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]

Hello Difflugia

Thank You for at least. considering my ideas which were given within the very specific remit of this OP, as per forum etiquette and rules. I would love to more specifically engage with our ' grievances ' within a more defined and confined space.
I have had too many efforts in this regard shunted to Ramblings or re sectioned, for me to bother, attempting to set it up.
I am generally ignored by the few other poor creatures that remain in this Zoo. You may be a longer serving exhibit around here , so you set it up. TRANSPONDER, (God Bless Him), may well turn up, 1213?, and , I'm a vulture for any scientific corpses left unattended. Who knows who will turn up. Offer up your sacrifice for rejection on the High Altar of DC.

Yes, yes.But everything you said was wrong. In fact strawman arguments as the response pointed out.

The demand that speciation be demonstrated in a laboratory would be poor enough - like denying history unless it is repeated before our eyes, but at least understand the subject.

I need hardly rehearse the discussion with 1213 about whale evolution. It ended up with rejecting the evidence. Mainly by ignoring most of it

The thing is that Creationism has long accepted evolution. It knows breeding of animal traits is a fact.It grudgingly accepted undirected 'breeding' by environmental conditions , within 'kinds'.

The mechanism of evolution is accepted by Creationism. It only insists on limits. Some implied a genetic limit, but no such exists in DNA. There is no evidential or logical reason why 'Micro'evolution cannot (given time) become 'Macro', and tons of evidence that it happened. "No transitional forms" is not heard so often these days. But the various kinds of denial will be present. Tiktaalik is a 'kind'adapted to its'conditions by its' creator, not evolved to adapt to it's conditions by the mechanism of adaptation' the denial goes. it in principle accepts (Natural selection) but only 'within kinds'. And it is rejected that apparent changes from fish to land animal could and did happen.

But whale evolution is all the intermediate stages one could want in fossil record. The 'nose art' of the ear bones being evidence that these really are a motorlineage, not just things with tyres.

In fact, parallel/convergent evolution is well known. Ichthyosaurs are dinosaurs that became sea critters, just as land mammals became dolphins, as well as whales. And the skeletal structure again shows the hand bones in both cases of the same evolutionary process.

Bu, aside from ignoring the evidence of related lineage of cetans with those ear bones (once the attempt to wave it away by a a bad analogy (1) had failed) there was this last ditch attempt to argue that the evidence for evolved legs bones wasn't at all but just 'better adapted'. Even if that an equally valid explanation, the equal case for evolution would mean 'there is no reason to say a god did it - never mind which one'. But sharks fins showed that leg bones were'd needed, just adapted to do the best job they could, as is the case with all evolved organs.

We know how it works - it is not about an equally well supported alternative science -based theory, but about starting from a faithclaim (and even creationists admit it doesn't say which god it is) and trying to find excuses to wave away anything else.

It is very bad reasoning and logic (and nothing to do with science, which it rejects at need, anyway) and all that can be done is (as usual) present the case and hope that the People will reject faithclaims and follow the evidence., not the fiddling, misrepresentation and ignorance of Bible apologetics.

I suppose I have to repeat that this 'Genesis literalism' is not about science but about religious shibboleths or articles of Faith. While junking Genesis means that there is no doctrine of sin or need to restore Righteousness, this is not a bother to those Christians who accept evolution, not Genesis 1. It is not in practice 'believe - or not'. But it is fundamentalist dogma that thou shalt believe this. It is a faith -requirement not based on any reason, evidence or even doctrinal necessity, but dogma that one has to espouse, uncannily like vaccine denial, the election steal and Russia is perfectly entitled to invade Ukraine. The propaganda and Faithbased repeating of it and inventing excuses is the same thing - faithbased rejection of logic and evidence, and you may take that to the bank.

(1) I have a Thing I want to push in informal logic - that the use of analogy as evidence is a logical fallacy as much as a you too argument does not disprove a case, and also a you too'argument is valid if used to counter a claim to the high moral ground.

[Masterblaster]

Hello TRANSPONDER

You say - "Yes, yes.But everything you said was wrong. In fact strawman arguments as the response pointed out.The demand that speciation be demonstrated in a laboratory would be poor enough - like denying history unless it is repeated before our eyes, but at least understand "

-----

You address this to me. It appears that I live in your head as a straw man, rent free. How can you possibly attribute a demand that speciation in a lab be demonstrated , to me!???

You are making these gaffes, a little too frequently ,these days.

This bit is even funnier..

TRANSPONDER says - "(1) I have a Thing I want to push in informal logic - that the use of analogy as evidence is a logical fallacy as much as a you too argument does not disprove a case, and also a you too'argument is valid if used to counter a claim to the high moral ground."

You are the 'you too' greatest exponent on this site. It usually goes like this....a theist nibbles at your scientific core and you respond by saying....at least my way is better than yours. That is classic you too and it is your go too place ,all the time.

As far as analogy goes , I asked Mae von H ,to differentiate between the Bible and The Rules of the Road, and I haven't seen the name since. Analogy should be an easy obstacle to overcome if your logic is not a falsehood.

Quiz question - How many analogies can you fit in 3 and a bit lines?

Answer - If your name is TRANSPONDER =3

"but dogma that one has to espouse, uncannily like vaccine denial, the election steal and Russia is perfectly entitled to invade Ukraine."

Thanks

[TRANSPONDER]

Hello TRANSPONDER

You say - "Yes, yes.But everything you said was wrong. In fact strawman arguments as the response pointed out.The demand that speciation be demonstrated in a laboratory would be poor enough - like denying history unless it is repeated before our eyes, but at least understand "

-----

You address this to me. It appears that I live in your head as a straw man, rent free. How can you possibly attribute a demand that speciation in a lab be demonstrated , to me!???

You are making these gaffes, a little too frequently ,these days.

This bit is even funnier..

TRANSPONDER says - "(1) I have a Thing I want to push in informal logic - that the use of analogy as evidence is a logical fallacy as much as a you too argument does not disprove a case, and also a you too'argument is valid if used to counter a claim to the high moral ground."

You are the 'you too' greatest exponent on this site. It usually goes like this....a theist nibbles at your scientific core and you respond by saying....at least my way is better than yours. That is classic you too and it is your go too place ,all the time.

As far as analogy goes , I asked Mae von H ,to differentiate between the Bible and The Rules of the Road, and I haven't seen the name since. Analogy should be an easy obstacle to overcome if your logic is not a falsehood.

Quiz question - How many analogies can you fit in 3 lines?

Answer - If your name is TRANSPONDER =3

"but dogma that one has to espouse, uncannily like vaccine denial, the election steal and Russia is perfectly entitled to invade Ukraine."

Thanks

No.You are confusing what I posted with what you think I posted. I used an example of a strawman that was to 1213, not you as an example of what a strawman was. Your use of strawman was not explained, but I suggested was meaning 'theist doesn't like it'. I'm going to point up another clunk, find one slip by me (that wasn't - you misunderstood it) and then claim a lot of others (I can only remember one as yet ) and pretending this invalidates everything I say.

Aside froms ome pointless points about my name and my equating a political cult with a religious one, you fall flat on your face by trying ...no this was not deliberate on your part, but lack of comprehension.. to equate appeal to the validity of science and the logic of the materialist default with science denial, false logic and lack of evidence as a 'you too'. Not only do you not understand this is not 'you too' but Bible apologetics pretends to do science but actually doesn't; it fiddles it to make it work and denies it when it doesn't.

You tripped up really badly on this one, and did yourself no favours by making it Personal.

[Masterblaster]

Hello TRANSPONDER

You say - "Yes, yes.But everything you said was wrong. In fact strawman arguments as the response pointed out.The demand that speciation be demonstrated in a laboratory would be poor enough - like denying history unless it is repeated before our eyes, but at least understand "

-----

You address this to me. It appears that I live in your head as a straw man, rent free. How can you possibly attribute a demand that speciation in a lab be demonstrated , to me!???

You are making these gaffes, a little too frequently ,these days.

This bit is even funnier..

TRANSPONDER says - "(1) I have a Thing I want to push in informal logic - that the use of analogy as evidence is a logical fallacy as much as a you too argument does not disprove a case, and also a you too'argument is valid if used to counter a claim to the high moral ground."

You are the 'you too' greatest exponent on this site. It usually goes like this....a theist nibbles at your scientific core and you respond by saying....at least my way is better than yours. That is classic you too and it is your go too place ,all the time.

As far as analogy goes , I asked Mae von H ,to differentiate between the Bible and The Rules of the Road, and I haven't seen the name since. Analogy should be an easy obstacle to overcome if your logic is not a falsehood.

Quiz question - How many analogies can you fit in 3 lines?

Answer - If your name is TRANSPONDER =3

"but dogma that one has to espouse, uncannily like vaccine denial, the election steal and Russia is perfectly entitled to invade Ukraine."

Thanks

No.You are confusing what I posted with what you think I posted. I used an example of a strawman that was to 1213, not you as an example of what a strawman was. Your use of strawman was not explained, but I suggested was meaning 'theist doesn't like it'. I'm going to point up another clunk, find one slip by me (that wasn't - you misunderstood it) and then claim a lot of others (I can only remember one as yet ) and pretending this invalidates everything I say.

Aside froms ome pointless points about my name and my equating a political cult with a religious one, you fall flat on your face by trying ...no this was not deliberate on your part, but lack of comprehension.. to equate appeal to the validity of science and the logic of the materialist default with science denial, false logic and lack of evidence as a 'you too'. Not only do you not understand this is not 'you too' but Bible apologetics pretends to do science but actually doesn't; it fiddles it to make it work and denies it when it doesn't.

You tripped up really badly on this one, and did yourself no favours by making it Personal.

Hello TRANSPONDER

This was never personal, your descent into gibberish is now difficult to observe and I say , enough is enough. Put up, a thread as I suggested to Difflugia, that does not restrict me in the same way that this OP does. I will happily play devils advocate against Science, to my last breath as a theist.
Thanks

[Difflugia]

I would love to more specifically engage with our ' grievances ' within a more defined and confined space.

I don't know what you think is wrong with this thread, but fine.

I have had too many efforts in this regard shunted to Ramblings or re sectioned, for me to bother, attempting to set it up.

That's almost always because you don't ask an actual question for debate. If you want your debate topics to remain, my suggestion is to make an initial post that contains only a question for debate. You can then make the first response to your own post that explains why you're asking a question. Make it as random and rambling as you want. I'd bet most anything that it doesn't get moved.

you set it up. TRANSPONDER, (God Bless Him), may well turn up, 1213?, and , I'm a vulture for any scientific corpses left unattended. Who knows who will turn up. Offer up your sacrifice for rejection on the High Altar of DC.

Here you go. Keep calm and vulture on.

[1213]

If you made the effort to understand what the patterns mean, you'd understand why you're wrong. You see, mammals diverged from reptiles before mammals evolved viviparity. A mammal that lays eggs is, though obviously rare, no more a challenge to evolution than a marsupial with its lack of a placenta.

On the other hand, insects evolved wings long after spiders diverged from a common ancestor. A spider with insect wings would be a sort of anachronism and mean that the trait had somehow "jumped" from insects to spiders. Similarly, reptiles evolved the first feathers long after mammals diverged from a reptile-mammal common ancestor. Again, the feathers somehow "jumping" back to the mammal line isn't something we'd expect to see from evolution.

And if we would find a spider with the wings, it would be explained to evolution theory, the same way as everything that would first seem impossible. I pray we found such a spider, because it is always funny to listen the explanations.

[1213]

I may have to do that myself as I was relying on memory. Especially if you come up with some lying apologetics material from a Christian apologetics source instead of looking at the actual information.

Unfortunately I didn't find any old accurate map of the ancient Tyre.

Pre -Alexander (Nebuchadnezzar's siege doesn't matter as it was all rebuilt in order for Alexander to need to besiege it)

Any proof for that it was rebuilt?

Tyre was on the mainland E of the island. (I shall be interested to see whether you have any evidence it was called something else) and Alexander built a causeway to the island out of the rubble. From Google maps it shows the causeway silted up so it is all one land mass and the ruins of old Tyre can be found underneath. The remains outside (clearly not built on) are Roman or later as you can tell from the columns. The claim this is old Tyre is either a failure to check their information or deliberate lies.

Ok, maybe it is true that what is seen, is not the ruins of the ancient Tyre. However, if the ruins of ancient Tyre can be found, it is a proof that it was not rebuilt. Building new things on the top of it, is not exactly the same as rebuilt it.

And, in any case, by what is told in the Bible, Tyre was on island, not on the mainland. And, I believe it rather than modern people, who were not there to observe what happened.

If you find this true, will you then admit that it is and the Tyre prophecy fails?

I would like you to point out, what part of the scripture then fails. Can you show a scripture that is not true in this case?

...And I will cause many nations to go up against you, as the sea causes its waves to go up. And they shall destroy the walls of Tyre and break down her towers. I will also scrape her dust from her and make her like a shining rock. It shall be a spreading place for nets in the middle of the sea. for I have spoken, declares the Lord Jehovah. And she shall be a spoil to the nations. And her daughters who are in the field shall be killed by the sword. And they shall know that I am Jehovah....
...I shall make you a ruined city, like the cities that do not have dwellers, when I shall bring up on you the deep and great waters shall cover you. And I shall bring you down with those who go into the Pit, with the people of old time, and I shall set you in the earth's lowest parts, in places ruined from days of old, with ones who go to the Pit, so that you have no dwellers. But I gave glory in the land of the living. I will give you terrors, and you will not be. Though you are sought, yet you shall not be found any more forever, declares the Lord Jehovah.
Ezek. 26:1-21

By what I see, after you proved that the ruins are not the ancient Tyre, that has come true. There is nothing of the ancient Tyre left. Do you disagree with that?

[TRANSPONDER]

If you made the effort to understand what the patterns mean, you'd understand why you're wrong. You see, mammals diverged from reptiles before mammals evolved viviparity. A mammal that lays eggs is, though obviously rare, no more a challenge to evolution than a marsupial with its lack of a placenta.

On the other hand, insects evolved wings long after spiders diverged from a common ancestor. A spider with insect wings would be a sort of anachronism and mean that the trait had somehow "jumped" from insects to spiders. Similarly, reptiles evolved the first feathers long after mammals diverged from a reptile-mammal common ancestor. Again, the feathers somehow "jumping" back to the mammal line isn't something we'd expect to see from evolution.

And if we would find a spider with the wings, it would be explained to evolution theory, the same way as everything that would first seem impossible. I pray we found such a spider, because it is always funny to listen the explanations.

You mock, deny and dismiss anything you don'tlike, even if the Bible plainly says so.

But there is a valid question here. No matter what crazy stuff comes up evolutionary science will come up with an explanation. But this is where you do it all wrong, don't understand science or the logical evaluation of evidfence and in fact accuse (wrongly) logical empiricism of the faults that Bible apolopgetics regularly commits.

Suppose we found an arachnid with wings.Sure there would be an assumption that this was a product of evolution. If a rodent can learn to fly, why shouldn't a spider? But it wouldn't be a question of making up hypotheses and dismissing any evidence that contradicts it, but to research and check and discuss to find how the spider god wings.

And in all cases of this kind, a god (never mind which one) has never been the answer. Why then should a materialist answer (eventually) be mockingly dismissed by you or any other God -apologist? We can be sure why - you are mocking your own flack of understanding and think you are laughing off science (where it doesn't suit you). But again, thanks for abeing a good case study of the Bad apologetics methods of Bible -apologists whether or not creationists.

Can we fond a suitable 'why do people laugh at creationists?'vid?flagging up how the Creationist mockery is so ill founded and often rebounds upon them?

This'll do. This Rudy Giuliani of Creationism is probably one of the top five worst, in a pretty tight field. It it notable that his method like a politician on a talk show, not of a scientist arguing a case., which is how most Creationists operate even if the case they present is not science.



It points up laughing (indeed sneering) at knowledge they don't understand and don't want to, and the political methods used to push Creationism through. Indeed when Creationism failed to make the scientific case, it went for another method, the political manipulation of the law to push creationism through, and that is coming to a head right now.

[William]

I think the source of the problem is with the belief in supernaturalism.

Naturalism (that which supernaturalism opposes re the Question of God) presents problems for the supernaturalist Christian and those problems have tried to be solved through the invention of a supernatural Creator in an attempt to align the horror of physical evidence with the concept of a purely "good" or "loving" (and distant/Deist) creator-being.

As I understand and accept it, we do exist in a created thing and Darwinism does not interfere with that perspective. (If anything, it adds to the awesomeness.)

For those who cannot align the two (creator with creation) the mythos (re supernatural invention/explanation) bring in notions of Satan (Lucifer) who was booted from the supernatural realm and placed within this purpose-designed universe, therefore explaining why there are horrors, because it was created for that specific reason - to separate the evil into a realm where it couldn't infect the supernatural realm.

I think too, that atheists use Darwinism as a mechanism for believing we do not exist in a created thing, thus "there is no requirement for a creator" (something which darwinism itself does not prove or even seek to prove) and this has more to do with The Problem of Evil because atheists would rather think in those terms as a means of avoiding having to solve the problem.

Every human personality is required to solve the problem/face the demons and come to a place of non-confliction, primarily within/with themselves and thereby (by extension) with the world and with others.

See also internal link to a post I recently made on the subject.
A Philosophical Dialogue on Reality and Perception

[Difflugia]

And if we would find a spider with the wings, it would be explained to evolution theory, the same way as everything that would first seem impossible.

Really? Then you should have no problem finding similar "impossible" patterns that have been "explained to evolution theory."

I pray we found such a spider, because it is always funny to listen the explanations.

I've shown you a mountain of data in which to start looking. Either that or keep indulging in sour grapes. Your choice, I guess.