What is the main reason for you to Oppose evolutionary theory?

[SoldierOfTheKing]

That said, why does the story have to be factual to be true?

Not exactly sure what you mean by that. "Factual" and "true" are synonyms as far as I'm concerned. One is derived from Latin, the other from Anglo-Saxon, that's why both words are in the English language. It's the same reason why the English language often has multiple words to express the same concept, but I digress.

If by "factual" you mean "historically true" and by true, "theologically true". Then I've already answered your question. If you mean something else, then I'm afraid I don't understand you.

 

[Willtor]

Not exactly sure what you mean by that. "Factual" and "true" are synonyms as far as I'm concerned. One is derived from Latin, the other from Anglo-Saxon, that's why both words are in the English language. It's the same reason why the English language often has multiple words to express the same concept, but I digress.

If by "factual" you mean "historically true" and by true, "theologically true". Then I've already answered your question. If you mean something else, then I'm afraid I don't understand you.

I think the semantics are slightly different, and that's what I want to address. The common example that TE's use, in my experience, is a parable. Now, Jesus told a story about a certain good Samaritan. The Samaritan was not a factual person, but it was a true parable, and Jesus drew very real implications from it and so we know that we ought to do as the Samaritan, even though the Samaritan didn't exist.

 

[Windmill]

Other.

1) Its not supported by the bible
2) For the bible to be taken literally, so does the creation

Thats the main reasons. Religious reasons. Second reason is, its bad science.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

1) Its not supported by the bible

A lot of things are not supported by the bible such as; concept that conciousness rests in the brain, electricity, bacteria, continental drift, cancer, the speed of light, democracy, free market economies. Do you discount those things too, just because they are not mentioned in the bible?

2) For the bible to be taken literally, so does the creation

Maybe the bible isn't supposed to be taken literally, or do you think the Earth literally rests on pillars and is literally immobile, and that the sky is literally solid, or that the Kingdom of God is literally "like a mustard seed"

Things can be true without being taken literally, as I am sure you are already aware.

Thats the main reasons. Religious reasons. Second reason is, its bad science.

I think it boils down to being afraid of something you don't understand.

 

[Deren]

Lets find out if there is a leading cause for people to oppose evolutionary thoery/

I voted "other," because the option "It isn't science at all," was not available. And the reason I state that it isn't science is because I believe what fuels Evolutionary Theory has more to do with religious faith and/or atheistic philosophy than anything. And while many adherents of evolution typically cry "foul" over such an assessment, while claiming that their discoveries are strictly based on empirical evidence, it doesn't take a degree in rocket science to discover that when a true blue evolutionist starts talking about origins that empirical evidence is clearly missing from his explanation, and a whole lot of faith and nihilism are offered to try and fill in the gaps (to go with other gaps in his physical record).

 

[chaoschristian]

I voted "other," because the option "It isn't science at all," was not available. And the reason I state that it isn't science is because I believe what fuels Evolutionary Theory has more to do with religious faith and/or atheistic philosophy than anything. And while many adherents of evolution typically cry "foul" over such an assessment, while claiming that their discoveries are strictly based on empirical evidence, it doesn't take a degree in rocket science to discover that when a true blue evolutionist starts talking about origins that empirical evidence is clearly missing from his explanation, and a whole lot of faith and nihilism are offered to try and fill in the gaps (to go with other gaps in his physical record).

evolutionary theory does not equal atheism

evolutionary theory does not equal origins (of life/universe/and everything) theory

 

[shernren]

I voted "other," because the option "It isn't science at all," was not available. And the reason I state that it isn't science is because I believe what fuels Evolutionary Theory has more to do with religious faith and/or atheistic philosophy than anything. And while many adherents of evolution typically cry "foul" over such an assessment, while claiming that their discoveries are strictly based on empirical evidence, it doesn't take a degree in rocket science to discover that when a true blue evolutionist starts talking about origins that empirical evidence is clearly missing from his explanation, and a whole lot of faith and nihilism are offered to try and fill in the gaps (to go with other gaps in his physical record).

One such gap, please. A lot of "gaps" in evolutionism are not filled in by faith but by facts creationists never seem to find out.

 

[Dannager]

I voted "other," because the option "It isn't science at all," was not available. And the reason I state that it isn't science is because I believe what fuels Evolutionary Theory has more to do with religious faith and/or atheistic philosophy than anything. And while many adherents of evolution typically cry "foul" over such an assessment, while claiming that their discoveries are strictly based on empirical evidence, it doesn't take a degree in rocket science to discover that when a true blue evolutionist starts talking about origins that empirical evidence is clearly missing from his explanation, and a whole lot of faith and nihilism are offered to try and fill in the gaps (to go with other gaps in his physical record).

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
Enjoy those few dozen pages of referenced, empirically evidenced fact supporting evolutionary theory. I suggest doing a little reading. You sound rather foolish claiming that the evidences I linked to don't exist.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

nihilism are offered to try and fill in the gaps

how does nihilism fill in scientific gaps?
isn't nihilism "something like nothing?" a philosophic position?

can i have just 1 example of this very odd idea?
how nihilism fills in the gaps in TofE?

(pretty please, this is a REALLY odd thing to say, i'd like to know what is behind it)

otherwise i have nothing to think about it but a empty boastful ignorance. *grin*

just point out one gap you have in mind.
then show how a theme or principle of nihilism can be used to fill it.
this is a completely new claim for me, i just gotta figure this one out.
what are you saying?????