Why are Some Christians Upset that Other Theists Accept Darwin?

[Tcg]

.

Here is the reaction of one Christian when it was pointed out that some theists accept evolution:

"There are also plenty of theists that don't read the Bible nor attend Church, but they certainly like Darwin."

viewtopic.php?p=1142308#p1142308

Why would the fact that some theists accept reality bother a Christian? What drives this evolution phobia?


Tcg

[1213]

...going into science - denial mode...

Asking question is denial and bad in your world? Maybe it is best, if no one questions your "science", someone could see an error in it and that would obviously be awful.

Do I remember correctly that I (and others) explained in detail with diagrams and maps the Cetan sequence as proof positive of speciation, "Macro" evolution and thus Darwin's theory as being true and real? Or was that someone else?

Please provide link to that.

[TRANSPONDER]

...going into science - denial mode...

Asking question is denial and bad in your world? Maybe it is best, if no one questions your "science", someone could see an error in it and that would obviously be awful.

Do I remember correctly that I (and others) explained in detail with diagrams and maps the Cetan sequence as proof positive of speciation, "Macro" evolution and thus Darwin's theory as being true and real? Or was that someone else?

Please provide link to that.

Quite ridiculous. Science is always asking questions. That is why science deniers try to discredit it by saying 'science is always changing its'mind'. But the denial is when it produces evidence for evolution for example, and it is denied. Questions, yes; I asked a lot of questions myself back in the 80's when Creationism became a thing. But Creationism failed (and denied it) and evolution made its' case, and creationists deny it.

A link to the cetan sequence? I thought we'd already done it to death, but I'll see what I can find. .



In case this doesn't set it out, the links of one evolution to another is confirmed by these specific ear bones that are found in all the evolutions and the transition from a partial land to a total sea creature by the adaptation of the nostrils from the snout to the top of the head. The spread of fossils to a wider area indicating prolonged sea travel is also evidence.

The significance of the sequence being speciation - a definite evolution of one Kind of critter (like a fox or dog) to another 'kind' which as Kent Hovind's 6 year old child might have said is a fish.

You can ask questions, but bear in mind, asking questions about is not the same as questioning the whole sequence, which is as complete evidence as a Creationist could possibly have asked for. Even more than going back iin time.

Because of course going back and watching Doradon catching fish would tell you nothing, just as watching a penguin doing it does not tell you of the evolution. Australian fossils tells us how penguins evolved. 'We don't see it happen' is just denial. It is not a valid objection.

Just covering that point Not saying that you are going to pull that one.

Oh...sorry for the advert..there is just no escaping it these days.

[Tcg]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #12]

Yes. The fact of evolution is clearly established and the methods some use to deny it are repeated near endlessly. The question remains, why are some Christians so afraid of this reality? What would they lose if they abandoned their evolution phobia?


Tcg

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #12]

Yes. The fact of evolution is clearly established and the methods some use to deny it are repeated near endlessly. The question remains, why are some Christians so afraid of this reality? What would they lose if they abandoned their evolution phobia?


Tcg

I think it's because they realize that if they accept one thing the Bible is wrong about, then it opens the door to everything else being questioned too. They can't have that and maintain their faith at the same time.

What really baffles me is why any religious person thinks old writings are a better place to find answers than actually observing the reality in front of them (which they think their God made). If there is a God, I would think looking carefully at our environment and coming up with repeatable data points is a much better way to find God's signature.

It's almost as if many religious people are actually treating their holy books as a god instead of the god they claim to believe in. I guess because the god they believe in is only described in these books.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #12]

Yes. The fact of evolution is clearly established and the methods some use to deny it are repeated near endlessly. The question remains, why are some Christians so afraid of this reality? What would they lose if they abandoned their evolution phobia?


Tcg

You would really have to ask them - if you could expect an honest answer. The obvious problem is admitting the Bible is wrong about Genesis. However some Christians - even churches - can roll with it. But I think the real problem is dogmatic. This is a religious tenet for some and they can no more admit it is wrong than accept that (on evidence) the resurrection - claim is dubious.

But as I say, some do. Just as some others scrap the Bible pretty much and become Deists. That can and does happen quite apart from countering the misinformation and misrepresentation put about by Creationists for public consumption.

[1213]

Science is always asking questions...

Except if it goes against the narrative.

...But the denial is when it produces evidence for evolution for example, and it is denied. Questions, yes; I asked a lot of questions myself back in the 80's when Creationism became a thing. But Creationism failed (and denied it) and evolution made its' case, and creationists deny it.

Evidence that doesn't really exist, needs not to be denied. When the evidence is about the same as, there to say, we have letters s and i, so it must mean wise, although it could as well mean stupid.

In case this doesn't set it out, the links of one evolution to another is confirmed by these specific ear bones that are found in all the evolutions and the transition from a partial land to a total sea creature by the adaptation of the nostrils from the snout to the top of the head. The spread of fossils to a wider area indicating prolonged sea travel is also evidence.

Those observations can be explained also other way. Therefore they are not useful evidence.

If evolution theory would be serious science, and not pseudoscience, it would be possible to for example breed rats to mini whales. If there is no real way to test the theory, it is just wishful thinking, not real science.

[TRANSPONDER]

Science is always asking questions...

Except if it goes against the narrative.

Yes, even then. As I explained Science is always rethinking. Science skeptrics prove it by saying 'Science is always getting it wrong/science is always changing ist' mind. That's because it always questions itself. You areprojecting the denial of theist -thinking on science.

...But the denial is when it produces evidence for evolution for example, and it is denied. Questions, yes; I asked a lot of questions myself back in the 80's when Creationism became a thing. But Creationism failed (and denied it) and evolution made its' case, and creationists deny it.

Evidence that doesn't really exist, needs not to be denied. When the evidence is about the same as, there to say, we have letters s and i, so it must mean wise, although it could as well mean stupid.

You asked for the cetan sequence which also showed the evidence that it was a real evolution, so 'individual kinds' could not eb claimed. Your only response seems to be little more than a silly quip.

In case this doesn't set it out, the links of one evolution to another is confirmed by these specific ear bones that are found in all the evolutions and the transition from a partial land to a total sea creature by the adaptation of the nostrils from the snout to the top of the head. The spread of fossils to a wider area indicating prolonged sea travel is also evidence.

Those observations can be explained also other way. Therefore they are not useful evidence.

Very well,let's see you do it. Let's seeyou quote creationists who explain it other than an example of speciation.

If evolution theory would be serious science, and not pseudoscience, it would be possible to for example breed rats to mini whales. If there is no real way to test the theory, it is just wishful thinking, not real science.

You are being illogical. That is a strawman misrepresentation of evolution theory. Even apart from demanding that speciation be done in one lifetime rats to whales takes millions of years and you'd reject it because it was done by humans anyway. You haven't thought it through and merely looks for excuses to reject the evidence.

Your argument is still worse. If it was required to repeat an event to show how it happened, history and even crime - scene evaluation would not count because it can't be observed. Analysis of remains is how forensic detective work and indeed archaeology works. Thus Palaeontology is valid too. And Creationists accept it unless as you say, it goes against the narrative.

Your entire post is pot - kettle denial of hard evidence for speciation.

It doesn't matter I didn't expect you to accept inconvenient evidence. Not from someone who denies even what the Bible says if it's inconvenient. The point is that the evidence of speciation is there for anyone whose mind is not closed shut by the supaglu of Faith.

Oh - there is one other thing, not that I expect an answer. This thing about breeding whales from rats in a laboratory, did you think that up yourself or is it (as I suspect) a rejection from some creationists source? In fact I might look it up.

[benchwarmer]

Science is always asking questions...

Except if it goes against the narrative.

You really don't understand how science works do you? I mean, if you do, you wouldn't say the above.

Questioning "the narrative" and providing methodology and data that provide a better or new "narrative" is the entire point of science. You seem to have this idea that all scientists are in this type of club and won't go against their fellow scientists. What you are describing are religious people. They, religious people, are generally the ones that won't go against the literal narrative that's in their preferred holy texts.

It's pretty hard to take people seriously when they don't even understand what they are trying to refute. If you have actual data and a method to reproduce it that refutes any science whatsoever, then fantastic! You yourself will have become a scientist and are welcome to publish your results.

We all know what would happen if scientists ever found some solid data for some type of deity existing. Every single religious person who ever took part in science denial would instantly start singing praise and adoration for these scientists because deep down everyone knows that reliable, observable data wins every time (except when you don't like the result and prefer to ignore it of course).

[TRANSPONDER]

Science is always asking questions...

Except if it goes against the narrative.

You really don't understand how science works do you? I mean, if you do, you wouldn't say the above.

Questioning "the narrative" and providing methodology and data that provide a better or new "narrative" is the entire point of science. You seem to have this idea that all scientists are in this type of club and won't go against their fellow scientists. What you are describing are religious people. They, religious people, are generally the ones that won't go against the literal narrative that's in their preferred holy texts.

It's pretty hard to take people seriously when they don't even understand what they are trying to refute. If you have actual data and a method to reproduce it that refutes any science whatsoever, then fantastic! You yourself will have become a scientist and are welcome to publish your results.

We all know what would happen if scientists ever found some solid data for some type of deity existing. Every single religious person who ever took part in science denial would instantly start singing praise and adoration for these scientists because deep down everyone knows that reliable, observable data wins every time (except when you don't like the result and prefer to ignore it of course).

Well, we all saw the screams of delight when the Talpiot tomb was discovered. The actual tomb that Jesus was buried in. Except if so - Jesus' bones were still there. And of course the soft T-Rex tissue, though that took a while before it was understood as Fossilised soft tissue, just as with the Hadrosaur 'Mummy' which was a loose term to denote the fossil preservation of soft tissue outside of the skeleton, not within it.

On my Other forum the Ankylosaur washed out to sea was claimed to be evidence of the Flood. But 'there are many other explanations' as our pal 1213 pots it, but science (Palaeontology) is utterly reliable if it can be made to look like it supports the Bible.

Right now (of course) the Wellyscope is throwing cosmology in the air and Cosmologists are questioning everything. But if and when a plausible theory appears (and I will bet my last dollar it won't be a god) it will be misrepresented as a Faithclaim by the science religion and anyone who questions it will be disfellowshipped, excommunicated and cancelled. Which is just projecting the Religious apologetic mindset onto science, when it doesn't at all fit how science works, never mind misrepresenting how evolution works.

Of course Creationism itself accepts evolution. Yes - it does, and using the same evidence as in the Cetan sequence. BUT - they deny it can progress from one 'kind' to another. The cetan sequence - using the same evidence they accept within 'kinds shows that speciation can happen. Ham's Ark actually has a Pakicetus on board, presumably to argue that superspeed speciation could take place after the Flood without having to have whales on board.

But it will be ignored (even by AiG) that Ken Ham apparently agrees the cetan sequence. As I say, it doesn't matter as any excuse to reject solid evidence is to be expected. We have seen the wriggling, denial and evasions regarding the order of creation, slavery and the gospel guarantee of answered prayer. I'm not about to list the excuses and denials, but to say that this has to be expected from Fathbased thinking. For a long time I've known that people have to admit questions or they cannot change their minds. Which is the Faithbased mindset the accuse science of having.

Cue 'Well I sure rattled your bars!" No. Humans streetbod thinking is not rational even if it isn't self - justifying (if you want to see this, watch the Old Top gear team arguing about cars - every false analogy, dirty trick and mud slinging in the book - just done for fun) and correct logic, objectivity and critical thinking is something that needs to be learned, even if the desire to use it is there.

[1213]

...
Questioning "the narrative" and providing methodology and data that provide a better or new "narrative" is the entire point of science. You seem to have this idea that all scientists are in this type of club and won't go against their fellow scientists....

I mean political narrative. Scientists, like also politicians, do what their masters tell them to do. If the masters want support for insane climate change cult, then they will provide it, in fear of losing money and position. And those who don't submit, are ridiculed and silenced.