|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What is the appeal of evolution? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
I'm looking for an explanation for why evolutionists choose evolution? What is the reason? They come from all faiths and nationalities, yet they all accept the same lie. Why is this?
Clearly when an atheist from the western world accepts evolution he does so to express his rejection of Christianity. But why do atheists from Hindu and Buddhist and Islamic and Jewish cultures accept evolution? It must be that Islamic and Jewish atheists accept evolution because they reject the Genesis accounts from the Bible, but how do you explain the atheists from Hindu and Buddhist cultures who accept evolution? Are they just brainwashed by the worldwide evolutionist conspiracy? When a geologist finds sea shells on a mountain top, why does he irrationally reject the obvious explanation, that Noah's flood left the shells there? Of course he rejects the possibility of Noah's flood because that would lend credibility to the Genesis story he rejects. But why does he reject it? And why don't at least some geologists who reject the Genesis account say, "Well, it wasn't Noah's flood, but it was clearly a flood." It was obviously a flood that put the sea shells there, so why don't they just say so? They only lose credibility by denying the obvious. It's a similar situation with the geologic layers. Looking at the Grand Canyon, anyone can tell that these layers must have been deposited quickly by a gigantic flood. Why do geologists make themselves look like idiots by denying this? If they reject the Bible and/or Christianity then they can claim that it wasn't Noah's flood that created the layers of the Grand Canyon, but it was still a flood. But not a single non-creationist geologist admits that it was a giant flood. Why is that? The biggest mystery is Christians who accept evolution. Just because they err in rejecting the plain words of the Bible doesn't mean they have to accept evolution. There must be countless other ways to misinterpret God's word, but they almost exclusively choose evolution. Why do these misguided Christians almost universally accept a theory that is without evidence or any scientific foundation whatsoever? Why isn't there at least some variety in the alternatives they choose? Why always evolution? It's a puzzlement! --Percy Edited by Percy, : Fix grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminQuetzal Inactive Member |
Okay boss. Do you want this in "miscellaneous topics" or added on at the end of the current humor thread?
"Here come da Judge" - Flip Wilson Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
New Members: Important threads to make your stay more enjoyable:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], and [thread=-17,-45]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminQuetzal Inactive Member |
Oh, never mind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminQuetzal Inactive Member |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3940 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
What is the purpose of this thread?
Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
He's turned! Percy has turned!
RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!!!! [terrified screaming] Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
What is the purpose of this thread? I suspect the purpose of this thread was probably to counter my post #130 in the thread, "Is Evolution a Radical Idea?" Since this thread took so long to open I answered it there, in post #135 ...
The appeal of evolution has mostly to do with all the science that is done in its name. Real science is done despite the faulty assumptions it rests on. Also, proving the theory false is very hard since it rests on so much elaborate interwoven speculative scaffolding by now with so much embedded scientific data it appears to be inextricable (though much of it really fits creationism better). In the early days the ToE would have seemed a lot more reasonable than some of the ideas about the flood they had then, which were pretty nutty, and that no doubt attracted many. ...and further in answer to Quetzal in post #136.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Jazzns writes: What is the purpose of this thread? I'm wondering why all the evolutionists march in such lock step. Take the age of the earth as an example. Religion has many answers. Evangelical Christians believe the world was created in 4004 BC. Hindus think it is ages old, billions and billions of years I believe. Jainism believes the earth is eternal, has existed and will always exist. But evolutionists have only one answer: 4.56 billions years. Since there's no evidence for this age, why do they choose it? It seems to me that without evidence evolutionists would be free to speculate about a wide variety of possible ages. But they don't. Why is that? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: I suspect the purpose of this thread was probably to counter my post #130 in the thread, "Is Evolution a Radical Idea?" Haven't looked in on that thread. I composed the OP over the greater part of the afternoon in one and two minute stretches of spare time. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3940 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
But evolutionists have only one answer: 4.56 billions years. Since there's no evidence for this age, why do they choose it? It seems to me that without evidence evolutionists would be free to speculate about a wide variety of possible ages. But they don't. Why is that? You have to remember that science journals are the Bible of the evolutionist. Whenever an idea is written there it is treated as fact by the evolutionist. They don't speculate about the wide variety of possible ages because once it is written down in a science journal it is gospel to the evolutionist. Someone somewhere down the line wrote that the earth was 4.56 billion years old and from there on it was never questioned or updated when evidence to the contrary would arise. Similar things happened with Haeckel and the death of the dinosaurs. {he he, this is fun} Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AnswersInGenitals Member (Idle past 180 days) Posts: 673 Joined: |
What is the appeal of evolution? Why do people find gravity to be so attractive? Edited by AnswersInGenitals, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 763 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Hmmmmm. The discussion is getting weighty.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
OK. Interesting timing then.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Why do people find gravity to be so attractive? Only people under forty years old.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AnswersInGenitals Member (Idle past 180 days) Posts: 673 Joined: |
Actually, as everyone knows, and as Faith will remind them if they forget, the acceptance of theories by the scientific community is based on a biannual Gallup poll that is conducted every three years. In the poll of 1936, evolution won out quite handily over 'because my daddy says so', 'why the hell shouldn't there be lots of species', and several other contenders. Unfortunately, due to a transcriptional error the poll asked for the neatest theory to explain the origin of feces rather than species, and the vast majority of respondents were found to believe that feces evolve from lower life forms (like shrimp, Brussel sprouts, and pizza.)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024