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]

...

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.

Then why can't you consider the Quran as a further revelation?

What have I rejected from the Quran?

That it is the further revelation from God telling you how to worship and that Christianity has it wrong (though I know you have invented your own version of it that denied that Jesus is God).

So I just wonder why the further revelation of Quran isn't even a consideration for you.

I know why but I wonder whether you do, or whether you have even thought about it.

P.s I'm still curious. These excuses, like the ones trying to make Tyre never rebuilt, which you clearly didn't think about or research, you must have got the piccies of Roman ruins (built outside the old city) as "Evidence" that old Tyre was never rebuilt and some excuse about mainland Tyre was called something else without any evidence for that and it doesn't matter as rebuilt Tyre covered ALL old Tyre, island and mainland.

That may have been your own made up excuse, but didn't you get that piccie (and excuse) from an apologetics website? I'm just wondering how it works. Atheist comes up with a theist - stumper, Theist either makes up some excuse or evasion on the spot or rushes to some Apologetics source for an excuse, which of course they never bother to check.

Because the idea is not to respond to the Goddless who probably know the apologetic is ignorant or lying, but the point is to fool the gullible, doubter and those who want to be fooled.

But it doesn't wash with those who have been around the block a few times.

.......


What? A powertool performance there and only 2 guests? Is everyone asleep?

[Masterblaster]

Hello TRANSPONDER

1213 said that he had serious misgivings about Evolutionary theory as presented by Darwin. I suggested a few issues of my own. You admit to being stumped, as well. We all share unrequited curiosity.

I have just this opinion.

We are what we are , it is what it has always been and we are here and nowhere else. Nobody volunteered for this. The theological rules and hypotheses for another place are useless for here now. This is not about going to Heaven or Hell
This actual perceived bind that accentuates a fragility and mortality, is the base from which all nonsensical considerations began.

We need to calm down and observe natural cycles of birth, ageing, sickness, decay, death, rebirth, regeneration, etc in a more holistic way.

Science will make an immortal man or die trying. Darwinian Theory and genetics will be its blueprint. Religion has made one already. Welcome to Goo Goo Land.

The tree of Good and Evil awakened man to consider his own precarious situation and he was spooked by it, and ran. He should be looking back, as 1213 suggests.

[TRANSPONDER]

Sorry chum but none of that has any interest or relevance. Trying various iterations of 'metaphorically true'is not only unhelpful, uninformative and uninteresting, but it stops people considering what the actual situation (found out hopefully in time by research)is an was.

I will try to take the best view I can of trying to cast the human situation in poetic form, but really it looks so bad trying to hint that a 'first man' claim is valid. Leave that to the Fundamentalists, creationists and evolution deniers. You are better than that.

[POI]

.

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

I have not read through the answers given here, but I'll offer my two cents. The reason some Christians get upset is because they read Genesis literally, and evolutionary theory threatens or challenges Genesis. But of course, this position is wrong in reality Genesis was actually meant to instead be read metaphorically/other . It's only literal when it comports with one's own reality accordingly.

[Masterblaster]

Sorry chum but none of that has any interest or relevance. Trying various iterations of 'metaphorically true'is not only unhelpful, uninformative and uninteresting, but it stops people considering what the actual situation (found out hopefully in time by research)is an was.

I will try to take the best view I can of trying to cast the human situation in poetic form, but really it looks so bad trying to hint that a 'first man' claim is valid. Leave that to the Fundamentalists, creationists and evolution deniers. You are better than that.

Hello TRANSPONDER

Pretty patronising, really. Some day soon I will become irrelevant to proper debate. I hope I know it when it happens. Especially patronising, when it is dished out by a person who could not address any issues that I or 1213 posed to them.



I never suggested a first man claim. My Adam was not nearly the first human. Genesis Adam was mythical and on a curve at a time when his lifestyle and outlooks and capabilities ,fundamentally changed. Awakened man is different to the rest of evolution. I see it and 1213 sees it ,for two completely different reasons. Science refuses to acknowledge, it and neither will you. The trajectory of your logic has you missing this truth.

Think better!

Is man an anomaly within evolution?
Is man an error within evolution?
What are the implications of such a revelation?
Have we been proceeding incorrectly?
Did we pass our destination ,as a species.
1213 tried to explain that many things are getting worse. Is there a fix in all this?

For a man of science, you want others to explain the design deficiencies that both 1213 and I can see all around. I ask why we get old and you say, leave it to science to figure it out.
Science is attempting to triumph over this barrier regardless of the consequences. I see this illogical rubbish every day. One scientist is trying to extend life expectancy while his colleague works on a bomb to wipe us all out. You need a fairly sanguine morality to participate in most pharmaceutical undertakings in todays world.
A son of mine has a Masters Degree in Pharmacutical Science and he tells me little bedtime stories when he brings me my hot chocolate night cap.
Is it good to have old farts like me living longer!? Is it more ethical to blow me up?.
Science will give you answers and you will suck them up and spend your time patronising people who attempt not to follow the scientific narrative. I hope that I know when it is time to hang up my pen but I doubt if it will be you who issues me with the bad news.....my spelling is definitely getting worse. Look at some of the old debaters around here as they run after the bus. It is ahead of us all.
Thanks

[Masterblaster]

Hello

Let us cut to the chase!

I use the Biblical Eden narrative to push an agenda that I believe in, as a theists. Why do I do that? This narrative fundamentally agrees with my own deductions. Which is the chicken and which is the egg is for another day.

Be aware of the following.

Genesis is basically about man.
You could sum up our declared knowledge about God as
God made the world...that will do for me as a working hypothesis, as they say.

My attention is now on the depiction of man within the narrative. Consider his change of circumstance, his mishaps, his follies and his despondency throughout the OT.
He fights against himself on a psychological level, on an individual family level ,on a tribal level, on a theological level and he continues this manic struggle on a global level today ,on many many fronts.

Answer me this!

The wisdom of the ages within the Israelite tribes are adopting a creation myth for posterity. Why does it not pan out as follows.

God made man, man got good, God said , Fair play Lad Man headed off to conquer all before him and God left an open invite for him to return ,at any time, at reception. Happy days.

It is not like this because the wise did not believe that this was our start. They detected that our fundamental modus was fatally flawed and they investigated our imagined timeline, to try and locate and explain an event that might require a fix. They saw things going in the wrong direction and so do I.
Thanks

[Difflugia]

Please show one example of evidence that I have denied.

Are you serious?

Fossil record gives mainly bones. It doesn't give proof that they are relatives to others, even if there would be similarities.

If animals have similar genes, it is no proof that they have common ancestor. Similarity could be also because God created similar animals.

And fossils don't have anything that could prove that they are relatives. If they would have DNA, it could maybe possible to prove something, but it shouldn't be possible, if the fossils are really as old as they should be according to modern "knowledge".

Sorry, I have difficulties to believe that information.

My point was to show that verifiable evidence from past doesn't really exist, because we can't really check what happened.

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

Denial without support is your signature move!

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.

What is your process for deciding what is and isn't a fairy tale? When you see a claim, what's your process for deciding whether or not it has merit? If evidence is presented, how do you decide if it's plausible enough to consider? I would really love to know your system for approaching some new bit of information.

Especially patronising, when it is dished out by a person who could not address any issues that I or 1213 posed to them.

Are we reading the same discussion? As far as I can see, TRANSPONDER has addressed everything that you or 1213 have put forth that's at least coherent. You've both denied things and tossed out a few common talking points from creationist apologetics and maybe a thesaurus, but you've offered nothing more substantial than raw assertions and misguided rhetorical questions.

Are you willing to try your hand at data analysis? You have at your disposal, "an annotated collection of all publicly available DNA sequences". There are enough data there to either affirm or refute evolution beyond any reasonable standard of evidence or doubt. There are patterns in those data for which evolution is the only rational explanation. Even if "God did it" is offered as a competing mechanism, there's no theological explanation that approaches evolution in either elegance or overall explanatory power for a number of patterns that emerge from those data.

[Masterblaster]

Hello Difflugia

Thank you for considering my comments. Using 'big words' is a serious flaw in my presentations that I will attempt to correct over time.

As per addressing the OP, I have different views to those held by1213, but I am not upset by them. He shows no sign of being upset with me. The reverse would appear to be true.

This Science propaganda, however causes both of us upset...

TRANSPONDER ( Post22.one of many)- "When you think of it, that kind of cult behavior only leads to failure in the end. Some boss (financial or political) who tells scientists or technicians on a project what they have to find, will end up with a clunk product that will fail. It behooves them to let the experts do their job and produce reliable results"

I asked why washing machines break down.
I asked why people age and break down.
1213 asked why modern people are weaker than in the past. Are these not valid enquiries? Are we denialists?

Questions and reservations posed by 1213 and myself are 'denial'? The pitfalls of science are prompted at and we are, now, rejectionists??? We ask simple questions like, why do people age, why are people getting weaker and unhealthy and we are told to leave this for scientists to answer.1213 and I reject the scientific narrative. I reject that it has a control or a central morality to it and I summarized it's general influence as a dangerous folly. Science as a real answer, is dogma in so far as it is left unchallenged.
I extract more insight from Genesis 1 than I do from the blueprints of Boeing. We have been listening to scientific ....., on this site in the Christianity section for a long time now.

This often graduates into a high level of sophistication that excludes the non qualified. If a Muslim or Jew presented obscure, theological source material ,full of jargon and inference,they would likely be banned. Are these two situations not the same.
There is an exasperation, when you want to make it clear as a simple theists that you object to this 'high science.
You come along and wring your hands and ask how we could be rejecting the simple discovery of Darwin. That is not what I am doing. I am attacking the extrapolation (scientific deductions)(new science) (whatever) (small word and I too will be banned). Science builds on itself and it's hosts, like ivy. It dances to the tune of an evolving agenda that is usually self-serving in some way. How much science does our effective evolution as a species need? Are we science-dependant junkies , at this stage ? That is another discussion. It is fundamentally flawed and as such is false. Its cocktail of complicated truths add up to a big lie.That is another discussion.
Thanks

[1213]

Please show one example of evidence that I have denied.

Are you serious?

Fossil record gives mainly bones. It doesn't give proof that they are relatives to others, even if there would be similarities.

If animals have similar genes, it is no proof that they have common ancestor. Similarity could be also because God created similar animals.

And fossils don't have anything that could prove that they are relatives. If they would have DNA, it could maybe possible to prove something, but it shouldn't be possible, if the fossils are really as old as they should be according to modern "knowledge".

Sorry, I have difficulties to believe that information.

My point was to show that verifiable evidence from past doesn't really exist, because we can't really check what happened.

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

If you mean with evidence, the bones or the DNA, I have not denied they can exist. I just don't believe the fairy tales some people develop from those. Your explanations are not the same as evidence.

What is your process for deciding what is and isn't a fairy tale? When you see a claim, what's your process for deciding whether or not it has merit? If evidence is presented, how do you decide if it's plausible enough to consider? I would really love to know your system for approaching some new bit of information.

For me one important thing is, the claim must be logically sound and fit to what can be observed.

And, if we speak of science, there is for example the idea that: "A scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, implying that it is possible to identify a possible outcome of an experiment or observation that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, the hypothesis cannot be meaningfully tested". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

If evolution theory would be a real scientific matter, it could be tested and falsified. Now it is cant be, which is why it is not a real science. Finding similarities is not good enough, because they can be explained also by other ways.

But, I don't require that things must always be falsified. Often it is enough, if the claim is reasonable otherwise. And I think evolution theory is not reasonable, because it really doesn't offer good accurate explanations, for example for how whales evolved from land animals.

[1213]

...That may have been your own made up excuse, but didn't you get that piccie (and excuse) from an apologetics website? ...

I just read what atheists claim and then check is it true. And in search of the ruins of Tyre, or images of it, one can found lot of images, also google satellite image shows it nicely, which shows that it is a lie to claim it was built again.

I recommend for everyone to always check is it true what atheists claim. Very often their claims are not accurate or true.