Why do theists reject evolution?

Thank you for so directly proving my point, that atheists do use evolution to argue abiogenesis, thus directly trying to refute creation, contrary to what others here have disingenuously claimed.
You don't know what you are talking about. The definition of "evolution" includes but is not exclusive of Darwinian evolution. Evolution merely means gradual change into more complex patterns. This applies to all universal functions, not just to biology. Universal evolution has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution of biological systems. The earth itself has chemically evolved. It has performed some two trillion, quadrillion, quadrillion, quadrillion chemical interactions during its relatively short cosmic life span of 3 billion years....not easily duplicated in a lab, huh?.....:)

Every molecule you find on earth and throughout the universe is the result of Chemical evolution from simple into more complex patterns, including the formation of some 500 biochemical compounds that make up the human part of the human biome.

You do know that the human biome consists of 10 % human cells and 90 % bacterial cells?
The bacteria keep us alive. How did that complex pattern evolve from the primordial soup? ......:?
 
Last edited:
Yes, we are so ignorant of what caused the Big Bang or origin of life that we can't even rule out God. In neither case can we demonstrate any alternative method. Since if a God exists, the laws of physics were defined by it, and a God cannot contradict itself, it follow that the consistency of nature, upon which all science is built, is the will of God. So if science prevails, so does the will of God.
Don't be so stupidly naive. Science has so far, over a relatively short space of time, pushed back and made superfluous any need for any mythical spaghetti monster to around t+10-43 seconds. Unlike religions though, and the fanatical preachers like you and Jan, science openly admits that before that t+10-43 seconds, we can only speculate. In fact science also admits it knows not the why or how of the BB, and again, can only speculate.
You do see a difference between science and creationists then don't you?
I can't speak for a motive I do not possess. The "obvious nature" being accepted without any direct evidence at all is nothing more than faith. More faith than I have in God to do or explain anything for me.
:rolleyes: Similar to the preaching, crusades of Jan, you fail to answer the question or situation I proposed.
What facts? You've already admitted that we are ignorant of the details of the Big Bang and origin of life, yet you still assert the certainty of your faith. You've become what you hate, mate.
I'm asserting nothing more in the gaps that exist, then science doesn't at this time, know. But we do have some interesting and reasonable speculative scenarios based on current scientific knowledge. You and your preacher friends, and following sheep instead, automatically insert you god of the gaps.
Thank you for so directly proving my point, that atheists do use evolution to argue abiogenesis, thus directly trying to refute creation, contrary to what others here have disingenuously claimed.
Again similar misinterpretations and obfuscations that Jan often uses.
The theory of Evolution is a fact.
Abiogenesis is the only scientific answer for how life first arose.
Creation, meaning an IDer, is a mythical unscientific concept, that purports some sort of magical creature, that defies all our known laws of physics. So much for your disingenuously fabricated answers/replies.
 
Of course we have evidence. At one time there was no life: Then there was.
:DI always said you hate science.
Of course we have evidence. At one time there was no life: Then there was. Ignoring any unevidenced and unscientific mythical creator, who just seems to be able to defy the known laws of physics, then Abiogenesis is the only scientific answer.

As a preacher man with obvious psychotic delusions and ability to obfuscate and lie [evidenced in your previous banning] your statement simply ignores the fact that already in a relatively short space of time, science has pushed back and made superfluous any need for any creature that can be determined as a god, into oblivion. Well at least to t+10-43 seconds.
Only a religious nut would come up with such nonsense. Don’t you know that science has no such jurisdiction. At best science shows evidence of a highly intelligent mind behind this creation. You hate God so much, that it goes without saying you hate science. So much so that you would distort it for your whimsical delusion. You know there is a God, especially as I have been schooling you over the last couple of months. But you stubbornly deny and reject Him.
 
:DI always said you hate science.
Coming from a proven liar that has been suspended for lying, I'll take that with a grain of salt.
Only a religious nut would come up with such nonsense. Don’t you know that science has no such jurisdiction. At best science shows evidence of a highly intelligent mind behind this creation. You hate God so much, that it goes without saying you hate science. So much so that you would distort it for your whimsical delusion. You know there is a God, especially as I have been schooling you over the last couple of months. But you stubbornly deny and reject Him.
Typical evangelic crusade talk...more redefining, more purposful lies, more fanatical stupidity.
Let me make it clear again...god is a superfluous, unscientific myth, and science can explain at least back to the quantum/Planck era. Abiogenesis of course [much to your annoyance and displeasure, is actually the only scientific answer.
You know science? that thing that you like to pretend I hate for some mythical obscure reason. :rolleyes:
 
It is an outdated idea.
No, one is a scientific concept, the other an unscientific fabricated myth.
It is the alternative to the creation of God.
It is used purely for that purpose.
Although you know it is impossible, you will wilfully string it out until you die, so that you deny and reject God.
God is a myth...god is a supernatural unscientific myth brought about and fabricated through ignorance.
The only purpose of science is knowledge through the scientific methodology.
 
Maybe theists feel they need to reject evolution, because the idea of accepting it makes them feel guilty.

After all, the sense of knowing what God is, is a feeling, maybe that you're on the right path or something.
 
Maybe theists feel they need to reject evolution, because the idea of accepting it makes them feel guilty.

After all, the sense of knowing what God is, is a feeling, maybe that you're on the right path or something.
They simply do not want to recognise that Abiogenesis and the evolution of life, while being rare, has had 13.83 billion years to reach the stages that we know of today, on at least one planet.
 
god is not a myth . pad
Sure it's a myth. And I bet you feel the same way. There are hundreds of gods - from Zeus to Ra to Hera to Vishnu to Ashanti - that I am sure you consider myths. So you share the belief of pretty much all atheists to an accuracy of 99.9%.
 
I'm pretty sure you can be a theist and still accept evolution as being one of God's works.

Can you be a theist and accept that your belief is not in a mythical being's existence?
And if it isn't then what?
 
Back
Top