Why do theists reject evolution?

Because most creationists insist that God is responsible for humanity, rather than evolution.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

At one time, there was no life: Then there was: Did that apparent Abiogenesis occur on Earth, through local Earthly conditions, or was it a result of some bacterial or similar basic lifeform, or crucial ingredient for any life, that happened to seed Earth from another planet/star system/galaxy.
Accepted that as yet we have no evidence for such Panspermia.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

https://www.facebook.com/TheSampson...726outBMvxWDsdse05zUSVg&__tn__=k*F&tn-str=k*F

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That was purely to show you that “Darwinism” is a thing.

Lot’s of people can’t explain it, even those that claim it to be true.

 

What do you mean by “responsible”?

 

No, you showed that it's a word. Just as "fairy-dust" is a word, but the thing it names doesn't exist.

I asked what you, personally, object to that you call "Darwinism" but is not "evolution".
Lots of people who can't explain things don't go out of their way to, and make a big production of, objecting to those "things" they can't explain their reasons for objecting to.

 

Responsible - "being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for it."

 

That's why it's pedantic. We already know what Darwinism is and that it is a thing, its what you fail to know and understand, which is also a thing.

 

A word that means something, however loosely it is used.

And I gave you an in a nutshell answer.

 

Which creationists believe that God is responsible for humanity?

 

Good. So when I use the term, there is no need to say there is no such thing as Darwinism, or something similar.

 

But the thing it refers to doesn't actually exist. You can oppose things that don't exist: that exercise is usually referred-to as jousting with strawmen.

You mean this?:

That's not Darwinism; that's evolution.
The two matters in which you have been perfectly consistent are 1. insisting on a word with no substance and 2. failing to meet the criteria of your own claim:

 

What doesn’t exist?
The idea that humans evolved from apes?
Or the idea that land dwelling creatures turned into whales?

I call it darwinism, because it is based on Darwin’s idea.

 

Dawinism is a useful term because if you encounter someone who uses that term you can be reasonably certain they support the creationist movement and support the manifesto to bring science into discredit and moreover promote the non science of intelligent design.
Alex

 

Darwinism.

That's evolution.

That's a theory within the larger science of evolution.

Whatever you call it, you have not made the distinction between the "Darwinism" you reject and the Evolution you accept.

 

They are not ideas...they are factual results of Darwinism and the theory of evolution.

For all intents and purposes, Darwinism and the theory of evolution are the same. Your futile attempts to somehow infer different, along with your incessant sometimes nonsensical questions, is actually a cover for an anti science, pro creationist nonsense, that like another, river, you attempt to use to denigrate science. But as I have told you before, and river, the facts remain, and science reigns supreme, as it should, being mankind's greatest achievement, from those dark, dingy ignorant days of mythical culture.

 

The apologists at Answers in Genesis, for one. The Catholic church. The Protestant church. The Anglican church. For starters.

 

Both of those exist. As you claim, they are evolution.

You just called it evolution, so that's what I will continue to call it in discussions with you.

 

And again, I already explained this to you.

Seriously Jan, you must smoke an ounce of pot every day considering how short your memory.

 

Oh, his memory is fine. He does this intentionally. Watch - his next move will be to quibble over the definitions of words again, since he literally has nothing else.