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]

13 And I will cause the noise of thy songs to cease; and the sound of thy harps shall be no more heard.
14 And I will make thee like the top of a rock: thou shalt be a place to spread nets upon; thou shalt be built no more: for I the Lord have spoken it, saith the Lord God.

By what I hear, there is no sound of the harps of Old Tyre. And the Tyre is not rebuilt.

Totally denialist. 'the Tyre' (why 'The' Tyre? Where was it ever called that?) was rebuilt pretty speedily and no doubts 'harps' were played, and still are, though they are plugged into amplifiers these days.

...It was rebuilt and fairly quickly....It existed in Roman times, it exists today. ...is later Roman material and not Old Tyre that wasn't rebuilt. ...

You say it was rebuilt and existed in Roman time and then you say it wasn't rebuilt. Please clarify, was it rebuilt or not?

You are trying to fudge the matter, but you can't fool me. Tyre was rebuilt after Alexander, and a later Macedonian had to seige it and its' harps all over again. When the Romans took over it was a rebuilt city over all the old area. To what extent Tyre was rebuilt Roman style requires in depth archaerological study, but the Romans also built outside the city. The ruins of necropolis and hippodrome were new builts outdide Tyre and were as much poart of Tyre as the city and it was all built or rebuilt.

No, you don't have to clarify, I can accept it was never rebuilt. Other people have build new things on the ruins of the old. If it would be rebuilt, it would mean that the same thing would have been built again, which is not the case.

You know I could see it coming "It wasn't rebuilt 0 they put a different city on top and just called it the same name". That is a twisting of prophecy that could be used to invalidate any prophecy claimed. I'm curious...did you think that up or did you read it? I have seen that one before.

And, if that is not good enough for you, we can also think that the prophecy has not yet come true entirely

.

It is not good enough for anyone other than those who - as Gimli says - "Make words stand on their heads", in order to excuse and wriggle out of Bible fails. And it also fails with this darn near cheeky excuse that it is a prophecy that still has to come true. The prophecy pointed to the ruination of the place (apparently after Alexander as Nebuchadnezzar didn't actually destroy Tyre), and said 'That will never be rebuilt and no more marching bands'. That failed within a decade and the place was rebuilt and all you can try as an excuse is 'it was not the same city'. If so, almost all cities can be said to have never been rebuilt as the modern cities are different ones with the same name.

But carry on. You may think that this denialism is getting you a win, but it is merely making Believers who read it think "Do I sound like that?"

[1213]

...as Nebuchadnezzar didn't actually destroy Tyre...

How do you know that?

[TRANSPONDER]

...as Nebuchadnezzar didn't actually destroy Tyre...

How do you know that?

Good question.I read that in ancient history, but I could try to find out the references. But in any case, it is a detail, isn't it? Suppoise Nebuchadnezzar did destroy Tyre, clearly it was rebuilt as Alexander had to attack it. So you question is actually irrelevant isn't it?

That was a question.

Wiki
Siege
Little of what occurred during the siege is known as ancient sources regarding the siege do not mention much or have been lost.[3][14] According to accounts by Saint Jerome in his Commentary on Ezekiel, Nebuchadnezzar II was unable to attack the city with conventional methods, such as using battering rams or siege engines, since Tyre was an island city, so he ordered his soldiers to gather rocks and build a causeway from the mainland to the walls of the island, similar to Alexander the Great's strategy in his siege 250 years later.[15][16]

After 13 years of siege, the Tyrians negotiated a surrender with the Babylonians.[3] Nebuchadnezzar II was never able to take control of Tyre by military means, leaving the result of the siege as militarily inconclusive.[2][3][17] The King of Tyre, Ithobaal III, either died near the end of the siege or was replaced as part of the surrender. He was succeeded by Baal II, who ruled as a vassal to Babylon.

So I answered your question, now you answer mine. Why did you make a point of this pointless point? Wasn't it to try to make a tiny irrelevant point and hang the whole debate on it? Wasn't it? Be honest now, if it is possible for Bible apologist to do that. I guess it is as that is a known ploy of Christian apologetics.

[1213]

... clearly it was rebuilt as Alexander had to attack it. ...

It was not necessary rebuilt. There could have been people and they could have made some new walls, but Alexander attacking it, does not necessary mean it was rebuilt. As an island, it would have been naturally a fortress. Also, maybe Alexander didn't attack it, I have not seen enough evidence for that.

So I answered your question, now you answer mine. Why did you make a point of this pointless point?

The point of this all is to show that you are wrong.

[TRANSPONDER]

... clearly it was rebuilt as Alexander had to attack it. ...

It was not necessary rebuilt. There could have been people and they could have made some new walls, but Alexander attacking it, does not necessary mean it was rebuilt. As an island, it would have been naturally a fortress. Also, maybe Alexander didn't attack it, I have not seen enough evidence for that.

So I answered your question, now you answer mine. Why did you make a point of this pointless point?

The point of this all is to show that you are wrong.

You should learn some history, not make up flimsy excuses based on Ignorance. Tyre was rebuilt as strong and complete as it ever was, and Alexander had a tough time to reduce it. You might read up on the accounts of the Siege rather than just invent excuses that have no basis in the facts.

Your point is to find a way of refusing to accept that your arguments don not fit the evidence and the prophecy failed. It is painfully obvious as it was from Genesis 1, the argument for speciation and the whole resurrection -thing that you cannot accept the facts of the evidence if it conflicts with your personal beliefs, even if the Bible itself contradicts you.

I can only repeat that you have long since lost this one but you of course refuse to accept that. Par for the Bible - believer course. I can only say that others looking should see who has the Case and who is in denial.

But I will say that you do respond and keep the debate going and are, as I say, a Good Bad example of Bible apologetic methods.