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

[1213]

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

What I have denied from the Bible?

[TRANSPONDER]

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?

In addition the 'you shall not be found any more' there is

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.

The prophecy that fails is underlined. It was rebuilt and fairly quickly. It existed in Roman times, it exists today. You either don't understand or are deluding to yourself. You can't fool me. The ruins that are shown and ancient monuments are Roman (or later) and outside the present city. From what I can tell they were outside old Tyre. The later rebuilt city medieval and present city covers all ancient Tyre which was rebuilt and proves the prophecy wrong.

I do hope (as you are close to it) we are not going to hear the laughable evasion I heard once that Old Tyre was never rebuilt. They built a totally different city on top and just called it Tyre. That wouldn't work because old Tyre (mainland and Island) were rebuilt and the archaeology is found underneath the present city.

It isn't easy to find any 'accurate map' of the ancient city in relation to the present one. It is clear that present 'sur' covers all the ancient area, so we'd know, even without archaeology finding Old Tyre underneath. I did find the necropolis NE of the old city. And that little guide -video showed this is later Roman material and not Old Tyre that wasn't rebuilt. The historical record surely shows that the place was rebuilt and up and running even before the Romans took over. The prophecy that the city would not be rebuilt and would never be found again fails.

[TRANSPONDER]

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

What I have denied from the Bible?

You have asked this several times. You denied (just for one) that the Bible says the sun was made after there was daylight. You changed position several times trying to find an excuse.

You also ignored by way of denial that Mary Magdalene saw everything to the woman (or women) saw and could not have reported tot he disciples that he had no idea what had happened to the body (as in John) which shows she must have looked inside.

Denial and dismissal. Mocking is just reserved for evolutionary evidence, but that does you no more credit.

[TRANSPONDER]

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

No, I don't think it's that, so much as the real difference between theism and atheism. Or rather, the equivocation of 'creation/creator'. The atheist/materialist can accept that everything was created (given that no-one can be sure about Cosmic Origins). But the 'creator' could be natural forces. The real point is whether the creative force is directed/intelligent.

Evolution (chemical and biological) means that an intelligent creator is not necessary. We can suppose that we 'exist within a created thing' as you say and if it isn't intelligently designed (and despite your railings against 'darwinism', ID has spectacularly failed to make a case), and even trying to argue for a no -religion god, there is no good evidence for it.

Sure, that isn't the intent or job of science. It never was - as the Believers sometimes say 'all the great old scientists were creationists'. But the work of science has eliminated any need for any intelligent creator and thus atheists (whether scientists or not) have been able to rebut any claim for a god.

This atheist case is adapted to the god - claim being made. If the claim is for Jesusgod, that's the one that get rebutted from the Bible. If the claim is for a sorta - god, then the Bible is irrelevant.

I think we can skip your link, since your argument is evidently flawed, if not designed to be misleading.

[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.

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

Your accusation of me as 'the greatest exponent of you too' wasn't personal? Nor accusation of descent into gibberish, just because you don't like it when you get rebutted? I leave it to you whether you find it too hard to 'observe' and decide to run away. I see no reason to follow your suggestion for a thread - to difflugia, of all things, when all we really do is respond to stuff posted by believers. Your attempt to manipulate the discussion fails.Do you have anything at all by way of a coherent and meaningful argument?

Good grief, yes the topic was about 'darwinism'. I'd forgotten, as your post wasn't really about anything.

[Masterblaster]

Hello

You say - ".Do you have anything at all by way of a coherent and meaningful argument? Good grief, yes the topic was about 'darwinism'. I'd forgotten, as your post wasn't really about anything."

Masterblaster- Post 32

Your response - (Post 36)

"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"


--------

Where does a debate go from there, T?
Thanks

[TRANSPONDER]

Hello

You say - ".Do you have anything at all by way of a coherent and meaningful argument? Good grief, yes the topic was about 'darwinism'. I'd forgotten, as your post wasn't really about anything."

Masterblaster- Post 32

Your response - (Post 36)

"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"


--------

Where does a debate go from there, T?
Thanks

all over the place, it seems. Apart from debating 'darwinism' it was about a supposition that Creationists are upset that other Christians accept evolution. Which I haven't actually seen. Creationists seem to ignore Theist evolutionists, as much as I suppose they ignore the ones that reject chunks of the Bible and just believe the bits they like.

Though even the fundamentalists seem to stop short of accepting Everything in the Bible. Few or none accept the flat earth, or that slavery is ok; instead they argue that the Bible really says something else; something that agrees with science. I suspect it is an elephant in the room for them; they don't want to hear that Christians can accept evolution and still be Christians. I suppose that amounts to that face 'upsetting them'.

[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

No, I don't think it's that, so much as the real difference between theism and atheism. Or rather, the equivocation of 'creation/creator'. The atheist/materialist can accept that everything was created (given that no-one can be sure about Cosmic Origins). But the 'creator' could be natural forces. The real point is whether the creative force is directed/intelligent.

Indeed. That is why it is believed by the atheist not to be. For if it were, then there is the problem of evil to solve.

Evolution (chemical and biological) means that an intelligent creator is not necessary. We can suppose that we 'exist within a created thing' as you say and if it isn't intelligently designed...

Why would atheist suppose any such thing. If it wasn't intelligent then it wasn't created. Why pretend otherwise? What convenience is there in doing so?

(and despite your railings against 'darwinism', ID has spectacularly failed to make a case),

Shut that accusation down. I specifically mentioned how Darwinism made no difference to my thinking it is anything but awesomeness. I suggest you change your style of reply by quoting in context that your reply is also in context. Presently your style of block-quoting and then mispresenting what is being said, isn't really debating in a truthful manner.

and even trying to argue for a no -religion god, there is no good evidence for it.

What is your problem atheist? The idea of a "no-religion god" is somehow "unfair"?

Sure, that isn't the intent or job of science. It never was - as the Believers sometimes say 'all the great old scientists were creationists'. But the work of science has eliminated any need for any intelligent creator and thus atheists (whether scientists or not) have been able to rebut any claim for a god.

If that were true, I myself would be an atheist. But it isn't true - or at least it presently remains an unsupported statement that "the work of science has eliminated any need for any intelligent creator ". What evidence do you think there is which you can provide to support that claim?

This atheist case is adapted to the god - claim being made. If the claim is for Jesusgod, that's the one that get rebutted from the Bible. If the claim is for a sorta - god, then the Bible is irrelevant.

I agree that there is a "type" of atheist which is preoccupied with the specific rebuttal of bible-beliefs - a "type" of theism such atheists are comfortable with critiquing.

I think we can skip your link, since your argument is evidently flawed, if not designed to be misleading.

Skip away atheist. Duck and dive. The link is unlikely to get your juices flowing given your preoccupation with the misdirection of supernaturalism anyway.

As I said. 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.

If your way of doing so is to see the universe as a mindless creation, "maybe that will work for you" - but that does not mean it is the truth or really works as one might hope for.

From the link mentioned;

Father. ~ Supernaturalism places a defining feature into the mix of what is.

Son. ~ What is immoral about there being a mind behind this reality experience.
But does that make said mind “supernatural”? Certainly, the stories humans have made up to “explain” their situation, bring with them the presumption of a supernatural “thing”.

Father. “The Planet Consciousness assess the data and transmits that assessment back to the individuate human consciousness - if not directly - then storing the data in a place where the individual can have access to it, if the individual wants the data.”

Son. Yes. Still firmly in the realm of Naturalism. It we accept the theory of biological evolution we are left with a very long time for a lot of different – natural - stuff to happen.
What we have is a “horror” show of sorts, where the planet consciousness created the costumes of biological form and then animated those from within, in order to experience the show on another level – not just as the creator of those things, but as the one experiencing those things.
SOURCE

[1213]

...You denied (just for one) that the Bible says the sun was made after there was daylight.

Why are you spreading lies? I have not denied that there was light before the sun.

You also ignored by way of denial that Mary Magdalene saw everything to the woman (or women) saw and could not have reported tot he disciples that he had no idea what had happened to the body (as in John) which shows she must have looked inside.

I have not denied anything what is actually said in the Bible. If I don't accept your interpretations, it is not the same as denying the Bible, you are not the Bible.

[1213]

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.

...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?

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.

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