Why do theists reject evolution?

[(Q)]

No you wouldn’t, because it would reveal that you know God Is. You need to pretend there is no God, to keep yourself from being truthful to yourself.
“The fool doth day, in his heart, there is no God

Doggy-types turning into whales isn’t true.
It is a big fat lie. Darwinism is something to replace religion, for the fools that believes there is no God.

I’m not talking about “Evolution”, I’m talking about “darwinism”. Darwinism is a religion for foolIsh people who accept and believe there is no God.

No it’s not. It is merely a conclusion, with no real evidence.

I accept evolution. Everybody does. It’s darwinism that is the problem.

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.

 

[billvon]

Doggy-types turning into whales isn’t true. It is a big fat lie. Darwinism is something to replace religion, for the fools that believes there is no God.

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.

I’m not talking about “Evolution”, I’m talking about “darwinism”.

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

 

[paddoboy]

Lol!!! You believe darwinism is true, and you call me deluded
If communism wasn't so horribly detrimental to humans, that would be really funny.

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 ?

 

[Jan Ardena]

But they do believe in Evolution,

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

which has nothing to do with Pedophilia, God, Jesus, Mary, or any Scripture, and does put Darwin in a very good light,

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

considering the unanimity of agreement on that matter, despite your vehement protestations.

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

 

[Jan Ardena]

We have plenty of evidence for Darwinism evolution...That's called science.

You don’t, and it isn’t.

You have absolutely no fucking evidence for any magical spaghetti monster or its equivalent.

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

And what has communism to do with Evolution?

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

Or is this simply more of the only source of debating style open to dishonest, ridiculous silly ignorant IDers and God Botherers ?

Just lil ole me opening your eyes

 

[Jan Ardena]

That wasn't me; you got it wrong again.

You believe it don’t you?

Whale evolution is a fact supported with a ton of evidence.

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

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.

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.

should

More importantly, neither should you.

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

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

 

[paddoboy]

You don’t, and it isn’t.

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

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

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.

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

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

Just lil ole me opening your eyes

And delusional to boot.

 

[paddoboy]

Otherwise they could never entertain such a crazy idea as doggy types turning into whales.

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!!!

 

[paddoboy]

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....................

 

[paddoboy]

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.........................

 

[Write4U]

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

Yes, you are alone in the wilderness.

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

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

Unanimity doesn’t make it true.

Nor does it make you right.

It is not true that doggy types turned into whales.

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

 

[billvon]

I don’t think it does. It does.

Then you are a fool who does not accept reality.

Those people who accept darwinism as a fact, do not believe in God.

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.

Otherwise they could never entertain such a crazy idea as doggy types turning into whales.

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

 

[Write4U]

Why Intelligent Design Isn't Intelligent:

Because it is quasi-intelligent.....

 

[Write4U]

Those people who accept darwinism as a fact, do not believe in God

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

 

[paddoboy]

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! or a hand in a glove.

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.

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.

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.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

[Hipparchia]

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! or a hand in a glove.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Write4U]

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

See "Insights into plant consciousness from neuroscience, physics and mathematics: A role for quasicrystals?" in volume 7 on page 1049.

Abstract;

The appearance of Fibonacci sequences and the golden ratio in plant structures is one of the great outstanding puzzles of biology. Here I suggest that quasicrystals, which naturally pack in the golden ratio, may be ubiquitous in biological systems and introduce the golden ratio into plant phyllotaxy.

The appearance of golden ratio-based structures as beautiful indicates that the golden ratio may play a role in the development of consciousness and lead to the aesthetic natural selection of flowering plants.

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

 

[paddoboy]

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.

Nice, I can live with that..

 

[Hipparchia]

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.

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.

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

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.

 

[Write4U]

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.

No need, I agree...

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.

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.

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

Mathematical biologists love sunflowers. The giant flowers are one of the most obvious—as well as the prettiest—demonstrations of a hidden mathematical rule shaping the patterns of life: the Fibonacci sequence, a set in which each number is the sum of the previous two (1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610, ...), found in everything from pineapples to pine cones. In this case, the telltale sign is the number of different seed spirals on the sunflower's face.

Although the math may be beautiful, plant biologists have not worked out a mechanistic model that fully explains how the sunflower seed patterns arise.

The problem is that plants don't always show perfect Fibonacci numbers—real life is messy—and data on real sunflower diversity is scarce.

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.