Why do theists reject evolution?

[paddoboy]

Whataboutism is not a refute. It's tantamount to just saying "you too" (tu quoque).

Its actually tantamount to telling it as it is...including the fact that you come here to preach not for science. Are your overlords happy?

Your bare assertions don't offer enough to even warrant avoiding. Learn to make a justified argument instead of whining.

I don't make bare assertions. I try to state facts, and the facts are that science can explain reasonably accurately at least back to t+10-43 seconds.
You have no evidence for any deity...fact. Any claim of any deity is unscientific, along with any other supernatural or paranormal nonsense you feel like spouting.

The Bible doesn't say birds came after man. You're really showing off your ignorance today.

The bible is essentially a book of parables with poorly designed and stated situations, open to many interpretations, written by obscure ignorant ancient men, in an obscure age and an obscure manner.
Take it to church with you when you can go. You might get your desired reception among those impressionable lot.

 

[billvon]

What are you on about? The Bible doesn't say birds came after man. You're really showing off your ignorance today.

Genesis 2:4 - "This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. . . . And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."

So first came the earth. Then came Man.

Genesis 2:18 - "And the Lord God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” "

Man was alone.

Genesis 2:19 - "Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him."

God then created every beast of the field and every bird of the air. So first Earth, then Man, then birds. Right there in Genesis 2. Bet you feel pretty stupid right now.

It is pretty much an axiomatic rule that the more someone pounds on their Bible, the less they understand what's in it.

I eagerly await your next attempt to twist the Bible to make it say what you want.

 

[Vociferous]

Its actually tantamount to telling it as it is...including the fact that you come here to preach not for science. Are your overlords happy?

I don't make bare assertions. I try to state facts, and the facts are that science can explain reasonably accurately at least back to t+10-43 seconds.
You have no evidence for any deity...fact. Any claim of any deity is unscientific, along with any other supernatural or paranormal nonsense you feel like spouting.

The bible is essentially a book of parables with poorly designed and stated situations, open to many interpretations, written by obscure ignorant ancient men, in an obscure age and an obscure manner.
Take it to church with you when you can go. You might get your desired reception among those impressionable lot.

I seem to know the science better than most who engage me. Just recently, correcting people conflating evolution and abiogenesis. You never seem to offer much science, except as refutes of straw men no one argued. Your belief that all facts can only be known/mediated by science is your faith in scientism. Whereas I freely admit I have no scientific evidence, nor even compelling arguments, for God. That's called intellectual honesty. No idea how you contort that into preaching, as you're the one making bare assertions you have compelling evidence. What religious person hurt you so much? I don't attend church, as I'm not a Christian (nor espouse any organized religion). I'm just a theist, with no care whether or not anyone else may or may not be going to hell. I just wish they wouldn't create on for themselves in the here and now. But I do understand that the Bible was written by/for men who lived in a certain time period, whose cultural mores can be readily understood and interpretations compensated for. It's not that mysterious.

Genesis 2:4 - "This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. . . . And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."

So first came the earth. Then came Man.

Genesis 2:18 - "And the Lord God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” "

Man was alone.

Genesis 2:19 - "Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him."

God then created every beast of the field and every bird of the air. So first Earth, then Man, then birds. Right there in Genesis 2. Bet you feel pretty stupid right now.

It is pretty much an axiomatic rule that the more someone pounds on their Bible, the less they understand what's in it.

I eagerly await your next attempt to twist the Bible to make it say what you want.

Genesis 2

1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.​

So this follows the numbered account of days from Genesis 1, even reiterating that God rested on the seventh, after all was already created. By Genesis 2, the seven days of creation are over, and a narrative to explain why Adam needed a "help meet" began. You're obviously cherry-picking. Either ignorant or relying on the ignorance of others in the hopes of getting away with it. The more you cherry-pick the Bible, out of context, the less you obviously understand. And you're projecting the only twisting going on here. Or is it your lack of basic comprehension coupled with Dunning-Kruger?

 

[Michael 345]

Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air

Didn't see COVID-19 mentioned

So no helper for Adam

And so the Lord decided "stuff making a helper from out of the ground Adam obvious does not swing that way. I'll use one of his ribs and see how that works"

 

[paddoboy]

I seem to know the science better than most who engage me. Just recently, correcting people conflating evolution and abiogenesis. You never seem to offer much science, except as refutes of straw men no one argued. Your belief that all facts can only be known/mediated by science is your faith in scientism. Whereas I freely admit I have no scientific evidence, nor even compelling arguments, for God. That's called intellectual honesty. No idea how you contort that into preaching, as you're the one making bare assertions you have compelling evidence. What religious person hurt you so much? I don't attend church, as I'm not a Christian (nor espouse any organized religion). I'm just a theist, with no care whether or not anyone else may or may not be going to hell. I just wish they wouldn't create on for themselves in the here and now. But I do understand that the Bible was written by/for men who lived in a certain time period, whose cultural mores can be readily understood and interpretations compensated for. It's not that mysterious.

Conflating Abiogenesis and the theory of evolution??? Not sure when or where, but the facts are that the theory of evolution is fact, and that Abiogenesis is the only scientific answer as to how life started. The exact methodology, or whether it was Earth based Abiogenesis or universally based Abiogeneisis is still unknown.
You are correct though that you have no scientific evidence for any deity nor any logical argument. But science does have evidence for what it proclaims, and the door is always open for any improvements, modifications or even scrapping of theories if and when it is needed.
Your third nonsensical contrived strawman is even more puzzling...about what religious person has hurt me? None my friend...in fact I have religious friends, and a wife who is a true devout christian, unlike the shame that the likes of yourself and Jan throw upon those with such beliefs.
I also went to a Catholic school all my schooling days, but I was always open minded and saw science offering a far more likely approach to the universe.
My return question to you would be, what scientists or non believer hurt you so much so as to have you ignore the evidence for science and all it has achieved, and instead envelop a belief in something that [to use your own words] you have no evidence or argument for?
At this stage I will also make an apology to you for comparing you to Jan, who has resorted to lie after lie after lie, in what he claims as evidence for god and in the purposeful redefining of words and facts to support his delusional beliefs.

 

[Vociferous]

Conflating Abiogenesis and the theory of evolution??? Not sure when or where, but the facts are that the theory of evolution is fact, and that Abiogenesis is the only scientific answer as to how life started. The exact methodology, or whether it was Earth based Abiogenesis or universally based Abiogeneisis is still unknown.
You are correct though that you have no scientific evidence for any deity nor any logical argument. But science does have evidence for what it proclaims, and the door is always open for any improvements, modifications or even scrapping of theories if and when it is needed.
Your third nonsensical contrived strawman is even more puzzling...about what religious person has hurt me? None my friend...in fact I have religious friends, and a wife who is a true devout christian, unlike the shame that the likes of yourself and Jan throw upon those with such beliefs.
I also went to a Catholic school all my schooling days, but I was always open minded and saw science offering a far more likely approach to the universe.
My return question to you would be, what scientists or non believer hurt you so much so as to have you ignore the evidence for science and all it has achieved, and instead envelop a belief in something that [to use your own words] you have no evidence or argument for?
At this stage I will also make an apology to you for comparing you to Jan, who has resorted to lie after lie after lie, in what he claims as evidence for god and in the purposeful redefining of words and facts to support his delusional beliefs.

Write4U, billvon (in this thread), etc. conflating evolution and abiogenesis. Only accepting scientific answers is scientism and just as dogmatic as only accepting the literal Bible. There is zero direct evidence for abiogenesis, but your dogmatism probably precludes you from being intellectually honest on that count. You know, intellectual honesty, like me freely admitting I have no direct evidence for God. "the door is always open" is faith in scientism.
Ohhhhh, venting an unhappy marriage. Yeesh.
No scientist or non-believer has hurt me, they've hurt the reputation and credibility of science itself. I like science and do take some offense to others who misuse it and drive others away from it.
Never said I had no "argument" for God, some of which I've mention to you recently. I don't ignore any evidence, I just actually require evidence to believe things I have no personal experience with...like abiogenesis. I appreciate the small concession that I might not be exactly like Jan. Wasn't sure you could make that distinction.

 

[paddoboy]

Ohhhhh, venting an unhappy marriage. Yeesh.

Wrong again sonny...Been married happily for 43 years now, both our first and only marriages. You see, we both have tolerences towards each of our beliefs, and neither sees the need to preach incessantly albeit ignorantly on a science forum.

No scientist or non-believer has hurt me, they've hurt the reputation and credibility of science itself. I like science and do take some offense to others who misuse it and drive others away from it.

Science proceeds as always despite and in spite of your ignorances and self gratuitious remarks.

Never said I had no "argument" for God, some of which I've mention to you recently. I don't ignore any evidence, I just actually require evidence to believe things I have no personal experience with...like abiogenesis. I appreciate the small concession that I might not be exactly like Jan. Wasn't sure you could make that distinction.

Yes you did.
Yes you do.
No you don't.
That small distinction is slowly being eroded away.
Sorry for the brief answers, things to do, even in this period of lockdown.

 

[billvon]

1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.​

Yep. How convenient that you left out the very next line, where the story is explicitly restarted! You are truly a master cherrypicker.

To be a little more intellectually honest, let's add the next line:

"This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown."

In other words, a history of the Earth after creation of heaven and earth and before creation of plants. In Genesis 1 terms, that is between the second and third day. Then God creates man. And THEN God creates birds. Per the Bible.
​

So this follows the numbered account of days from Genesis 1, even reiterating that God rested on the seventh, after all was already created. By Genesis 2, the seven days of creation are over

Sorry, no. Right there in black and white: "This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown." Can't really get away from that fact. It is between the second and third days of creation from Genesis 1.

You're obviously cherry-picking.

I am quoting the relevant lines of the Bible in their entirety. If you cherry pick very carefully, you could create a new story where all of that happens after Genesis 1. And indeed you tried to do that above. But that's not what the Bible says.

So either you are ignorant of what the Bible says, or you are intentionally trying to mislead people. I am going to go with Hanlon's Razor on that. You believe you are an expert on the Bible since you profess to follow it, but your fervent belief in your expertise leads you to make brain-dead mistakes like the mistakes you made above. In other words, your belief in your intellectual superiority actually causes the sort of boneheaded errors you claim others make.

Good luck with that. On the plus side, if you stick with that sort of approach, you have a bright future in either the Trump administration or on FOX News.

 

[(Q)]

I seem to know the science better than most who engage me. Or is it your lack of basic comprehension coupled with Dunning-Kruger?

The first and last sentences of your post speak volumes of your tenuous arguments. Fitting words.

 

[Vociferous]

Wrong again sonny...Been married happily for 43 years now, both our first and only marriages. You see, we both have tolerences towards each of our beliefs, and neither sees the need to preach incessantly albeit ignorantly on a science forum.

Again, it's baffling how you see an opinion that simply differs from your own, and freely admitted to not be compelling, to somehow be preaching. Is it preaching just because my belief doesn't fold under the arguments of a stranger? I'm not trying to convince you of anything but the limits of science, even though you've paid them lip service yourself. You sound as if you feel like I'm trespassing on your sacred holy land by posting here. I can put you back on ignore if I rile you up so much.

Science proceeds as always despite and in spite of your ignorances and self gratuitious remarks.

You have more faith in science than I have in God.

Yes you did.

Where? Show me.

Yes you do.

What direct evidence for something have I ignored? Here's you chance to stick it to me.

No you don't.

I thought you would, at least, pay lip service to needing evidence to believe something. No? Faith is good enough for you?

That small distinction is slowly being eroded away.

Oops, too quit to give you that much credit, huh? Oh well.

Yep. How convenient that you left out the very next line, where the story is explicitly restarted! You are truly a master cherrypicker.

To be a little more intellectually honest, let's add the next line:

"This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown."

In other words, a history of the Earth after creation of heaven and earth and before creation of plants. In Genesis 1 terms, that is between the second and third day. Then God creates man. And THEN God creates birds. Per the Bible.

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?

Genesis 2:5 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​

Why no shrub "yet appeared"? Why would that be expected prior to them being created? There were "herb of the field" "before any...had grown", because God had "not sent rain", and they were there before there was man "to work the ground". Prefacing "the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created" with the seventh day of creation, means the heavens and earth in their entirety, if you're not too busy doing mental gymnastics to read simple English and comprehend basic literary structure.

It's not a rehash of chapter 1, it's finishing the seventh day and setting that stage for the story of Adam and Eve, having already established the order of creation, explicitly numbering the days. 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. Maybe lay off the re-hash.

Sorry, no. Right there in black and white: "This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown." Can't really get away from that fact. It is between the second and third days of creation from Genesis 1.

Cherry-picking - repeating one part, out of context, as if that makes some point. It's sad that you don't see what you're doing. I know, you can't really get away from your cherry-picking. After all, doing so would mean having to admit you're wrong. Dunning-Kruger definitely precludes that.

I am quoting the relevant lines of the Bible in their entirety. If you cherry pick very carefully, you could create a new story where all of that happens after Genesis 1. And indeed you tried to do that above. But that's not what the Bible says.

Projection, as you harp on one verse, taken out of context, over and over. Go look up any Christian commentary on those two chapters for yourself. That's the only way you're ever going to learn. But we both know you're not interested in learning anything at all.

So either you are ignorant of what the Bible says, or you are intentionally trying to mislead people. I am going to go with Hanlon's Razor on that. You believe you are an expert on the Bible since you profess to follow it, but your fervent belief in your expertise leads you to make brain-dead mistakes like the mistakes you made above. In other words, your belief in your intellectual superiority actually causes the sort of boneheaded errors you claim others make.

Gotcha! You're hoisted by your own petard (assumptions) there. I don't profess to follow the Bible, because as I've repeated told many here, I'm not a Christian. Just a theist who does not espouse any organized religion. Unlike you, I merely understand the Bible, as I do several religious scriptures. I've studied comparative religion, but no Biblical scholar or expert. Just well-versed. And now you're just projecting your own repeatedly displayed Dunning-Kruger effect, trying to quell your cognitive dissonance with the veiled ad hom of Hanlon. You might make fewer faulty assumptions if you didn't get so worked up. Ask a question every now and then.

Good luck with that. On the plus side, if you stick with that sort of approach, you have a bright future in either the Trump administration or on FOX News.

Still desperately trying to quell that dissonance, huh? How's that working out for ya?


Again, go read any Christian commentary on Genesis 1 and 2. Learn something for once. God knows you've failed to learn the science I've tried to explain to you.

 

[paddoboy]

Again, it's baffling how you see an opinion that simply differs from your own, and freely admitted to not be compelling, to somehow be preaching. Is it preaching just because my belief doesn't fold under the arguments of a stranger?

The preacher analogy seems to bother you. Why? I mean that's what you are doing, similar again to Jan.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything but the limits of science, even though you've paid them lip service yourself.

The current limits of science are generally known and accepted, including most by myself. You don't need to convince anyone of anything, other then the total confusion you seem to be projecting.

You sound as if you feel like I'm trespassing on your sacred holy land by posting here. I can put you back on ignore if I rile you up so much.

Yeah, I'm mortified!!! You post where you like and stop pretending, OK? As I have already told you, wherever you post on this science forum, will need to undergo scientific scrutiny via the scientific method.

You have more faith in science than I have in God.

As I showed you, the faith I have is far different from the faith you possess.

Where? Show me.
What direct evidence for something have I ignored? Here's you chance to stick it to me.
I thought you would, at least, pay lip service to needing evidence to believe something. No? Faith is good enough for you?

You seem to be sticking it to yourself actually...good job
A shame so many creationists that start their god crusades on science forums, turn out to be so dishonest.

 

[Vociferous]

The preacher analogy seems to bother you. Why? I mean that's what you are doing, similar again to Jan.

Nah, I'm just opining, just like you. You're the one who seems to be projecting a preacher issue. Raised Catholic, huh?

The current limits of science are generally known and accepted, including most by myself. You don't need to convince anyone of anything, other then the total confusion you seem to be projecting.

I can't be projecting confusion since I haven't once accused you of it. Something else you might want to look up.
I've already said I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.

Yeah, I'm mortified!!! You post where you like and stop pretending, OK? As I have already told you, wherever you post on this science forum, will need to undergo scientific scrutiny via the scientific method.

That wasn't a threat, it was a genuine offer to quit fueling whatever's stuck in your craw.
I've not once complained about any scientific scrutiny. I like it. Reason is honed with friction.

As I showed you, the faith I have is far different from the faith you possess.

So you think/claim.

You seem to be sticking it to yourself actually...good job
A shame so many creationists that start their god crusades on science forums, turn out to be so dishonest.

IOW, you have nothing. And after all that bluster. Pity. You're just reduced to ad hominems you can't justify.

That was a very short-lived hope that you could keep out of the muck.

 

[paddoboy]

Nah, I'm just opining, just like you. You're the one who seems to be projecting a preacher issue. Raised Catholic, huh?

Nah, you're preaching, sure of it. And yeah not only raised a Catholic, but was also an Altar boy, but got the sack after being caught drinking the altar wine.

I can't be projecting confusion since I haven't once accused you of it. Something else you might want to look up.
I've already said I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.

Yeah Jan said similar.

That wasn't a threat, it was a genuine offer to quit fueling whatever's stuck in your craw.

Nothing sonny, just disappointed with your disguised approach and being so gullible as to believe you are fooling anyone.

I've not once complained about any scientific scrutiny. I like it. Reason is honed with friction.

Instead you stealthfully and dishonestly assume so much about science and your personal beliefs, which I don't really give a fuck about...except when you stealthfully try and deride science with it.

So you think/claim.

So I know in actual fact.

IOW, you have nothing. And after all that bluster. Pity. You're just reduced to ad hominems you can't justify.

Ahhh, again another Jan "quality"....let's just say Pot, kettle, black?

That was a very short-lived hope that you could keep out of the muck.

Now what were you saying?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Nope. Only 30% of Christians accept evolution. Of the remainder, about 40% believe in intelligent design and the remaining 30% believe in Biblical creation.

Does anybody “truly” accept darwinism though?
Is it not just a denial and rejection of the God everyone knows?

 

[billvon]

Does anybody “truly” accept darwinism though?

Yep. Plenty of people accept evolution.

 

[Jan Ardena]

What part of Darwinian evolution do theists reject, whereas the Papal Academy of Sciences have conceded that Darwinian evolution is true and proven? Do you object to the Vatican joining science in this respect?

What is loosely called macroevolution.
Nobody can prove, or give real evidence of it.
What makes you think the decision from the Papal academy is a theistic one?
Can you tell the difference between a theist and non theist?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Yep. Plenty of people accept evolution.

“Truly”?
Do you?

 

[billvon]

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.

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?

if you're not too busy doing mental gymnastics to read simple English and comprehend basic literary structure.

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'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. You have chosen to interpret it through the blinders of religion.

However, as I have mentioned earlier, you have a chance to break out of your cycle of ignorance here. You've just identified a second discrepancy. What's your next step?

I don't profess to follow the Bible, because as I've repeated told many here, I'm not a Christian.

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

 

[billvon]

“Truly”?

Yes.

Do you?

Yes.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

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

God should plural...there are thousands that humans have invented.
Alex