Why are some Christians anti Evolution?

[eleos1954]

What a weird question. You were asking about if eggs needed to have parental involvement and we gave you examples where animals lay eggs and never return. No one said anything about them not being fertilized.

Why are some Christians anti Evolution?

What came first the chicken or the egg?

An egg can not fertilize itself ... one of the reasons why some christians are anti evolution.

 

[eleos1954]

You're moving the goalposts. You asked: "where are there any eggs that form and survive without a "parent" to protect and nurture it?"

Protect and nurture -- which happens long after fertilization.

no I'm not moving the goal post .... what came first the chicken or the egg? The chickens ..... as it takes the two (that have reached sexual maturity) to produce off spring and then parent and nurture them.

 

[Astrid]

Why are some Christians anti Evolution?

What came first the chicken or the egg?

An egg can not fertilize itself ... one of the reasons why some christians are anti evolution.

Lots of christians understsnd science
so thats just. " christian fundamentalists"
who reject Gods way of creating life in favour of
their ill considered notions.

I hope not many rely on beliefs that are a matter
of simple ignorance. Self fertilization is common.
How an Asexual Lizard Procreates Alone

There are other examples if you care to look.

Any real reasons?

 

[eleos1954]

When you go from the above to the below



This is a logical fallacy known as "shifting the goalposts"
You should at the very least acknowledge that people have pointed out there are many instances where animals today lay eggs and do not protect and nurture them.

Also you should acknowledge that eggs is a hereditary feature (if your parents are the type of animal that lays eggs then you are the type of animal that lays eggs) and that animals were laying eggs long before the chicken appeared on earth.

I understand though that you are not interested in science and probably didn't bother with the link I provided regarding the evolution of the egg. I understand that your real reason to doubt all of this stuff is not because of science (evidence based) but is because of your interpretation of the bible. In that case it is pointless me going to efforts to educate you on science.

Ive read some of the theories ... but they are indeed that.

You are presuming many things.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Why are some Christians anti Evolution?

What came first the chicken or the egg?

An egg can not fertilize itself ... one of the reasons why some christians are anti evolution.

Why are you replying with this again? We've already said this is a weird reason. I don't think "chicken v. egg" is the reason *any* Christians oppose evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

[BTW, what's with you guys getting anything wrong on that quiz? ]

Ya -- fancy I not knowing who traditionally wears a turban and dagger out in public?

 

[Astrid]

Why are you replying with this again? We've already said this is a weird reason. I don't think "chicken v. egg" is the reason *any* Christians oppose evolution.

TOE might be false, but, if it is, chicken / egg is not
the problem.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Ya -- fancy I not knowing who traditionally wears a turban and dagger out in public?

I probably didn't know that one 20 years ago or so when I was a Christian. Not sure I'd even heard of Sikhs in my callow youth.

The one that might have gotten me was the yoga question. If Buddhism had been an option, I might have picked that (at least been uncertain).

Multiple choice is often a poor way to differentiate fine details of understanding. I can imagine some Catholics finding problems with the 8-10 word description of transsubstatiation and picking the wrong answer. The "Trinity question" might have posed some problems as well, but the alternatives were so obviously wrong if you have just the slightest understanding of that theological position.

 

[Astrid]

.

 

[Bradskii]

Ya -- fancy I not knowing who traditionally wears a turban and dagger out in public?

There is a chance that you might never have seen or heard about or read about Sikhs. But a Protestant not knowing who Luthor was? Any given Christian not knowing the 4 gospels? Aren't these people taught about what they are meant to believe? Or more importantly, don't they want to learn?

 

[AV1611VET]

There is a chance that you might never have seen or heard about or read about Sikhs. But a Protestant not knowing who Luthor was? Any given Christian not knowing the 4 gospels? Aren't these people taught about what they are meant to believe? Or more importantly, don't they want to learn?

First of all, I'm not a Protestant.

The Protestants lived in their time, and they're gone now.

The "Protestants" of today are just a shadow of what the true Protestants were yesterday.

As for Luther, I only know him as well as I do from the book, The Trail of Blood, by J. M. Carroll.

And if I quoted what the book says about him, I'd probably get moderated.

Let's just say, because of him, there are a lot ... and I mean a LOT less Anabaptists in the world.

 

[Bradskii]

First of all, I'm not a Protestant.

Me neither. Just as well I wasn't talking about either of us.

 

[AV1611VET]

Any given Christian not knowing the 4 gospels?

I do find this interesting.

Perhaps they don't know what the word "Gospel" means.

I mean, if you asked what the first four books of the New Testament are, they could probably tell you.

But they may not know them as "The Gospels," per se.

Another point is the confusion that arises about calling three of them the "synoptic Gospels," which are only Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

Where Matthew and Mark are the same, Luke is different.

Where Matthew and Luke are the same, Mark is different.

Where Mark and Luke are the same, Matthew is different.

Ya -- it can be confusing.

 

[sjastro]

I do find this interesting.

Perhaps they don't know what the word "Gospel" means.

I mean, if you asked what the first four books of the New Testament are, they could probably tell you.

But they may not know them as "The Gospels," per se.

Another point is the confusion that arises about calling three of them the "synoptic Gospels," which are only Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

Where Matthew and Mark are the same, Luke is different.

Where Matthew and Luke are the same, Mark is different.

Where Mark and Luke are the same, Matthew is different.

Ya -- it can be confusing.

Some scholars or those evil academics you claim perpetrated the myth of the Jews being persecuted throughout history believe the three synoptic Bibles originated from Q.

And I don't mean this one.

 

[Bradskii]

Perhaps they don't know what the word "Gospel" means.

I'm flummoxed that you seem to think that that is a valid excuse rather than making the problem a whole lot worse.

I would have thought that any reasonable person would look at the figures given and say 'Yikes, that's pretty grim. There seems to be a lot of work that different denominations need to do in educating their congregations about their faith'.

And hang on. The Baptist denomination isn't a branch of Protestantism? Whut?

 

[AV1611VET]

Some scholars or those evil academics you claim perpetrated the myth of the Jews being persecuted throughout history believe the three synoptic Bibles originated from Q.

I'm familiar with that; but I was referencing the persecution of the Anabaptists, not the Jews.

 

[AV1611VET]

And hang on. The Baptist denomination isn't a branch of Protestantism? Whut?

QV please:

Protestant vs Baptist

The main difference between Protestant and Baptist is that Baptists are those who only believe in Jesus, while Protestants will mostly agree that Jesus is the best way to redemption. Many mainline Protestants, on the other hand, will admit that there are other ways of redemption. Another difference is that Protestants allow for sprinkling baptism, while Baptists rely on immersion baptism only.

SOURCE

 

[sjastro]

I'm familiar with that; but I was referencing the persecution of the Anabaptists, not the Jews.

Not in the closed "Exodus is not supported by Archaeology" thread which I was referring to.

 

[Bradskii]

QV please:

SOURCE

All Baptists are Protestants. But not all Protestants are Baptists.

 

[Astrid]

Not in the closed "Exodus is not supported by Archaeology" thread which I was referring to.

Start a new one!