Why do theists reject evolution?

I like cage fighting, I see it as a contest of intelligence which so many folk find an unusual observation given that on the face of it there is this aspect of beating an opponent senseless..but you need to out smart the opponent is the way I see it..exploit the opponents weakness by being clever...kick him in the head when he is expecting a take down...nothing like a good kick in the head really..but they don't feel it cause they are professionals..they train to be kicked in the head..no doesn't hurt at all.

What I do like is the way most of them look up obviously as they pray and ask to be given victory..does this even make sense as I understand the teachings would seem to require that one turn the other cheek and in general not fight.
But they call in the Lord to give them victory..and when they win guess who they thank..no not the gym or their trainers or even themselves for working out so hard..you guessed it..the Lord.. could not have done it without him.

But something I did enjoy..so Kenny F is getting flogged and his brother between rounds, rather than suggesting a take down or concentrate on destroying the legs of the opponent gives the advice that the Lord will guide him and just trust in that..the Lord will tell you what to do....yeh Kenny was beaten to a pulp..no doubt failed to listen to the lord...I think we can only realise that the Lord must have seen that he was getting too cocky and needed a good flogging to inject some humility...really where do these folk get their marbles?

Maybe the Lord was saying..hey what about what I said about turn the other cheek and love your fellow man.
Maybe the Lord had fifty bucks on the other guy.
Sometimes I wonder..does the Lord even watch cage fighting.
Alex

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You can lead a theist to evidence but truely, so help me Flying Spaghetti Monster, it is not worth any effort trying to enlighten (rewire)

As a Nurse spent lot of energy looking after the physical body of brain damaged people, from trauma, while exhausting, had mostly rewarding outcomes. A traumatised brain seems to repair (rewire) to try and fit back to original wiring

Looking after physical body those in the psychiatric ward, different. Doctors did great job, via medication, to settle patients down to a level safe enough for a nurse to treat the body

Problem with the mental problems, you have almost no medication or instruments to rewire the brain

Frequently the body healed and the mental problem subdued enough for release from hospital. However a couple of days missed medication and defective circuits (frequently brain washed circuits) fire up again. Other circuits, such as those affected by, let's say self medication for non existent medical reasons

In other words self induced damage. In such cases it seems medical staff are turning down the effects of the damaged (or brain washed circuits). Lack of medication does not lead brain to replace damaged circuits with new, or fresh, circuits. Lack of medication turns the damped down effects of damaged circuits, back up to levels where the circuits again are in operation

As long as theist are not damaging their body or others or society in general best treat as a unruly child, with a large doses of ignoring

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are correct, at the risk of stating the obvious.
If I had a pet I would not need to bump my gums here...I could talk to the cat or the dog..there was this spider but it left...it is interesting how they just don't get it... It's like the guy waiting for fifty million from Nigeria the promise of reward just switched off reason...
Did you hear about that kid who got lost in the bush outside of Melbourne..they found him..two nights in the bush an he survived...yes another mirrrical...miracles what would we do without them...only because lots of folks were praying for him.
They say there is a sucker born every minute but I think that is way too conservative.
Alex

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

YES I did. Also one in Queensland

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

If you divorce faith from personal experience, you're not talking about faith at all. Just your own straw man.

Again, objections can only come after enough has been heard to have legal grounds to object so it can be sustained by the judge. IOW, the jury already heard the objectionable testimony. And having already heard enough, human nature dictates that you can't just order people to forget what they've heard or not be swayed by it. Those are the realities. And this is still your own straw man about faith being hearsay. Your arguments from obvious ignorance, no matter how often repeated, have no bearing on reality.

No one said your observations of the rules of evidence were bare assertions. I said that you claiming faith is hearsay or that hearsay can't have influence in court are claims you have done zilch to support.

Complete non sequitur.

Again, you're the one who claimed that legal standards of evidence somehow (unexplained) apply to human beliefs. If you don't like the direction of your own argument, abandon it.

You obviously lack knowledge of basic human nature, and you've made some serious legal errors from which you've tried to backpedal. All already clearly demonstrated in your posts, for anyone to read.

Seeing as evidence clearly doesn't support the steady state model, there does seem to be a measure of faith in your beliefs. There's plenty of religious believers who have faith in non-mainstream doctrines too. That doesn't, itself, absolve them or you from blind faith. See how the logic holds for both? Neat, huh?

No one said any science with ample evidence required any faith at all. I have clearly and repeated told you that scientism is blind faith that science will solve things without any current evidence. Like your faith in abiogenesis, without any evidence of life coming from the inanimate, just speculative sources for inanimate amino acids and proteins. So your objection here is just another of your own straw men.

Religious prophecy was give to people who had no way to comprehend more modern technology and events. Just like people believed in heliocentrism before we could comprehend better. But comparing religion with a rigorous methodology is a faulty comparison. Neither was ever meant to be or replace the other, except to those who believe in scientism. Faith is acceptance on personal experience. It's why most children burn themselves at least once. Being told isn't always compelling on its own.

Belief without scientific or demonstrable evidence is not belief without evidence. Most people take their own personal experience to be evidentiary.

Again, it's only your own faith that everything can be discerned through scientific or legal standards of evidence. That is clearly not the case, otherwise we wouldn't have whole branches of knowledge completely impervious to them. It's a false equivalency to compare the religious to alien abductees (which I agree are, at best, attention seeking). Theists compose ~80% of the world population.
BTW, no has dismissed the law or courts...another of your seemingly endless supply of straw men. Nor has anyone claimed that judges make spurious rulings, but perhaps you feel the need to poison the well.

Oh, I think we all get that you can't manage to apply simple logic to things you don't like. As I've told you before, a message that cannot be understood by contemporary man is a useless message. No cherry-picking. Just the simple understanding that things were different once and the Bible includes things like oral history as well as religious revelation.

Your presumptions are completely ignorant, which explains your copious straw men. Since I'm not a Christian, perhaps that explains why I know the Bible better than any atheist I've come across. I happen to know science better than most atheists too.

 

Cont...

You applying presentism makes the errors your own. I'm not here to give you Bible lessons, as only a fool would expect you to learn anything from them. I'm not here to upset your delicate apple cart. Just trying to get you to see the apples.

And? There's Christians who don't believe in the Trinity either. By your argument, the fact that they simply don't agree with the majority would make them less brainwashed. That just doesn't follow, for you or for them. Again, ad nauseam, it's your claims about stuff we have no evidence for, like abiogenesis, that mean you believe in scientism. Just like my belief in a God I cannot show indisputable evidence for means I'm a believer in theism. If there were no belief involved, they would be called "facts". You have nothing to support abiogenesis either. At least I'm intellectually honest enough with myself to admit where the line is between fact and belief. Your blind faith requires you to blur that line.

Lazy is as lazy does. You lazily presume a lot if you really believe I've not read the entire Bible nor studied comparative religion and religious history. That's your problem. Fitting things into a neat little story that fits your existing bias is not the least bit surprising. Again, just human nature. Maybe you should study some psychology, to round out your education a wee bit. Your laziness is in presuming I haven't heard such arguments, made with far more support than you offer, many times. There are no new or novel arguments against theism, and a very long history of addressing every one of them. Maybe you need to bone up on the history of religious philosophy too.

Clearly.

Everyone possesses the divine spark, no matter how much you may suppress or deny it.

There's very popular shows about zombies, dragons, autonomous androids, etc.. Are you seriously wanting us to believe that those aren't BS? You really believe they all exist?
What about comparing early sci-fi to what we know today? It's pretty silly, huh? Yeah, because that sci-fi wasn't written with today's knowledge or for today's audiences. Much of the Bible was written for largely agrarian people. Again, apply just a little reason.

If you think your bare assertions warrant rebuttal, that's your problem.

IOW, you have nothing. You like to bluster, but when push comes to shove you realize you can't actually back up your claims.
My invitation is genuine and still stands. If you think you can, show me where you imagine I've twisted or turned on any point.
Or just beg off, as you're obviously doing. But if so, have a modicum of intellectual honesty about it. With yourself, or not publicly.

Since I'm very open with the fact that I can offer you no evidence of God you'd accept, I'm afraid you're shit out of luck. You'll no doubt just keep making your faulty assumptions and straw men. Jesus never said he would return within the lifetimes of his disciples. In simple terms, he just said that they would not run out of places to flee persecution before his return, and they obviously have not.

The point is that you have to make a completely free choice, without anything to compel your decision.

Now you're just desperately backpedaling.

And I only claim to believe that God exists. Never said I know for a fact, because facts involve demonstrable evidence. How does that differ from you thinking abiogenesis is true, but not knowing? The fact that you say "we don't have the answer yet" and "no doubt in our life time life will be created in the lab" demonstrates your faith in scientism. You presume a source for the answer (scientific methodology), without evidence, just like any Christian citing the Bible.

No one but your own straw man claimed lack of scientific explanation inferred proof of any alternative. Any future scientific explanation is actually what makes the creationism falsifiable. Too bad you can't admit your belief in abiogeneis is falsifiable. After all, if you only accept scientific answers, how could you ever accept anything else. No possible alternative means it's not falsifiable, which is a hallmark of belief, not a proper hypothesis.

 

I get that.
The heresay is in relation to the stuff past that.
I think there is no question about hearsay as it relates to the whole deal.

Oh I see what you mean.

I was merely trying to inform you.

I think you have focused on a small aspect and neglect the aspect of hearsay in the story. If you think I am backpedaling go ahead but you would be wrong.

Yes neat.

You are so kind.

You are probably right.

What did he say?

Like what?

Nice post have a nice day.

Alex

 

And? Unless you have the expertise and have actually performed the experiments yourself, the vast majority of your personal knowledge of science is hearsay. Yes, you could have some scientist substantiate it, but you don't even have the expertise to differentiate between science and speculation. Hence you're distinction of hearsay is trivial. Now, you could substantiate it in principle, but so could a believer, by showing the many studies that correlate religious belief with higher reported happiness, longer life expectancy, more ethical behavior, etc.. IOW, it's accomplishing its purpose.

I think your trivial and narrow focus on hearsay neglects the vast majority of what constitutes religious belief and faith.

If you really knew as much about the Bible as you claim, you'd be able to find the relevant verses.

Philosophy, ethics, ontology, etc..

 

You know as much about science, as you chose to misinterpret, and imagine that as support for your mythical sky daddy.

Again, as detailed many times to others...the bible is an ancient obscure book, written by ancient obscure men, which suits people such as yourself. You then can interpret that to whatever you like.

While we all know that Darwinism and the theory of the evolution of life is fact, we are not sure of the exact methodology of Abiogenesis that started this life. Science is the only scientific answer/s to the mysteries of the universe, and it is composed of theories that explain according to the latest data. Those theories can be falsifiable.
Abiogenesis while being the only scientific answer to how life came to be, is not really one claim....it is composed of ideas and models as to how it came about....Earth based, Panspermia, etc, and exact methodologies involved, which are all falsifiable within that scientific discipline of Abiogenesis. Therefor the broader accusation by you that Abiogenesis is not falsifiable, is not applicable, as at this time we simply do not have a viable model for it that can be made falsifiable.

You're simply shitty that being the only scientific answer with many falsifiable variables, leaves out your mythical sky daddy as a choice.
Of course the Catholic church made the same monumental error of judgement as you have. It doesn't work that way.
Science as a work in continual progress, gives us the answers that you imagine your bible and your sky daddy do, and continues on regardless of such unscientific myth.

 

You did observe that I was lazy. I never said I know it off by heart...if I had my bible with me I would look it up..but I am rather sure that he did promise to return in the life time of those listening..Anyways it doesn't matter he hasn't come back that I know...over two thousand years and no show still leaves folk waiting for a promise to return ...waiting.
I am not concerned and given you are not Christian it should not worry you.
How long do we wait...two thousand years is pushing it..heck if you don't show for seven years they can declare you dead...

OK.
Things where you accept what you like rather than stuff tied to fact.

I see where you are coming from, and I agree there are people who need it .... I think it is all built on make believe and lament the fact many humans can't get by without superstition.

Perhaps. I just try to protect myself from BS and realising the is a lot of BS out there perhaps just require more than faith or belief in mythical entities.... as I said, even though you try and paint things different...I believe dry few things ..there is little you need to believe really.
I guess what I do believe is the universe can only be eternal ..I also believe that no matter what everyone believes as fact can be wrong.
I mean you only have to study history to realise BS is not a new product.
I do believe that JC was just another human god invented with astrology in mind...
Alex

 

It's always very telling how little of my posts you actually manage to address. Instead you opt for this repetitive invective. You'd think it'd get boring. Well, simple minds are easily entertained.
You've never show that I've misinterpreted any science. You've only erected straw men in lieu of what I've actually said. Probably why you don't directly address most of what I actually do say. It's your own personal failing that you cannot manage to read an old book in the context of its proper culture and period.

Do you even hear yourself? "Science is the only scientific answer". Duh. What I assume you mean is that scientific answers are the only answers. And that's exactly what I'd expect from a believer in scientism. Ignoring all the branches of knowledge that are not amenable to the scientific method. Your mental gymnastics trying to avoid the fact that abiogenesis, itself, is not falsifiable, makes the complete lack of evidence for even one wholly speculative method moot. What is it atheists always say? The absence of evidence is evidence of absence?

You're fooling yourself if you really believe there's such a thing as a "scientific discipline of Abiogenesis". There's only unsupported speculation. Nothing more. And hypothesizing about the possible origin of non-living amino acids and proteins is nowhere near addressing how those become incorporated in living organisms.

You do have the internet, but perhaps I underestimated your laziness. I assure you, he did not. And why would it matter how long the wait? Even for a devout Christian? Do you imagine that their faith hinges upon some limit of patience? And Jesus was already declared dead, or is that another detail you couldn't manage to retain from all your study of the Bible?

Apparently you don't believe in or understand logic, don't care about the reasoning that underpins all science and how we can justify that we actually know things, and can't be bothered with the trail of reasoning that directly led to science in the first place. Kind of runs counter to your claim of knowing the history of religion, but then, blind faith can't really afford to scrutinize the origins of what it worships.

Scientific studies on the positive correlations to religion do not rely on "need". You think whatever you have to in order to maintain your existing ideology.

You try to protect your existing ideology from cognitive dissonance and doubt. That's what true believers do. You believe tons of science you don't understand nor are capable of substantiating for yourself. You have faith in the methodology and those who tell you what it all means.

 

Your fire and brimstone preaching is reaching fever pitch sonny...You probably need a good lay down and a disprin.

Of course you misinterpret science as has been shown, as well as showing ignorance in that science with failure in actually knowing what the BB entails.
And of course with your usual ID creationist driven lies and ideology accusations, nothing need be said except

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

or if you and your overlords prefer......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Now go somewhere where they might fall for your nonsense.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Can you find that on the internet? Do you have a link save me looking it up?

Yes I know that..just like the Sun appears to die and is resurrected, all the human gods had that in their kit.

No I just believe in the stuff scientism allows.

Again you are too kind ...so I can think what I like...the universe is eternal therefore no creator..are you sure that's ok with you..I guess my astrology take on human gods is ok as well? It's so nice to have your permission.

No I am not that fussed ..can you tell me what cognitive dissonance means..save me looking it up.

I did not see that..thanks for pointing it out. Did you subtract a couple of kilos for me not being accepting of the Theory of Inflation?

You know sometimes I really think you pay no attention to me..besides your odd answers generally that is...you maybe forgot my comments on faith and that I prefer to use the word confidence...did you miss me saying that? No matter at least now you know..I reject the notion of faith because that is just accepting something mmm let me avoid saying without evidence...accepting on faith...and you probably ignored my comments that I believe in very few things ...but some things, like JC and the various human gods being astrology based...yes I am reasonably confident that approach is reasonable...there are so many Sun like things..death and resurrection, twelve followers..I won't go on as I am too lazy to bother really.

I do hope you are ok..you seem agitated..and you are almost insulting...ruff day at the office, factory? maybe school? I noticed they were making you look silly in another thread..but you have no fear here..we can have a nice little chat..it's only religion and you certainly are entitled to believe in God and you won't get a peep out of me.
Take care and cheer up..I will let you win a few..ok.

Alex

 

Your creationist driven obtuseness is really impressive. Not!
Let me spell it out...Once there was no life: Then there was. Chemistry over a long time frame is far more convincing then some stupid ignorant baseless myth, based on nothing other then incredulity, and the fear in the finality of death that is hard to except.

 

I have mentioned this so many times but still wait for hearing how a theist who believes in intelligent design or straight out creationism...and it is this...how do they fit in the mass extinctions? I mean if you have a well designed critter indeed lots of them, and you are god presumably have control over all things...why do so many creations just get wiped out...I know there must be a good answer but I have not heard it yet.
Alex

 

Now be fair Paddo ..we have yet to hear their side..the details I mean..like I just asked..what about mass extinction?
Does he even believe in Adam and Eve..we get so little input from theists as to detail...as to anything..rejection of life happening by chance" but nothing as an alternative...unless we are supposed to take the clay modeling deal as dinkum...there must be ore surely.
And it's not the creation in those first few days..what I would like to know is how god slips in all the new species.
Our mate has never explained anything when I think about it...now I know why we get told we present straw men..heck that's all we have..nothing based on what they have actually said...cause they don't say a damn thing.. is it just me..have I missed something?

Alex

 

Hit the nail on the head Alex...seems to be the modus operandi of many creationists, which is why they chose the bible as their totem...equally obtuse and open for many interpretations.
Obvious as we know how defensive and dishonest they get when finally pinned down, I saw a Christopher Hitchen's video, where he made mince meat out of another fool creationist.
Then they smugly chose to fit in their particular spaghetti monster of choice, after science/cosmology has given a reasonble assessement right up to t+10-43 seconds. Let's put that down figuratively to elaborate the point....at least up to .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds post the actual BB. Scientism as Vociferous likes to smugly deride it, aint done too bad!
Other point that I mentioned a week or so ago in one of his fire and brimstone outrage preaching episodes, was the meaning of his handle Vociferous...."expressing or characterized by vehement opinions; loud and forceful" So, so full of himself, he needs to publicise it and wear it like a badge of honour!

 

Uh

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

There's a lot in the word not there...

 

I guess you have no clue what "fire and brimstone preaching" actually entails. Since no one has told you that you're a sinner or going to hell, you must be so overly sensitive that you imagine everyone is judging and condemning you. Sounds like a persecution complex. And repeating your bare assertion about science you merely imagine I've misinterpreted only fools the very dense and those too lazy to risk finding out otherwise.

No, I'm tired of enabling your laziness. You brought it up, you support your own claim.

Yep, stuff without any evidence.

If you believe things without evidence, that is faith. If you don't like that word, don't believe in things with zero evidence.

Faith in a process we have zero evidence to substantiate. What you find convincing with zero evidence does not sway me from what I find convincing without compelling evidence. That you get so angry about that similarity between us would seem to point to an insecurity in your own faith. Mine is fine with you believing whatever you like.

The simple answer: deism.
If God designed the laws of nature to allow adaptation, it would follow that some adaptations would be better than others, and that some species would essentially become obsolete. Even without any further intervention from God beyond creation.

 

Your handle gives it away my friend.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And no, no persecution complex at all. It's you raving and ranting, without substance on a science forum, and projecting mythical beings in place of science. Perhaps the signs that religion and IDerlism is gradually being eroded, is the reason for your own persecution complex...certainly not mine matey!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Bare assertions?? What bare assertions? You mean the .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds for you to squeeze your god of the gaps into? You need to face reality old friend, that religion/creationism/IDerism is a dying myth, only perpetuated by your abnormal fears of the finality of death.