Why do theists reject evolution?

[Vociferous]

So you've really convinced yourself that the story "restarted" on the fourth verse of a new chapter? You don't really understand how chapters work or what cherry-picking (hint, you're projecting) is, do you?

No need to convince myself of anything. I am using what the Bible says.

<Snicker> No, you're really not. And I can't decide if it's cuter or sadder that you don't even realize it. Again, go look up ANY Christian commentary on Genesis 1 & 2.

Why no shrub "yet appeared"? Why would that be expected prior to them being created?

Excellent question! To overcome the worst effects of Dunning-Krueger, you have to be open to learning new things. You've just discovered a discrepancy between Genesis 2:5 and Genesis 1:11. That's a great observation. What's your next step?

You're projecting again (and you don't even know how to spell "Kruger", even though I've shown you several times now).
Reasonably intelligent adults comprehend simple English. No discrepancy.

"Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up"​

No plant having "yet" sprung up, means they were already in the ground. No one would expect something from that which does not exist. But obviously you can't be reasoned with, about evolution or simple English.

If you are reading simple English it's clear that the Genesis 2 text describes events "in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens" before any plants were created. Again, basic English.

You're still harping on ONE cherry-picked verse. Now you're not even quoting the whole verse.

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens​

"In the day" obviously means "in the time of", as your literal-minded interpretation would raise the question of which day, especially in light of "these are the generations of the heavens and of the earth". So you really think generations happen in one day?

You really have no idea how ignorant you sound to anyone reading this, do you? Need to work on your self-awareness, bud.

You've nonsensically convinced yourself that even though Genesis 1 explicitly says bird were created on day 5 and man on day 6, somehow that suddenly changed. That nonsense to purely your own making, dude.

That is what the text says.

<Snicker> No, it really doesn't. Maybe you should look into so tutoring.

So this is your chance to learn something, if you want to break out of that cycle of ignorance. Can you do it?

Quit projecting, go find a mirror to tell that to.

Or keep providing us with all this entertainment. It's truly priceless.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Nobody can prove, or give real evidence of it.

Yet they have.
Jan you have nothing to evidence your propositions ... Nothing not one little tiny bit...on the side of science truck loads...
Alex

 

[Write4U]

What is loosely called macroevolution.
Nobody can prove, or give real evidence of it.

Everyone except you believes the evidence as presented by fossils and carbon dating of earth's biome.

What makes you think the decision from the Papal academy is a theistic one?

Delivered by the Pope? You know, the one who speaks for God.

Can you tell the difference between a theist and non theist?

I can tell the difference between a theist and an atheist.
The Pope is a theist, I am an atheist. Yet we now agree on evolution. Where do you place yourself in this delightful dilemma?

Despite you protestations, the fact remains that two Popes have seen fit to make declarations based on the finding of the Vatican's scientific academy.

If you believe they are wrong, you may want to direct your attention to the church and start dealing with their confusion about what constitutes a miracle caused by God and an evolutionary process, rather than telling atheists they don't know what atheism means.
Go tell the Pope he doesn't know what theism means.

 

[(Q)]

Does anybody “truly” accept darwinism though?

People accept evolution, you might want to consider using the correct terminology considering you stereotype yourself as the buffoonish creationist who stands waving his bible around on a soapbox in Hyde Park.

Is it not just a denial and rejection of the God everyone knows?

I for one don't know any gods, I doubt anyone actually "knows" God. Surely, you're not going to actually claim that you know God?

 

[paddoboy]

You really have no idea how ignorant you sound to anyone reading this, do you? Need to work on your self-awareness, bud. Or keep providing us with all this entertainment. It's truly priceless.

The old pot calling the Kettle black again I see.
The ignorance is actually in the facts that it is you and Jan others are laughing at. You sit there in your pulpit preaching fire and brimstone, accusing others of ad-homs and then come across with your pretentious self motivating little "snickers".
“There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, and science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works.”
― Stephen Hawking
And let me add, keep on winning until even when the how and why of the BB is explained by some fluctuation in the quantum foam...or how and where Abiogenesis first took hold...wonderful and powerful discipline is chemistry.
“I am no more fundamentalist when I say evolution is true than when I say it is true that New Zealand is in the southern hemisphere. We believe in evolution because the evidence supports it, and we would abandon it overnight if new evidence arose to disprove it. No real fundamentalist would ever say anything like that.”
― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion


and to finish off......
“Never question the conviction of a scientist, based on mere scriptures.”
― Abhijit Naskar

 

[billvon]

No, you're really not.

Yep. I am using the Bible. You are reinterpreting it to fit your preconceptions.

Again, go look up ANY Christian commentary on Genesis 1 & 2.

?? Why? Can you explain - in your own words - why the Christian commentary reveals the "truth" of Genesis?

"Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up" No plant having "yet" sprung up, means they were already in the ground. No one would expect something from that which does not exist.

Sorry, Genesis 1 doesn't say anything about seeds in the ground lying dormant. Again, your desperate attempt to change what the Bible says is just . . . sad.

You really have no idea how ignorant you sound to anyone reading this, do you? Need to work on your self-awareness, bud.

I have no concerns that anyone intelligent will think I sound ignorant. (Other than you, of course. I take it as a compliment that 1) you think I am ignorant and 2) you are getting so wound up when someone questions your claimed intellect.)

 

[Vociferous]

Yep. I am using the Bible. You are reinterpreting it to fit your preconceptions.

You might well be "using the Bible" to wipe your ass, for all the actual comprehension you seem capable of applying to it.
I am reinterpreting it in the full context, rather than cherry-picking part of one verse.

?? Why? Can you explain - in your own words - why the Christian commentary reveals the "truth" of Genesis?

I have, so maybe you looking up the widespread Christian consensus on it, for yourself, is the only hope that you can actually overcome your not inconsiderable motivated reasoning.

Sorry, Genesis 1 doesn't say anything about seeds in the ground lying dormant. Again, your desperate attempt to change what the Bible says is just . . . sad.

Genesis 1 didn't have to. It merely sketched out the order of creation. It was brief, like "male and female he created them". Only in Genesis 2 does it go into detail, about the plants, rain, and how he created man and woman. But I get how you can be so confused not having every little thing explained to you in painstaking detail. It must be hard, not being able to connect any dots for yourself, and too stubborn to accept anyone helping you do so.

I have no concerns that anyone intelligent will think I sound ignorant. (Other than you, of course. I take it as a compliment that 1) you think I am ignorant and 2) you are getting so wound up when someone questions your claimed intellect.)

Luckily, many here share your very special motivated reasoning. Closed-minded people are often unable to view things from other perspectives. Not sure where you think I'm getting wound up, but hey, if it makes you feel better.

 

[Write4U]

Skeptics Annotated Bible

SAB Absurdity List

Genesis

1. God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19). And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them? 1:3-5
2. God spends one-sixth of his entire creative effort (the second day) working on a solid firmament. This strange structure, which God calls heaven, is intended to separate the higher waters from the lower waters. 1:6-8
3. Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (1:14-19). 1:1
4. In an apparent endorsement of astrology, God places the sun, moon, and stars in the firmament so that they can be used "for signs". This, of course, is exactly what astrologers do: read "the signs" in the Zodiac in an effort to predict what will happen on Earth. 1:14
5. "He made the stars also." God spends a day making light (before making the stars) and separating light from darkness; then, at the end of a hard day's work, and almost as an afterthought, he makes the trillions of stars. 1:16
6. "And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth." 1:17
7. God commands us to "be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over ... every living thing that moveth upon the earth." 1:28
   
8. "I have given you every herb ... and every tree ... for meat."
   Since many plants have evolved poisons to protect against animals that would like to eat them, God's advice is more than a little reckless. Would you tell your children to go out in the garden and eat whatever plants they encounter? Of course not. But then, you are much nicer and smarter than God. 1:29
   
9. "He rested."
   Even God gets tired sometimes. 2:2

https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/abs/long.html

 

[Michael 345]

No plant having "yet" sprung up, means they were already in the ground

No no plant having yet sprung up means no plant has yet sprung up

Unless other sections of the text give other information about seeds ie Seeds have been planted but...

Without context No plant having yet sprung up could mean farmer has not even bothered to plant seeds

 

[Write4U]

Without context No plant having yet sprung up could mean farmer has not even bothered to plant seeds

Were there already farmers and seeds from previous plants at that time? I lost track of what occurred, when and how.....and why.....

 

[paddoboy]

Yep. I am using the Bible. You are reinterpreting it to fit your preconceptions.

Gee sounds like Jan.

Sorry, Genesis 1 doesn't say anything about seeds in the ground lying dormant. Again, your desperate attempt to change what the Bible says is just . . . sad.

Ahh, yes, exactly what Jan did...redefining and misinterpreting to suit their floundering and mythical agenda.

you are getting so wound up when someone questions your claimed intellect.)

Jan again! The false pretentious self motivating attempt at humour. Talk about two peas in a pod!

 

[paddoboy]

Closed-minded people are often unable to view things from other perspectives.

 

[Write4U]

Deleted for duplication

 

[Write4U]

Genesis 1 didn't have to. It merely sketched out the order of creation. It was brief, like "male and female he created them".

When was that, in the chronological hierarchy of the creation process as described in Genesis?

 

[Write4U]

Only in Genesis 2 does it go into detail, about the plants, rain, and how he created man and woman. But I get how you can be so confused not having every little thing explained to you in painstaking detail. It must be hard, not being able to connect any dots for yourself, and too stubborn to accept anyone helping you do so.

Let's see how that worked out;
From the Skeptics Annotated bible :

1. "The tree of life ... and the tree of knowledge of good and evil."
   God created two magic trees: the tree of life and the tree of knowledge. Eat from the first, and you live forever (3:22); eat from the second and you'll die the same day (2:17).
2. (Or that's what God said, anyway. Adam ate from the tree of knowledge and lived for another 930 years or so (5:5). But he never got a chance to eat from the tree of life. God prevented him from eating from the tree of life before Adam could eat from the tree, become a god, and live forever.) 2:9
3. God makes the animals and parades them before Adam to see if any would strike his fancy. But none seem to have what it takes to please him. (Although he was tempted to go for the sheep.) After making the animals, God has Adam name them all. The naming of several million species must have kept Adam busy for a while. 2:18-20

https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/abs/long.html

p.s. If Adam had to pick the species and name them, did Adam select the snake as one of the many other animals he named? Betrayal by an animal so early during creation brings several questions to mind...

 

[Michael 345]

Were there already farmers and seeds from previous plants at that time? I lost track of what occurred, when and how.....and why.....

You haven't read the bible?

I don't know, there appears to be some stupid discussion going on about which came first birds or humans and somehow plants come into the mix

My problem is I have so many on Iggy I only get portions of the thread's

So it is more a comment on grammar context not which came first

Heads back to shell for coffee

 

[exchemist]

You might well be "using the Bible" to wipe your ass, for all the actual comprehension you seem capable of applying to it.

But I get how you can be so confused not having every little thing explained to you in painstaking detail. It must be hard, not being able to connect any dots for yourself, and too stubborn to accept anyone helping you do so.


Not sure where you think I'm getting wound up.

The evidence is in your own post.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

It must be hard, not being able to connect any dots for yourself, and too stubborn to accept anyone helping you do so.

Well I expect you would know very well how that feels...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?
Alex

 

[(Q)]

You might well be "using the Bible" to wipe your ass, for all the actual comprehension you seem capable of applying to it.
I am reinterpreting it in the full context, rather than cherry-picking part of one verse.

It sure seems odd that one verse in the Bible can't stand on its own, that is, unless it's being used by a theist to make his point. Perhaps, theists use an entire roll of toilet paper to wipe their asses each time they take a crap?

Closed-minded people are often unable to view things from other perspectives.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Gee sounds like Jan

How come you never find Superman in a discussion with Clark Kent?
Alex