Why do theists reject evolution?
- Thread starter Xelasnave.1947
- Start date
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
I just came up with a new word...godism.. that should destroy them.
Do these creationists sit around working out how they may discredit science ?....er yes, yes they do...what is the name of their organisation who's manifesto is to discredits science..no doubt the inventors of the new word..sciencism.
Can you believe these people exist?
They see a war between science and their good book and unfortunately finding themselves on the losing side need to resort to dirty tactics..meanwhile science goes on sweeping superstition to one side as it offers real benefits to humans that constantly drop out of various programs of research...why would you see science as an enemy?
What a pathetic bunch these creationist have become from their efforts to derail science and call it the enemy..
The irony is you can take evolution off the table and these simple believers still have not moved past making an unsupported claim, with zero evidence offered, stick...remains pie in the sky. Prove first that your myth is real ... just do that...no more excuses just do it.
All they need do is show their is a god...the god that tells them everything..is that too much to ask....well yes it is because you must have faith that everything they claim is true ..that's the whole deal..you gotta have faith...that's what makes it real.
Delusion in a bucket and spilling on the floor.
The real enemy for them is their own gullibility to think that a book that contains the story of a human living inside a whale for three days can be trusted to get anything at all correct.
I had hoped for someone to point out that the story is an anology, that this is where we throw that most clickable switch back to the " not literal setting" and explain that the whale represents a city where the inhabitants are kind and observe the Sabbath.. but no..and no doubt it is a hard one..maybe you need to be able to work this one out so you can leave the switch in not literal position and move on to revelations and interpret the many headed monster...or is that prophesy to be taken literally..Will the end be that bad...horsepucks!
And yet they still push on in their land of make believe.
I do find it difficult to understand how the church can state acceptance for evolution given it contradicts their good book. How can the two fit? I guess that is godism for you.
I was reading, no it was a video, whatever ...if this becomes a matter of dispute I am sure a goggle will provide facts or none... but apparently the idea of humans being formed by a god from clay is found within Eygiptian myth...does that suggest the clay model approach now has more support and that the mystism of scientism and it's premise of a common ancestor approach is now under threat? Who will win the supporters of scientism or the supporters of godism. I think Eygiptians built the first human god model based on astrology ..you know 12 followers, death and rebirth after three days..there is more but why look and spoil a great story cause all you need is faith... again one can find out the truth if one was prepared to confront the proposition that everything you believe is untrue...but who wants to do that....safer not to look...the followers of godism will not even read this far.
Nevertheless one can accept the old testament, even with its mistakes, because in general it is ancient folk trying to make sense of their world by invoking a creator and attempting to record useful laws..but that new testament is entirely different... it steals authority from the old testament to enlist credibility for a human god clearly invented by a clever Roman family using the favoured astrology model of the day. Who are the first three saints..gives you a clue..but we need not think about that...here look at this burial shroud.
And worse still these new testament folk having used the old testament as the vehicle to get them to where they are today now claim the old testament is somewhat old hat ...what a bunch of miserable pretenders...however when they need a universe created where do they go?
Alex
Do these creationists sit around working out how they may discredit science ?....er yes, yes they do...what is the name of their organisation who's manifesto is to discredits science..no doubt the inventors of the new word..sciencism.
Can you believe these people exist?
They see a war between science and their good book and unfortunately finding themselves on the losing side need to resort to dirty tactics..meanwhile science goes on sweeping superstition to one side as it offers real benefits to humans that constantly drop out of various programs of research...why would you see science as an enemy?
What a pathetic bunch these creationist have become from their efforts to derail science and call it the enemy..
The irony is you can take evolution off the table and these simple believers still have not moved past making an unsupported claim, with zero evidence offered, stick...remains pie in the sky. Prove first that your myth is real ... just do that...no more excuses just do it.
All they need do is show their is a god...the god that tells them everything..is that too much to ask....well yes it is because you must have faith that everything they claim is true ..that's the whole deal..you gotta have faith...that's what makes it real.
Delusion in a bucket and spilling on the floor.
The real enemy for them is their own gullibility to think that a book that contains the story of a human living inside a whale for three days can be trusted to get anything at all correct.
I had hoped for someone to point out that the story is an anology, that this is where we throw that most clickable switch back to the " not literal setting" and explain that the whale represents a city where the inhabitants are kind and observe the Sabbath.. but no..and no doubt it is a hard one..maybe you need to be able to work this one out so you can leave the switch in not literal position and move on to revelations and interpret the many headed monster...or is that prophesy to be taken literally..Will the end be that bad...horsepucks!
And yet they still push on in their land of make believe.
I do find it difficult to understand how the church can state acceptance for evolution given it contradicts their good book. How can the two fit? I guess that is godism for you.
I was reading, no it was a video, whatever ...if this becomes a matter of dispute I am sure a goggle will provide facts or none... but apparently the idea of humans being formed by a god from clay is found within Eygiptian myth...does that suggest the clay model approach now has more support and that the mystism of scientism and it's premise of a common ancestor approach is now under threat? Who will win the supporters of scientism or the supporters of godism. I think Eygiptians built the first human god model based on astrology ..you know 12 followers, death and rebirth after three days..there is more but why look and spoil a great story cause all you need is faith... again one can find out the truth if one was prepared to confront the proposition that everything you believe is untrue...but who wants to do that....safer not to look...the followers of godism will not even read this far.
Nevertheless one can accept the old testament, even with its mistakes, because in general it is ancient folk trying to make sense of their world by invoking a creator and attempting to record useful laws..but that new testament is entirely different... it steals authority from the old testament to enlist credibility for a human god clearly invented by a clever Roman family using the favoured astrology model of the day. Who are the first three saints..gives you a clue..but we need not think about that...here look at this burial shroud.
And worse still these new testament folk having used the old testament as the vehicle to get them to where they are today now claim the old testament is somewhat old hat ...what a bunch of miserable pretenders...however when they need a universe created where do they go?
Alex
There is no possible way to take the bible literally, except by ignoring the inconvenient bits. When I say 'bits', I mean large swathes. But it's also impossible to make any sense of the religion(s) it promulgates if those swathes were cut out altogether.
(Last century, Catholics were discouraged from reading OT so that they wouldn't presume to interpret those scriptures. A slim RC edition was given to the congregations, while priests often took sermons from the OT and children were told the illustrated version of Daniel, David, Noah, etc. Must have been damn confusing for them!)
So, what the various preachers, advocates and apologists have to do is ignore some parts sometimes and other parts at other times, designate some parts as literally true and some as allegorical, some as eternally valid, some as archaic ("Well, back then they didn't know any better than to condemn usury. Now, of course we realize that lending money at 30% interest is a Christian value: it's how you earn God's help by helping yourself.)
As for ID, they have no problem with evolution as long as we posit that life could not have started and no species that wasn't on the ark can exist today and that whatever does exist today was already in the garden of Eden, only now each "kind" comes in more models and colours. How is that incompatible with science?
(Last century, Catholics were discouraged from reading OT so that they wouldn't presume to interpret those scriptures. A slim RC edition was given to the congregations, while priests often took sermons from the OT and children were told the illustrated version of Daniel, David, Noah, etc. Must have been damn confusing for them!)
So, what the various preachers, advocates and apologists have to do is ignore some parts sometimes and other parts at other times, designate some parts as literally true and some as allegorical, some as eternally valid, some as archaic ("Well, back then they didn't know any better than to condemn usury. Now, of course we realize that lending money at 30% interest is a Christian value: it's how you earn God's help by helping yourself.)
As for ID, they have no problem with evolution as long as we posit that life could not have started and no species that wasn't on the ark can exist today and that whatever does exist today was already in the garden of Eden, only now each "kind" comes in more models and colours. How is that incompatible with science?
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
What a tangled web they weave.
Alex
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
Just because life didn't always exist it doesn't follow that it must have come about due to abiogenesis, unless you have faith in scientism. It's not "ignorance of the exact methology", it's ignorance of how it occurred at all. be honest with yourself.
I don't know, as I never do. Why do so many atheists like posting in religion subforums?
What else is an atheist who professes scientism going to say?
Ignorance of the exact methodology is ignorance of how it occurred. We also while confident of the BB, are still ignorant of how or why it occurred. That's why science is the premier discipline in continued progress, rather then pretending and imagining some magical spaghetti monster that does not need to abide by the laws and constants of physics. Thankfully science will prevail in the long run.
So why are you here posting nonsense? Please don't resort to lying like Jan always does.
On your return question, this is a science forum overall, and as such all fringe disciplines like religion etc, are also bound by the scientific methodology.
My original question stands which you have sidestepped.
"My question would be why so many IDers and creationists, see the need to conduct their evangelistic crusades on science forums, where the obvious nature of Abiogenesis is accepted, as opposed to mythical spaghetti monsters, that don't need to abide by the laws and constants of the universe.
I mean if I fronted up to some church during a Sunday service and started expounding the certainty of Abiogenesis, I would quickly and probably violently, be thrown out on my ear".
The truth? The facts as they stand? Just as any scientist will do and just as the quote illustrated.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
You do realize that abiogenesis is itself an evolutionary process. Life is an emergent property of dynamic mineral (chemical) biology.
How is abiogenesis, an excuse for denial of God, an evolutionary process?
Because it makes any need of such a magical creature as totally unnecessary and superfluous.
Why believe in essentially a myth anyway?
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Aside from your completely false assertion that abiogenesis is an excuse for denial of God, what is it about the term "evolution" you do not understand?
I'll even take you off ignore....for that...
p.s. Universal evolution
I should also like to see "mathematics" in relation to structure and mechanical laws.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_evolution#Evolutionary_stages
But perhaps that process is too slow for you and you like that instant gratification of the certainty that
"God did it" even as you have no clue as to what he did, how he did it, and why.
Last edited:
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that shows abiogenesis is even possible. The idea is absurd, and you know it.
I told you abiogenesis was just an excuse to accepting God. Thanks for proving my point.
So because you are angry, or upset with God, you accept a rabbit out of the hat, trick, just so you don’t have to give your God, the credit.
Yes, He is your God too, despite your denial and rejection.
As inanely stupid as what you say is, it is as usual par for the course in what rhetoric you generally spew out on this forum, in the fanatical protection of your mythical spaghetti monster.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
No, you assume it is absurd, only because your limited knowledge of biochemistry, which appears to be seriously lacking in depth....
Start watching Robert Hazen to hear an expert provide compelling reasons why abiogenesis is not only possible, it was inevitable, given the combinatory chemical richness, enormous spaces, and enormous times of the universe, it was inevitable that life would arise somewhere, and probably has in many places throughout the universe.
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
We have tons of evidence that it's possible, as you know.