I just have you a list of dictionary definitions.
You can call it what you like.
I’ll stick with Darwinism.
Yes I have.
Why do theists reject evolution?
- Thread starter Xelasnave.1947
- Start date
I’ll stick with Darwinism.
No, you haven't.
"He could have just said he didn’t believe in evolution, or that evolution had flaws. Or, he could have said that a book with a whole unit on evolution was just too much. But William Buckingham, of the Dover Area School Board in Pennsylvania, didn’t use the “E” word when he explained his objections to the biology textbook selected by the science teachers at Dover High School. Instead, he invoked a term that didn’t even appear in that textbook. Prentice Hall’s Biology: The Living Science, he claimed, “was laced with Darwinism from beginning to end.” Surely, he must have thought, “Darwinism” was a disqualifying slander that everyone could understand."
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/on-darwinism/
OK. But as you yourself admit, the change from land animals to whales was evolution, and the change from a primate ancestor to humans was evolution.
Of course you do! You admit to being gullible and accepting myth over science.
That's "I don't admit anything."
Your own words: "The idea that humans evolved from apes" "whale evolution"
I will use your own words. You can hardly object to a definition you provided. (I mean, I know you can, but you will look like an even bigger fool.)
Well!
If you want to play that silly game be my guest.
But it does nothing for your belief, and it shows that these ideas are anything but scientific.
The biggest fool IMO is the the fool that says, in his heart, there is no God.
Even if that were the case, it’s better than the nonsense you accept over science.
Jan Ardena:
I'm afraid that I can't allow you to troll this thread like you trolled the last one.
To continue to participate in this thread, you will need to answer all the questions I put to you in this post:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/why-do-theists-reject-evolution.163057/page-3#post-3630278
I look forward to your comprehensive and honest reply.
I'm afraid that I can't allow you to troll this thread like you trolled the last one.
To continue to participate in this thread, you will need to answer all the questions I put to you in this post:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/why-do-theists-reject-evolution.163057/page-3#post-3630278
I look forward to your comprehensive and honest reply.
James, I am not trolling anything. The thread asks why theists reject evolution, and I have given my response.
You know what I regard as evolution, namely what is termed “microevolution”. I just don’t accept the so called evidence for any change outside of that, and I’m not the only one. It’s not as though I’m a part of some little clique or minority, going against something so obvious, one would have to be a fool to reject it.
To me this idea is more political than scientific.
Hence the the kind of fanatical backlash people who don’t accept, get.
It seems you just can’t let it go. You, and other proponents of this idea are intolerant of any people who disagree with you. That is evident here.
Just let it go man! There are people who totally disagree with macroevolution, and hopefully it will die out. But if we are wrong, and somehow it turns out to be true, I will accept it. But I’m not holding my breath.
You asked for a honest and comprehensive reply, and you got one.
My participation in this thread, other than my initial response to the the thread, is fed by an intolerance to what I deem to be, a belief system. A materialistic philosophy that vehemently opposed to my own philosophy, and worldview. It is not about trying to show the science, or even philosophy, that trump my worldview. It is an attempt to beat down, or as Alex likes to say, crush me. But in failure to do so, becoming agitated, and aggressive, out of frustration.
You know what I regard as evolution, namely what is termed “microevolution”. I just don’t accept the so called evidence for any change outside of that, and I’m not the only one. It’s not as though I’m a part of some little clique or minority, going against something so obvious, one would have to be a fool to reject it.
To me this idea is more political than scientific.
Hence the the kind of fanatical backlash people who don’t accept, get.
It seems you just can’t let it go. You, and other proponents of this idea are intolerant of any people who disagree with you. That is evident here.
Just let it go man! There are people who totally disagree with macroevolution, and hopefully it will die out. But if we are wrong, and somehow it turns out to be true, I will accept it. But I’m not holding my breath.
You asked for a honest and comprehensive reply, and you got one.
My participation in this thread, other than my initial response to the the thread, is fed by an intolerance to what I deem to be, a belief system. A materialistic philosophy that vehemently opposed to my own philosophy, and worldview. It is not about trying to show the science, or even philosophy, that trump my worldview. It is an attempt to beat down, or as Alex likes to say, crush me. But in failure to do so, becoming agitated, and aggressive, out of frustration.
Last edited:
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Perhaps state who rejects evolution so we can examine their qualifications and who they represent.
Otherwise you make an unsupported claim.
Who are these folk?
Alex
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Can't find their web site...is there one?
Apex
Apex
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Jan Ardena:
I see that, once again, you have avoided answering my questions about your understanding of "darwinism". I think a reasonable consequence is to exclude you from posting to this thread for 1 week, to give you a chance to reconsider your response. If you cannot or will not answer my questions after being given another week to consider them, I will have to conclude that you're simply trolling. So, I urge to make an honest attempt at them.
Good luck!
I see that, once again, you have avoided answering my questions about your understanding of "darwinism". I think a reasonable consequence is to exclude you from posting to this thread for 1 week, to give you a chance to reconsider your response. If you cannot or will not answer my questions after being given another week to consider them, I will have to conclude that you're simply trolling. So, I urge to make an honest attempt at them.
Good luck!
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
From Wiki
Michael Egnor is a pediatric neurosurgeon and intelligent design supporter who writes for the Discovery Institute blog. He is a professor at the Department of Neurological Surgery at Stony Brook University, a position held since 1991.[1]
Discovery institute who's manifesto is to sideline science.
Nutters
Alex
Michael Egnor is a pediatric neurosurgeon and intelligent design supporter who writes for the Discovery Institute blog. He is a professor at the Department of Neurological Surgery at Stony Brook University, a position held since 1991.[1]
Discovery institute who's manifesto is to sideline science.
Nutters
Alex
Dont be so silly Jan. Or alternativelly please quote what nonsense I accept over science. You can't, because you are again lying and redefining definitions.Even if that were the case, it’s better than the nonsense you accept over science.
Unmitigated bullshit. Your participation in this and other threads is to simply spew your lies and agenda, mainly by denying the accepted fact of Darwinism and the theroy of evolution, along with the evidence for that fact that has been laid at your feet, like the fossil record, like carbon and radio dating etc.