Why do theists reject evolution?

billvon said:
I LOVE it! You post a quote from the Bible saying "one day is as a thousand years" then you immediately say that's wrong, they were too stupid to describe the actual number - and you use this as proof that the Bible doesn't contradict science! Because they contradicted science but were too ignorant to know it!

What we are seeing here is the latest in several pitiful attempts to twist the Bible to say what an extremist wants it to say. You're in good company - that's been going on for at least a thousand years now.
Click to expand...
Again, if you want to talk to a literalist, go find one. Otherwise, you might as well be pissing into the wind.
The Bible is replete with allegory, parable, and contemporary phraseology.

So you cannot even answer the simplest questions about the Bible - and you call me ignorant. You are a perfect Trump supporter.
Click to expand...
I've already answered those questions of yours. We had a long discussion about it. I guess a short memory makes you a perfect Biden supporter. Sundowning are we?
 
Vociferous said:
So, your cognitive dissonance couldn't even bear to look up what "intellectual honesty" means.
Click to expand...

Let's do that then, shall we.

Intellectual honesty is an applied method of problem solving, characterized by an unbiased, honest attitude, which can be demonstrated in a number of different ways:

  • One's personal beliefs or politics do not interfere with the pursuit of truth;
  • Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one's hypothesis;
  • Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another;
  • References, or earlier work, are acknowledged where possible, and plagiarism is avoided.
Harvard ethicist Louis M. Guenin describes the "kernel" of intellectual honesty to be "a virtuous disposition to eschew deception when given an incentive for deception".

it's your claims about stuff we have no evidence for, like abiogenesis, that mean you believe in scientism.

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

Those two statements alone violate the first three of the bullet points for intellectual honesty. Fail.
 
Vociferous said:
Again, if you want to talk to a literalist, go find one. Otherwise, you might as well be pissing into the wind. The Bible is replete with allegory, parable, and contemporary phraseology.
Click to expand...
So in one breath you claim that there is no conflict between the Bible and evolution, with "evidence" garnered by very careful twisting and manipulation of the text of the Bible.
In the next breath you claim that you can't take the parts of the Bible that contradict your claims literally because it's all parable, not literal truth.

Classic. Sounds like you purposefully omit relevant facts when they contradict your hypothesis.
I've already answered those questions of yours.
Click to expand...
No, you didn't, and I am not surprised you are unable to answer them now - because you know you are beaten.
. . . makes you a perfect Biden supporter. Sundowning are we?
Click to expand...
On the plus side, Biden can both walk and drink with one hand.
 
paddoboy said:
As I keep pointing out, his handle alone, is evident of that fact.
Click to expand...
Yes but I like his laughing gorilla..try this..cover the bottom half of the gorillas face, look at its eyes, they are clearly happy, look at it for a moment and you will find when you take away the bottom covering you now see the gorilla as laughing...no doubt that is why old mate used the gorilla photo for in the first place ... so I now unconsciously call him, to myself, "the laughing gorilla" and you know somehow that just works so much better for me, mind you I do feel a little guilty of indulging in some sort of secret ridicule but figure maybe it is Devine inspiration at work...should I feel guilty? I think the fact he is so nice to me leaves my feeling guilty, but now I just think "laughing gorilla".
Alex
 
billvon said:
So in one breath you claim that there is no conflict between the Bible and evolution, with "evidence" garnered by very careful twisting and manipulation of the text of the Bible.
In the next breath you claim that you can't take the parts of the Bible that contradict your claims literally because it's all parable, not literal truth.

Classic. Sounds like you purposefully omit relevant facts when they contradict your hypothesis.
Click to expand...
No, just basic reading comprehension and understanding the time period. I never said it was "all parable", but I guess you do have to tell lies to bolster your bias.

No, you didn't, and I am not surprised you are unable to answer them now - because you know you are beaten.
Click to expand...
Yes, I did. Too bad you don't remember. "Beaten"? Is that what you're trying to do here?

On the plus side, Biden can both walk and drink with one hand.
Click to expand...
Wow, what a low bar.
 
(Q) said:
Let's do that then, shall we.

Intellectual honesty is an applied method of problem solving, characterized by an unbiased, honest attitude, which can be demonstrated in a number of different ways:

  • One's personal beliefs or politics do not interfere with the pursuit of truth;
  • Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one's hypothesis;
  • Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another;
  • References, or earlier work, are acknowledged where possible, and plagiarism is avoided.
Harvard ethicist Louis M. Guenin describes the "kernel" of intellectual honesty to be "a virtuous disposition to eschew deception when given an incentive for deception".


it's your claims about stuff we have no evidence for, like abiogenesis, that mean you believe in scientism.

Everyone possesses the divine spark, no matter how much you may suppress or deny it.
Click to expand...
Those two statements alone violate the first three of the bullet points for intellectual honesty. Fail.
Click to expand...
No, it's demonstrably obvious that there's no evidence of abiogenesis. And I freely and repeatedly admit my beliefs are just that, beliefs.
Apparently modeling the behavior won't help you any.
 
Vociferous said:
Yes, I did. Too bad you don't remember. "Beaten"? Is that what you're trying to do here?
Click to expand...
:D So says the humble poster with a handle that means, "vehement opinions; loud and forceful" and wears it like a badge of honour!Pot, Kettle, Black appropriate here again...
Vociferous said:
No, it's demonstrably obvious that there's no evidence of abiogenesis. And I freely and repeatedly admit my beliefs are just that, beliefs.
Apparently modeling the behavior won't help you any.
Click to expand...
Of course you are obliged to keep up that protective front against us evil atheists, lefty lovers of scientism to please your overlords and of course appease the magic spaghetti monster! :D

Factually, there is plenty of evidence that points to abiogenesis, so much so, that in the view of intellectually honest people it can be deemed as fact. The exact methodology of that discipline of Abiogenesis is not quite as certain though.
 
Neat video of artificial evolution 6 minutes

Not sure what parameters are embedded in the program

EDIT - Found some details

Note these come with the video not my work

In this video the non-solution is just a bunch of blocks pasted together, and given a random kinematic structure.

She has a bunch of babies, that are slight variances of her. The fitness function is “furthest distance traveled from start.”

The most fit one is kept, and SHE has babies that are slight variances of HER
The most fit one is kept, and SHE has babies that are slight variances of HER
The most fit one is kept, and SHE has babies that are slight variances of HER
and so on…

The best of the last generation can leap up tall hills, and go virtually forever on a flat plane.


:)
 
Last edited:
Vociferous said:
No, just basic reading comprehension and understanding the time period.
Click to expand...
You do not understand the time period or the authorship of those passages, so no surprise you have trouble understanding them.

You still haven't answered the very simple question I had before. Did cattle come first, or mankind? With your constant claims of intellectual superiority and arrogant attacks on others who, according to you, have Dunning-Kruger syndrome, you should have no problem answering this and proving your superiority.
Yes, I did. Too bad you don't remember.
Click to expand...
So prove me wrong. Answer it. I bet you can't.
Wow, what a low bar.
Click to expand...
Yep. And yet here we are. One old guy running against another obese old guy with severe neurologic problems.
 
(Q) said:
It's demonstrably obvious there is no evidence of intellectual honesty in your posts.
Click to expand...

You can't say that about my new best friend even if it may be true. He has already pointed out that folk crave what they don't possess which we should see as a cry for help.

I am starting to think Michael's observation is correct that he is some sort of new troll why else would he make claims about his integrity when he can be so easily called out?

I have been reading up on abiogenesis and had no idea how solid the science really is, then it dawned on me that our laughing gorilla is using abiogenesis in a vain attempt to suggest that in following the science we are somehow paralleling his following of his fairey tale...I know that is what he has been subtly suggesting, even shouting, but as the notion is so obserd I guess I just ignored it...even when I tried to be nice at one point saying in effect I understand where you (he of course) are coming from I still did not take his proposition in any way seriously...I mean the difference precludes such a notion but he really thinks his parrallel is valid...it boils down to a whimper of " you believe your stuff which is the same as me believing my stuff"...
Expanding stuff we get.."You believe (as I can't bring myself to recognise the concept of confidence and too lazy to look into what this Sigma level means as I am too busy trying to assert that heresay evidence is worthwhile and should not be ignored)...you believe... in a scientific method that sets out a methodology such that we get as close to reality as a human is capable of achieving (your stuff) which is the same as me believing in (my stuff) a fairey tale entity that I selected from a list of thousands of similar entities all invented by humans none of which have enjoyed recognition by virtue of reasonable evidence....There is no parrallel at all.. The proposal is laughable. How could anyone be so naive to try and compare the two...

Fortunately his whinging about abiogenesis is based on propaghadah from one of the creationist type web sites that are as usual behind the times..not the general thousands of years behind but specifically behind the times in understanding the abiogenesis research and the depth of understanding on the matter. That have their lines but fail to update them ..much like the rest of the fairey tale.

But like Jan presenting his cartoon to explain the evolution of the whale in attempted ridicule we witness another backfire...
However just as old mate is ignorant about abiogenesis research he is ignorant of the tell tales he exhibits that makes your call entirely valid..they just dont know...they unfortunately believe they are smarter than other folk with an arrogance so self assuring it does not occur to them they fool no one other than themselves.
Arrogant self deluded uninformed true...but I still like the guy...the laughing gorilla avatar does it for me.
Alex
 
  • Like
Reactions: (Q)
Because it conflicts with their belief. You can punch them or let them live in their own reality. It doesn't matter.
 
billvon said:
You do not understand the time period or the authorship of those passages, so no surprise you have trouble understanding them.
Click to expand...
Transparent projection, or just childish "uh-uh, you do".

You still haven't answered the very simple question I had before. Did cattle come first, or mankind? With your constant claims of intellectual superiority and arrogant attacks on others who, according to you, have Dunning-Kruger syndrome, you should have no problem answering this and proving your superiority.

So prove me wrong. Answer it. I bet you can't.
Click to expand...
Start reading here, and refresh your memory of the whole conversation: http://sciforums.com/threads/why-do-theists-reject-evolution.163057/page-14#post-3636533
Pages and pages (in this very thread), and you still refused to accept any answer I gave you. That's how bias, poor memory, and Dunning-Kruger works. Hey, at least I taught you how to spell Dunning-Kruger.
 
Vociferous said:
Transparent projection, or just childish "uh-uh, you do".
That's how bias, poor memory, and Dunning-Kruger works. Hey, at least I taught you how to spell Dunning-Kruger.
Click to expand...
Why don't you quite while you are behind....you were done and dusted many pages back, hence your continued resorting to posting lies and obfuscation....:rolleyes:
 
Vociferous said:
Transparent projection, or just childish "uh-uh, you do".
Click to expand...
?? No. I was saying you don't understand, which you have amply demonstrated.
So prove me wrong. Answer it. I bet you can't.
Click to expand...
Start reading here . . . .
Click to expand...
So you can't. I figured as much. All that sturm und drang and you can't even answer the simplest question about the Bible.

But it's me that has Dunning-Kruger. Right.
 
paddoboy said:
Why don't you quite while you are behind....you were done and dusted many pages back, hence your continued resorting to posting lies and obfuscation....:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Oh, I suspect he's going to keep digging. People like him usually do. No doubt he will start with your misspelling of "quit."
 
billvon said:
?? No. I was saying you don't understand, which you have amply demonstrated.

So you can't. I figured as much. All that sturm und drang and you can't even answer the simplest question about the Bible.

But it's me that has Dunning-Kruger. Right.
Click to expand...
Well, since you apparently missed it, even being reiterated over many pages...

Both Genesis 1 & 2 say that cattle came before man. Now you can restart all the same incoherent arguments you've already made. Happy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top