Why are some Christians anti Evolution?

[AV1611VET]

And if these interlocutors don't 'allow' us to go deeper into their reasoning and psychology, then we're stuck arguing with them on the cursory level.

What I think and how I think is an open book.

From my profile:

Independent Fundamental Baptist
King James Version Only
Seven Theme Dispensation
Verbal Plenary Inspiration
Literal Creation
Pretrib Rapture
Premillennial

My standards:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

I also have a jillion challenge threads that give deep insight into how I think.

My all-time favorite questions are:

1. My Apple Challenge
2. My Raisin Bread Challenge
3. Can God make a dress tomorrow so old it falls apart with age?

 

[TLK Valentine]

What further points are there to make, when you're demonstrating the points I make?

Perhaps if you actually made a point, as opposed to pretending you did?

Go on; try it once... If you don't like it, you'll never have to do it again.

 

[AV1611VET]

Perhaps if you actually made a point, as opposed to pretending you did?

If I did, would you stop QED'ing them then, and start disagreeing with them?

 

[Astrid]

.

 

[Astrid]

.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What I think and how I think is an open book.

From my profile:

Independent Fundamental Baptist
King James Version Only
Seven Theme Dispensation
Verbal Plenary Inspiration
Literal Creation
Pretrib Rapture
Premillennial

My standards:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

I also have a jillion challenge threads that give deep insight into how I think.

My all-time favorite questions are:

1. My Apple Challenge
2. My Raisin Bread Challenge
3. Can God make a dress tomorrow so old it falls apart with age?

I appreciate your effort to bullet point some of the highlights of your thinking. However, this list of items you've given only presents some of the contents of your thinking rather than the deeper reasons as to "why" you've assumed these things.

Regardless of this, what I said to others in a previous post was for the purpose of helping others understand what it takes for any of us to try to understand each other (as ironic as that sounds) and not just you alone.

 

[Astrid]

Non sequitur.

The question was:
Could you be more specific? What in my statement about evolution is not true?

If you have come just to troll for a response, I have no time to waste on you.

Specifically-
" evolution states that god did not create man"

You will nowhere find this as a statement in scientific literature.

You may feel it is implied, in that the facts presented and
explanatory theory do not match a chosen interpretation of
genesis.
That is much as with "flood" which certainly is wholly
inconsistent with all relevant data- if one chooses to think it
is literally a historical account of actual events.

It is entirely relevant to say, as I did, that Christians
have a very wide range of beliefs regarding how literal
genesis is. Some find deep time and evolution a
compatible with their faith, others dont.
Sometimes i ask why someone thinks the flood was
a real occurrence tho there is zero evidence it did v vast
evidence that it did not.


As a bit of a side note, would you say that God created
waterfalls? No trap or trick intended, I am looking to
find where we could come to a happy understanding.

 

[Astrid]

If none of these threads had your involvement so much the better.
Turning threads into Bible misquotes so you can bash science and express your pathological hatred of scientists and academics is at the very least off topic.

No rule says anyone has to be allowed to hijack
every thread

 

[AV1611VET]

I appreciate your effort to bullet point some of the highlights of your thinking. However, this list of items you've given only presents some of the contents of your thinking rather than the deeper reasons as to "why" you've assumed these things.

I'm not sure I understand how deeply you want to go?

Is this a group therapy session or something?

Regardless of this, what I said to others in a previous post was for the purpose of helping others understand what it takes for any of us to try to understand each other (as ironic as that sounds) and not just you alone.

Well I certainly appreciate that, but it sounds like you're wanting a level of understanding that will never satisfy you.

If you're asking me what makes me tick, it's the Great Commission.

But again, I'm not sure exactly what it is you're looking for.

Is there anything I can put in my profile that will help?

 

[Astrid]

In the context that you asked it the previous times it was in reference to people who disagree on the age of the earth. In this last context you asked the question it was in reference to the thickness of the concrete which was varied without any doubt. So there’s a big difference between being able to physically measure the thickness of a slab of concrete as opposed to “predicting” the age of the earth, one is a proven fact the other is a theory supported by evidence.

Have you ever seen the movie called “The Green Mile”? It’s a fact that two girls were murdered. It’s a fact that John Coffee was found holding their dead bodies. It’s a fact that he was found guilty of murdering them. It’s a fact that they executed him for the murder of those two girls. But it’s also a fact that he was innocent and the girls were murdered by another character in the movie. John Coffee was found guilty based on a theory that was supported by evidence but was later found to be innocent despite the overwhelming evidence against him. So does that mean that the people who believed the evidence knew the truth? Does that mean that anyone who believed John Coffee was innocent was a liar because of the evidence stacked against him?

No
I just said. " if someone is shown to be wrong "
That is very simple and clear.

 

[AV1611VET]

You will nowhere find this as a statement in scientific literature.

One of my favorite pics:

Incidentally, does anyone know what this formula is explaining?

It's certainly not the Lorentz contraction.

 

[AV1611VET]

No rule says anyone has to be allowed to hijack every thread

QV please:

p.s. I'm one of those "types", Atrijez, that all I have to do is show up and say "boo", and I'll tie a thread up for hours.

 

[ottawak]

I'm not sure I understand how deeply you want to go?

Is this a group therapy session or something?Well I certainly appreciate that, but it sounds like you're wanting a level of understanding that will never satisfy you.

If you're asking me what makes me tick, it's the Great Commission.

But again, I'm not sure exactly what it is you're looking for.

Is there anything I can put in my profile that will help?

All of those things you listed:

Independent Fundamental Baptist
King James Version Only
Seven Theme Dispensation
Verbal Plenary Inspiration
Literal Creation
Pretrib Rapture
Premillennial

None of them are essential Christian doctrines, yet you chose them and defend them. Why?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm not sure I understand how deeply you want to go?

For my part, I don't presently have a desire or need to understand you; I'm an epistemic latitudinarian, after all, so I EXPECT differences to exist in perspective and life long personal development. Others here, however, may very well have a desire to figure you out, if not for their own benefit of being able to understanding you, but to deal with whom you will be voting for next.

Is this a group therapy session or something? Well I certainly appreciate that, but it sounds like you're wanting a level of understanding that will never satisfy you.

Lol! No, AV, it's not a group therapy session, even if I am alluding a little to more sociological bents of interest.

If you're asking me what makes me tick, it's the Great Commission.

Nope. I'm not asking you what makes you tick. As a fellow Christian, I'd like to think that despite our different perspectives on the nature and application of the Bible, Jesus is the Prime Motivator in each of our cases.

But again, I'm not sure exactly what it is you're looking for.

It's always more than one thing; it's a hard earned confluence of measures that I'm always on the look out for but can rarely fully gather together in any one instance, as much as I try.

Is there anything I can put in my profile that will help?

I don't know. That's a good question. Maybe the answer to that could be informed by my "Who's Your Daddy Challenge"?

 

[TLK Valentine]

If I did, would you stop QED'ing them then, and start disagreeing with them?

You'll never know until you try...

 

[Astrid]

Proof is something that is undeniable, you haven’t given any proof all you’ve given is evidence, there’s a difference. And by the way welcome to CHRISTIAN Forums. Going to a CHRISTIAN forum and expecting CHRISTIANS to disregard the word of God then getting mad about it when they won’t and resorting to rude and disrespectful comments is childish and immature behavior. It would be like me going to an atheist website expecting people to praise God, it’s a ridiculous expectation. So this should come as no surprise to you that I would hold to my position despite anything you say because I’ve been thru these discussions several times. You can’t prove me wrong and I can’t prove you wrong so it should just be a discussion of examining evidence but in the end neither of us can expect the other to concede based on inconclusive evidence.

If I behaved as you describe then i can see how you would
get so upset. You misread me though.
All i said was " shown to be wrong". I DID NOT say wrong
about God, or anything else in particular.
I hoped we had some understanding when you came up with
measuring a wall. There is clear right and wrong, proof , for
such things. 1 plus 1 isnt three. That is the level of proof,
that is the kind of pighesdedness i referred to in asking
what you would call it when someone will never admit they
are wrong.
Im sorry that got so complicated and somehow makes you angry
with me. No reason for you to get into name - calling

i DO NOT try to discourage faith in God.
This is though a debate forum that specifically invites
diverse views. Theres " christians only" for those who
find it rude and disrespectful to disagree with their
chosen reading.

Its no surprise at all when i find that someone
is incapable of altering their views
My approach to life and learning requires that
I learn and adapt.
But everyone has different values.

I dont at the moment recall any specific statement
of "scientific" type fact from you with which Ive taken
issue.
And I dont offer to do proof.

See ya next time if there is one!

 

[TLK Valentine]

What I think and how I think is an open book.

From my profile:

Independent Fundamental Baptist
King James Version Only
Seven Theme Dispensation
Verbal Plenary Inspiration
Literal Creation
Pretrib Rapture
Premillennial

My standards:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

I also have a jillion challenge threads that give deep insight into how I think.

My all-time favorite questions are:

1. My Apple Challenge
2. My Raisin Bread Challenge
3. Can God make a dress tomorrow so old it falls apart with age?

So where does God fit into any of this... if at all?

 

[AV1611VET]

None of them are essential Christian doctrines, yet you chose them and defend them. Why?

As the saying goes:

I'm a Christian by election, and a Baptist by conviction.

 

[AV1611VET]

.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

AV, I see you've chosen to resort to the Frank Turek form of "appeal."

Just remember that there are some psycho-social questions that are only effective when the framing of those questions is agreed upon by your interlocutor prior to engaging and answering them. Otherwise, what are and could be very useful questions--maybe even spot-on questions--end up becoming just another weapon of rhetoric, or worse yet, of mere polemic.

We're not hard communists or capitalists here, and as Christians, I think we want to avoid mere polemic.