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

[TRANSPONDER]

...You also reject that the skeleton of flippers (showing hand bones) does not show they used to be land animals. What other explanation have you for that?

They may be there just for the body to work better, for example balancing the body so that it works better in the environment. However, if I don't know explanation for them, it doesn't mean your poor explanation is then automatically correct.

You continue to do it wrong - dismissing the better explanation with excuses. Can you prove that dlippers work better with hand bones than say a system of rays? Tell that to the fish. Also you ignore the sequence showing the evolution from a land critter to a sea critter (and don't forget the evolution of the nostril to the top of the head) And of course the 'nose art' of the ear -bone showing they are a related line of animals. You are dismissing or ignoring the evidence to fool yourself into Genesis literalism but there is no logical or evidential reason not to believe the cetan sequence far better. I know you think you win if you deny everything but to anyone who cares about logic and evidence, you have nothing but denialist excuses.

And for the connected sequence of fossils showing progressive development of the legs to flippers? And the evolution of the nostrils? Don't you think that is evidence of speciation that deserves better then just dismissal with nothing better than an inept analogy? Are you also going to dismiss the skeletons of bird wings showing they were once arms? I don't suppose you will agree but just to show how the dismissal of a better explanation in favor of the faithbased one works.

I don't think there are enough sequences to show evolution theory could be correct.

But, I can believe there are different variations of different species. For example we have humans that are about 2 feet and also humans that are over 8 feet. If we would found their skeletons from ancient sediments, the evolutionists would claim they are different species and results of evolution. There can be lot of variation within one species and it seems evolutionists make that to mean there happens evolution. I think it is not reasonable

Still more denial. You are (in a vague way) rehearsing the 'micro -evolution' denial. "Eohippus may evolve into Eqqus, but they are still horse - kind" But the cetan sequence is hard evidence that proves that a land animal can evolve into a sea animal. If that is provable (and it is if one doesn't take refuge in silly excuses like 'turn rats into elephants in a laboratory' then all the other transitional formsare validated. 'Macro'evolution is validated.

Biblical Tyre is under modern Tyre... ...where is your evidence that Tyre on the mainland wasn't also called Tyre? What was it called?

The Tyre Bible is speaking of, is in the midst of the sea, meaning it is an island. On the mainland there were daughter towns that apparently are rebuilt and nowadays called Tyre. But, it is not the same, all though it seems the other towns have expanded so that they now are connected to the island making the old Tyre a point of peninsula.

They shall destroy the walls of Tyre, and break down her towers: I will also scrape her dust from her, and make her a bare rock. She shall be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea; for I have spoken it, says the Lord Yahweh; and she shall become a spoil to the nations. Her daughters who are in the field [daughter towns on the continent] shall be slain with the sword: and they shall know that I am Yahweh… …I will make you a bare rock; you shall be a place for the spreading of nets; you shall be built no more: for I Yahweh have spoken it, says the Lord Yahweh.
Ezek. 26:4-6,14
In their wailing they shall take up a lamentation for you, and lament over you, [saying], Who is there like Tyre, like her who is brought to silence in the midst of the sea?
Ezek. 27:32

Does this look like rebuilt to you?

Where is that? Do you know? I have checked various ruins not built over and they turned out to be in the necropolis way out of town and of later date, too. They were both 'Rebuilt Tyre'. The fact is that your excuses are futile. Even if your argument that mainlad Tyre was not Tyre 'in the sea', it was ALL rebuilt, including Island Tyre. The causeway built by Alexander from the mainland to the Island silted up and present Tyre (Sur) covers allof it. and Old Tyre is found in archaeology under it. It was rebuilt and quickly to. I read that a later Macedonian king beseiged it and of course it was there in the NT times and after that.

But tell us all - why do you think one particular god should be 'kept'as you say? Why for instance should you not have moved on from the NT revelation to the Quranic revelation?

Why would I move to Quran? It says people should believe Jesus, so I think I do rightly, if I believe Jesus.

For the reason Jews should move to Christianity even though the NT says people should believe God. It was a later revelation, so what is your reason to reject the later Revelation of the Quran? Just as one should still believe God, but also the teachings of Jesus, Quran says one should believe God, and the wordsof Jesus but also the Revelation of Muhammad. You are 'without excuse'.

“…The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah… …believe in Allah and His messengers…”
Quran 4:171, https://legacy.quran.com/4/171

I keep Bible God as my God, because He has shown greatness unlike any other. Also, the others don't seem to have anything to say to me.

One for Google translate 'Theist - English' "I believe Bible and Biblegod because I ignore all the other religious claims and their Holy Books." Denial.That is the mosud operandi. Claiming all the evidence is on their side but denying it all when it isn't, and of course making stuff up

Or for that matter to the Joseph Smith Revelation?

Do you know what is the main point of Joseph Smith Revelation?

I don't know what YOU consider the main part of the Joseph Smith Revelation, nor what LDS consider the main Revelation, but for me it's the claim that Jesus travelled to America. Wearing a red hat and gold sneakers. What is your point?

It is remarkable how Bible apologists just sling random, irrelevant and out of context stuff at us and expect us to accept their uninformed claims.

"The most noteworthy structures are the vestiges of the Roman baths, the two palaestrae, the arena, the Roman colonnaded road, the residential quarter, as well as the remains of the cathedral built in 1127 by the Venetians and some of the walls of the ancient Crusader castle." (General internet information quote)

The remaining ruins seem to be of Roman date and indeed built outside the old Tyre.

[Masterblaster]

Hello TRANSPONDER,1213

Good discussion, this has been going around in my head. 1213 described the Darwinian Evolutionary Theory as a ' not reality'.
This created doubts in my head about the theory.
( 1) Does it adequately contain the obvious emergence of mankind into an ultra dominant role. Are we more dominant than dinosaurs were. Is ours the same kind of dominance.
Is our sense of obvious ultra-dominance just an illusion of confidence
(2) Does the Theory embrace the Evolution of Ageing.
We subconsciously make domestic appliances to break, for commercial reasons. There is no obvious reason why design should not have overcome their apparent fragility, by now
Why has everything evolved to break down???
I was reading the knowledge hub and this is what they have on The Evolution of Ageing
"Summary
We have introduced what evolutionary biologists think about the evolution of aging. Today, it is clear that aging is not a positively selected, programmed death process, and has not evolved for "the good of the species". Instead, aging is a feature of life that exists because selection is weak and ineffective at maintaining survival, reproduction, and somatic repair at old age. Based on the observation that the force of selection declines as a function of age, two main hypotheses have been formulated to explain why organisms grow old and die: the mutation accumulation (MA) and the antagonistic pleiotropy (AP) hypotheses. Under MA, aging evolves because selection cannot efficiently eliminate deleterious mutations that manifest themselves only late in life. Under AP, aging evolves as a maladaptive byproduct of selection for increased fitness early in life, with the beneficial early-life effects being genetically coupled to deleterious late-life effects that cause aging. Aging clearly shortens lifespan, but lifespan is also shaped by selection for an increased number of lifetime reproductive events. The evolution of lifespan is therefore a balance between selective factors that extend the reproductive period and components of intrinsic mortality that shorten it. Whether there exist truly immortal organisms is controversial, and recent evidence suggests in fact that aging might be an inevitable property of all cellular life."

Questions and Doubts,..TRANSPONDER?!

[1213]

You continue to do it wrong - dismissing the better explanation with excuses. Can you prove that dlippers work better with hand bones than say a system of rays? Tell that to the fish.

I don't think there is any reason to say the other works better. They can be both good for the purpose. And probably the fish structure would not work as well in whale scale.

and don't forget the evolution of the nostril to the top of the head

How could I forget that silly little fairy tale. How you can belie it, I never know.

But the cetan sequence is hard evidence that proves that a land animal can evolve into a sea animal. If that is provable

Strong faith you have. You could probably believe anything a scientist tells to you.

For the reason Jews should move to Christianity even though the NT says people should believe God.

I don't think Jews should move to Christianity. I think they should believe God and His prophets.

Yahweh your God will raise up to you a prophet from among you, of your brothers, like me. You shall listen to him.
Deut. 18:15 (Acts 7:37)

In Biblical point of view, Christians are Jews.

If therefore the uncircumcised keep the ordinances of the law, won’t his uncircumcision be accounted as circumcision? Won’t the uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfills the law, judge you, who with the letter and circumcision are a transgressor of the law? For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter; whose praise is not from men, but from God.
Romans 2:26-29

But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the root and of the richness of the olive tree, don’t boast over the brancEzek. But if you boast, it is not you who support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, “Branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.” True; by their unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by your faith. Don’t be conceited, but fear; for if God didn’t spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you.
Romans 11:17-21

but also the Revelation of Muhammad.

Has he something that is not already told in the Bible?

...consider the main Revelation, but for me it's the claim that Jesus travelled to America. Wearing a red hat and gold sneakers.

If that is the main point, I think it is irrelevant.

[1213]

Why has everything evolved to break down???

Hello and thanks. I am not sure if I understand your point correctly, but that reminds me of the idea that everything really seems to be degenerating, not evolving. All evidence for evolution is something that is getting less than what it once was. Like for example "Whales lost their feet" and the DNA changes through mistakes. All that implies that everything was once good, as said in the Bible, and now it is less than what it was. This is why I think all the alleged evidence for evolution is actually evidence for creation, that things were once good, until it begun to degenerate.

[Masterblaster]

Hello 1213

There are many considerations here.
- Have we reached a point of diminishing returns.
- what does the curve indicate?
- is regression the obvious progression(very Biblical)
- how much influence have we (if any), in all this?
- etc,

As I stated earlier, good discussion.
Thank You for your opinions.

[TRANSPONDER]

Hello TRANSPONDER,1213

Good discussion, this has been going around in my head. 1213 described the Darwinian Evolutionary Theory as a ' not reality'.
This created doubts in my head about the theory.
( 1) Does it adequately contain the obvious emergence of mankind into an ultra dominant role. Are we more dominant than dinosaurs were. Is ours the same kind of dominance.
Is our sense of obvious ultra-dominance just an illusion of confidence
(2) Does the Theory embrace the Evolution of Ageing.
We subconsciously make domestic appliances to break, for commercial reasons. There is no obvious reason why design should not have overcome their apparent fragility, by now
Why has everything evolved to break down???
I was reading the knowledge hub and this is what they have on The Evolution of Ageing
"Summary
We have introduced what evolutionary biologists think about the evolution of aging. Today, it is clear that aging is not a positively selected, programmed death process, and has not evolved for "the good of the species". Instead, aging is a feature of life that exists because selection is weak and ineffective at maintaining survival, reproduction, and somatic repair at old age. Based on the observation that the force of selection declines as a function of age, two main hypotheses have been formulated to explain why organisms grow old and die: the mutation accumulation (MA) and the antagonistic pleiotropy (AP) hypotheses. Under MA, aging evolves because selection cannot efficiently eliminate deleterious mutations that manifest themselves only late in life. Under AP, aging evolves as a maladaptive byproduct of selection for increased fitness early in life, with the beneficial early-life effects being genetically coupled to deleterious late-life effects that cause aging. Aging clearly shortens lifespan, but lifespan is also shaped by selection for an increased number of lifetime reproductive events. The evolution of lifespan is therefore a balance between selective factors that extend the reproductive period and components of intrinsic mortality that shorten it. Whether there exist truly immortal organisms is controversial, and recent evidence suggests in fact that aging might be an inevitable property of all cellular life."

Questions and Doubts,..TRANSPONDER?!

Clearly we all die. Everything does.Why is for the scientists to explain. All I need to know is that the Biblical explanation makes no sense and is not in accordance with the evidence.

[TRANSPONDER]

You continue to do it wrong - dismissing the better explanation with excuses. Can you prove that dlippers work better with hand bones than say a system of rays? Tell that to the fish.

I don't think there is any reason to say the other works better. They can be both good for the purpose. And probably the fish structure would not work as well in whale scale.

You don't have any reason to say it does. You have no evidence. Evolution has the evidence that it looks like a hand and the line of fossils showing it evolved. You have nothing but denial of the evidence.

and don't forget the evolution of the nostril to the top of the head

How could I forget that silly little fairy tale. How you can belie it, I never know.

Because there is fossil evidence for it. The 'nose art'of the ear bone showing them to be a line of evolution as well as (of course) the evolving legs. You are dismissing the evidence in favor of a biggest fairy tale (goddunnit creation) as I have heard.

But the cetan sequence is hard evidence that proves that a land animal can evolve into a sea animal. If that is provable

Strong faith you have. You could probably believe anything a scientist tells to you.

A cheap shot accusing me of bias and lying scientists when all we have seen from you is denial of evidence without a shred of anything but claims from you without foundation (hand bones work better than cartilage, for instance - you don't know that, you just assume it) or any evidence. The bias and the untrustworthy sources you take as your mentors are the ones who lack credibility, not me, science or the evidence.

It's all good as anyone watching (with an open mind, of course) will see that you have Nothing but faithbased denail.

For the reason Jews should move to Christianity even though the NT says people should believe God.

I don't think Jews should move to Christianity. I think they should believe God and His prophets.

Another discussion but you either think Jews should become Christians and be saved or there is no reason for Christianity at all.

Yahweh your God will raise up to you a prophet from among you, of your brothers, like me. You shall listen to him.
Deut. 18:15 (Acts 7:37)

In Biblical point of view, Christians are Jews.

Bible is wrong. The Jews say Christians are not Jews and they should know. They are His People.. or do you deny that?

If therefore the uncircumcised keep the ordinances of the law, won’t his uncircumcision be accounted as circumcision? Won’t the uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfills the law, judge you, who with the letter and circumcision are a transgressor of the law? For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter; whose praise is not from men, but from God.
Romans 2:26-29

But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the root and of the richness of the olive tree, don’t boast over the brancEzek. But if you boast, it is not you who support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, “Branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.” True; by their unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by your faith. Don’t be conceited, but fear; for if God didn’t spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you.
Romans 11:17-21

Don't waste my time with Paul's opinions. His idea was indeed to make Gentiles as good Jews as Jews. But Jews reject him and all his works.

but also the Revelation of Muhammad.

Has he something that is not already told in the Bible?

Yes. That Islam is the right religion and that is the last revelation.

...consider the main Revelation, but for me it's the claim that Jesus travelled to America. Wearing a red hat and gold sneakers.

If that is the main point, I think it is irrelevant.

What you think is irrelevant or relevant is utterly irrelevant. That they just move on a bit from existing Abrahamic religions means that they do not deny God as much as Christianity does, so no wonder I ask why you reject the Quran? Because it doesn't make Jesus into God? That is a reason to prefer it. Not that I think you should, but I just like to see you wriggle end evade reasons why Islam is not valid as the next step on from Christianity.

[Masterblaster]

Hello TRANSPONDER

You say - "Clearly we all die. Everything does.Why is for the scientists to explain. All I need to know is that the Biblical explanation makes no sense and is not in accordance with the evidence"

---
This is the equivalent of an intellectual ' cop out' T.
Insight content is negligible, and the thought lethargy is palpable. You loose!

[1213]

...

Has he something that is not already told in the Bible?

Yes. That Islam is the right religion and that is the last revelation. ...

...I ask why you reject the Quran? Because it doesn't make Jesus into God? ...

Bible doesn't really make Jesus into God.

What have I rejected from the Quran?

[TRANSPONDER]

Hello TRANSPONDER

You say - "Clearly we all die. Everything does.Why is for the scientists to explain. All I need to know is that the Biblical explanation makes no sense and is not in accordance with the evidence"

---
This is the equivalent of an intellectual ' cop out' T.
Insight content is negligible, and the thought lethargy is palpable. You loose!

No. Because the 'cop out' as you call it is the only logical and honest thing for me (and science so far as I know) to say where where the reason we die isn't known, at least for sure.

I can do a bit of online research but the fact is it doesn't much matter. We die and that's all we know. Those who claim that this is a #cop out' had better explain why we die and back it up with evidence, or they are not responding with a logical or honest response.

Ball is in your court, chum.