Why some people reject evolution

[Danmark]

[you can skip the intro and go right to the last paragraph]

Growing up, I was seldom interested in math. At first it seemed tedious and boring. I invented my own shortcuts to make it easier. Later it required discipline when it got too difficult to do in my head. So, i loved geometry, but lost interest after trig, which I didn't even try to understand. I've been thinking of trying to teach myself calculus, just to see if, at 69 I can do it. So, I looked for a free online course of study and found this:

As Henry Ford said, " Nothing is particularly hard if you divide it into small jobs ". Too much of the world is complicated by layers of evolution. If you understand how each layer is put down then you can begin to understand the complex systems that govern our world. Charles Darwin wrote in 1859 in his On The Origin of Species,

"When we no longer look at an organic being as a savage looks at a ship, as at something wholly beyond his comprehension; when we regard every production of nature as one which had a history; when we contemplate every complex structure and instinct as the summing up of many contrivances, each useful to the possessor, nearly in the same as when we look at any great mechanical invention as the summing of the labour, the experience, the reason, and even the blunders of numerous workmen; when we thus view each organic being, how far more interesting, I speak from experience, will the study of natural history become! " http://www.understandingcalculus.com/

So here's the question, do people not believe in evolution just because the Bible tells them so? Or is there another factor; that rather than try to understand it in small steps, one tiny transition at a time, since the entirety of the process ("microbe to man") seems impossible to them, do they reject it out of hand without looking at it step by step?

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 306 by benchwarmer]

thanks for the reply, just answer this, Genesis 2:18 "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him".

Genesis 2:19 "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof".

Just STOP and think, if Adam was alone, and then God formed the Animal for a help meet for man, guess who was here first? .... the man, read those verses again.

Your reply completely ignored my point and then you just used more contradictory scripture to try and make your point.

Let's face reality, the Genesis accounts are rife with problems including internal consistency. Even if we were to accept, just for the sake of argument, that there might be a god and this god created the universe, the tales in Genesis do this hypothesis no favors due to their major flaws.

Find some scripture that doesn't contradict itself and that lines up with observed reality and then maybe we can get somewhere.

[101G]

[Replying to post 308 by brunumb]

you're not reading your bible. but I'm going to leave that alone.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 307 by 101G]

... just answer this, Genesis 2:18 "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him".

You continue to quote bible verses and present them as if they were evidence or authority. In the guidelines for this section of the website, it is explicitly stated that this is not acceptable:

"While posters may certainly take positions based on religious doctrine, the Bible or other religious writings are not to be considered evidence for scientific claims."

You need to support your claims with something other than bible verses, which carry no weight here. As has been pointed out several times, science has shown that modern humans first appeared long after earlier mammals, reptiles, plants, etc. It is irrelevant what the bible says about this issue ... it is not science. The creation story described in Genesis is at odds with far too many scientific conclusions to believe that it is anything more than a bronze age myth having no validity whatsoever.

[101G]

[Replying to post 10 by Wootah]

thanks for the reply, but the bible is enough weight for me. but if you cannot accept the bible word, and as said science have been wrong a many of time, just don't reply to my posts.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 312 by 101G]

... but if you cannot accept the bible word, and as said science have been wrong a many of time, just don't reply to my posts.

Assuming you are responding to my post (#311) and not post #10 from Wootah that you replied to, you seem to be saying that you are going to continue to quote bible verses to support your arguments, and anyone who doesn't like that should just stay quiet. But you are in the wrong section of this website to expect to carry on a debate relating to science and religion where you support your position only with bible quotes.

I understand that you believe such quotes are authoritative, but they are not in this subforum. So you can expect to be challenged on issues where you claim support in a bible verse, and nothing else. That doesn't fly here. So if you want to claim that man was "created" before plants appeared on this planet, you'll need to come up with more evidence than simply quoting a bible verse, because the value of that as evidence is zero.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 308 by brunumb]

you're not reading your bible. but I'm going to leave that alone.

In a round about way you are correct. My numerous Bibles remained on my shelf and I instead used the interenet's Bible, specifically the one found on biblegateway.com.

Clearly I did read that one because I very succinctly showed a blatant contradiction and you've done nothing to explain how it's not a contradiction. One wonders who is not reading here.

Quoting scripture alone in this subforum is pointless, but when you can't even refute an argument based solely in scripture all is lost. I suggest the Theology and Doctrine or Holy Huddle forums if you want to rest completely on scripture alone.

Have you got any scientific sources to go with your scripture? That would be interesting and worth discussing in the Science and Religion forum within which you are currently posting.

Edited to add:

My apologies, I just noticed that you were responding to brnumb, not me. I should really wake up more before posting on the internet

My general point stands (about where you are posting your arguments), but please accept my apologies for jumping on you thinking you were responding to me.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 307 by 101G]

... just answer this, Genesis 2:18 "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him".

You continue to quote bible verses and present them as if they were evidence or authority. In the guidelines for this section of the website, it is explicitly stated that this is not acceptable:

"While posters may certainly take positions based on religious doctrine, the Bible or other religious writings are not to be considered evidence for scientific claims."

You need to support your claims with something other than bible verses, which carry no weight here.

Moderator Clarification

Ordinarily you would be exactly right and 101G's remarks would be considered preaching. However, Danmark's OP question specifically asked if the Bible was the reason that some people reject evolution. 101G's replies, in effect, answer the OP question in the affirmative.

For 101G the Bible is the reason for rejecting evolution.

Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator clarifications do not count as a strike against any posters. They serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received and/or are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels a clarification of the rules is required.

[101G]

[Replying to post 313 by DrNoGods]

first thanks for your reply. second don't assume nothing, nor try to put words in my mouth.

this section says Science and "RELIGION" section, not just Science only.

third, I said you don't have to respond to "MY" post. I'm sure I'm not the only one posting here. if you can't meet me on my level then it's no need to debate me, nor I you. I'm sure you can find other to debate you on your level. as well as I on my level. it's called a preventative measure so that disagreements like this want go any further. other words avoidance, for I'm strictly bible, and It seem you're not.

Fourth, we all might learn something from each other before we prejudge one another. I'm of science to a point, but I believe the word of God which some scientist have proven out through their study and research. so I'm not against, nor do I reject science completely.

fifth, if one want a good debate one will listen to each others position first, instead of assuming that their position is the only correct one (that's what a good debate is about). none of us was here when all of this began, and no, science, nor religion have all the answers, but the creator do.

so instead of attacking one another, just consider each others position. we all might learn something new. else it's your choice to respond or not, as well as me.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 316 by 101G]

... this section says Science and "RELIGION" section, not just Science only.

I think the intent is to discuss the scientific angle on religious issues, not simply any discussions related to science in general, and any discussions relating to religion in general. My objection in the earlier post was your use of bible quotes as evidence or authoritative reference, independent of the response to the OP as a moderator pointed out. I believe I am correct in saying that in this section of the website, the use of bible verses as evidence is not compliant with the rules, regardless of the specific topic at hand.