meaning of a word

    Full Definition

    1 : a new word, usage, or expression

    2 : Psychology a new word that is coined especially by a person affected with schizophrenia and is meaningless except to the coiner

    Google sophomaniac and Miriam-Webster

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    Absolutely..I see that as a problem but I don't think faith is the appropriate description for the approach using science..I think confidence is appropriate. I am confident evolution is correct it is not that I have faith it is that I am confident the evidence supports the idea..certainly there is no alternative to evolution that explains the various mass extinctions for example.
    Alex
     
  13. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,634
    Nope. Human ingenuity alone got us our great artists. Human ingenuity as harnessed by science got us those developments. Science is the framework that allows us to create, test and validate theories about how the universe works. Without that we go nowhere.

    Let's look at one example above. The Wright Brothers would not have been able to build anything had they not studied the progress of the inventors before them. They would not have been able to build anything without the foundations laid by Bernoulli, who used the scientific method to hypothesize, test and validate his models of fluid dynamics. They would not have been able to build anything without years of hypothesizing, testing and validating themselves. While everyone remembers their first flight, few people know about the years they spent first building, then using wind tunnels to validate their theories about airfoils.

    If they had just decided to apply their "human ingenuity and discovery" without the framework of science, they would have produced nothing. They would have been known, at best, as competent bicycle repairmen.

    Of course it is. Blind faith in science gives you the atomic weights of atoms; actual evidence of the composition of matter. No need for religion or morality or art. Blind faith in science gets you things like airplanes and reactors (good things overall) and Sarin and atomic bombs (which you could easily classify as bad, and many people do.) Applying morality to those inventions is necessary when it comes to their use, of course - but is not required for their discovery.

    Make no mistake; it was "blind science" that developed them to begin with.
     
  14. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    And you don't think believers have any confidence in their beliefs? That their experiences don't bolster that confidence? What is evidence, generally (not just scientifically), but an accumulation of experience?
     
  15. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    I don't think I said that...I am sure they have confidence else they could only be dishonest.
    There is all kinds of evidence but I think a reliable guide to it is that which is accepted in law.
    Alex
     
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    A better judge of the character [or lack thereof] of Vociferous, is his choice of handle...
    Vociferous: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vociferous
    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. You could also use "strident" to suggest harsh and discordant noise in a protest, or "obstreperous" to imply loud, unruly and aggressive resistance to restraint. But someone who is noisy and turbulent due to high spirits rather than dissatisfaction might more aptly be called "boisterous."

    https://www.google.com/search?q=Vociferous:&oq=Vociferous:&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i58.1230j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
    expressing or characterized by vehement opinions; loud and forceful.
    ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
    Sounds like your local fanatical pastor or priest preaching fire and brimstone?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    Yes but you have to admit there is a softer side using a photo of his great great grandfather for his avatar.
    Alex
     
    paddoboy and Michael 345 like this.
  18. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    And he seems to be laughing..you can tell be the eyes.
    Alex
     
  19. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Avatar does have that impression

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    paddoboy likes this.
  20. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    I may be related as I have fangs not as long but similar ..dentists always comment upon them.
    Alex
     
  21. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    I had a tooth extracted a couple of years ago, and they had an arsehole of a job digging and chipping away at it to remove it...my roots were the deepest they had ever seen.
    When you literally have a bloke with a chisel in your mouth, a foot on your chest, heaving twisting away, best to close your eyes and go to sleep!!
     
  22. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    Then "blind faith" applies equally to scientism.

    So, whatever 12 jurors will accept.
     
  23. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    I can agree with you in the context that there are leaders ( thinkers) and followers (non thinkers).
    Absolutely not.
    The rules of evidence are well set out...the one that will cause religion problems are those that reject heresay...think about that for a while and the reason why such rules are in place.
    Alex
     

Share This Page