Why Is Darwinism So Dangerous? (5)

[theophilus777]

However, my belief in Santa Claus, as an adult, was illuminating.

Do I dare ask? At least you're consistent with your avatar, and your signature line

 

[justlookinla]

How do you know that evolution isn't a process God set in motion?

Could be, many theists have that view. The fact is that Darwinist creationism is the only creationist view allowed in schools.

After all, you could say that God set the planets in motion, but they obey the law of gravity so he has no need to constantly move them around the sun. Why not say that God created life but used evolution to produce the vast variety of different creatures and lifeforms we see today so he has no need to constantly be creating new ones?

The variety and complexity of life certainly suggests there's more to humanity being a result of entirely naturalistic forces acting on a single life form from long long ago.

After all, evolution acts only on what is already there, changing it a little or duplicating or removing occasionally. It never creates out of nothing.

Darwinist creationism creates life forms from almost nothing. Some suggest that the earliest life form was the result of various chemical reactions and this initial life form was a microscopic life form. From this almost nothing beginning, Darwinist creationism teaches that humanity is one of the results of entirely, completely, solely naturalistic processes acting upon that initial life form.

 

[justlookinla]

I don't know about Darwinist creationism, never heard that until you came up with it, hence - justlookinlaism.

You aren't aware that you're the creative product of only naturalistic forces acting on a single life form from long ago? That's Darwinist creationism.

Darwin's work, led to the TOE, which has mountains of scientific evidence to support it. And correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe the TOE says; solely, completely, totally and only by natural forces. But hey, I understand, you need to put a few twists in there to feel better about justlookinlaism.

Darwinist creationism certainly teaches that " all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations". All life we observe today is solely, completely, totally by naturalistic forces, according to Darwinist creationism.

The TOE is built on the evidence and if you don't like the evidence, I'm sure the evidence won't hold that against you, so you can rest easy.

There is no observation and experimentation which presents evidence for Darwinist creationism. It's a faith based creationist view.

 

[justlookinla]

This is not necessary. All you need to do is say that justlookin is correct, no such thing is allowable.

You just can't bring yourself to do it. That would be, PREJUDICE.

Exposing Darwinist creationism brings a bit of discomfort to those who espouse the belief. Truth has never hurt anyone though.

 

[theophilus777]

Wrong.

When he decided to quote the definition of Darwinism accurately from wiki, I and others confirmed with him that was correct.

It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out no scientific theory mentions God in the affirmative as being involved or in the negative.

Yet that is the crux of his statement which you will not affirm. You will affirm when he quotes wiki, but as soon as he simplifies things to become relevant to the discussion here, nobody will address it.

That's PREJUDICE.

And btw I'm not going to demand that you "prove it," where you affirmed his wiki quote. I didn't see it, but it would still violate the purpose of a talk forum.

This appears to be something that bothers just greatly, along with oncedeceived. They just can't understand why the theory couldn't even mention; well, God may have been part of this, we just don't have any evidence to confirm that.

You (collectively!) only think this because you DO NOT READ. Instead, you assume. And thus you have the current state of affairs of this whole section of the website.

No theory is going to state any such thing and both these people know that fully. You (collectively!) are merely blinded by your PREJUDICE. It's sad.

If one wants to add God for their own personal satisfaction, they are more then welcome to.

A simple statement to that effect could be added, in class, by the teacher, and it would prevent a LOT of the blowback we as a Nation experience. You could even add to that that the ToE itself does NOT say anything about it, one way or the other. And maybe even a mention that anything submitted on any test in any science had better be well-evidenced.

Simple solution It would take what, 15 seconds or less?

From that, just added his own tid bits to Darwinism, that WERE NOT part of the definition, but where his own assumptions, hence the CREATION of; justlookinlaism.

Granted, there's lots of that to wade through. Sometimes entertaining, sometimes not. I was careful NOT to draw any of your attention to that though.

Just's problems are really with science in general, but he doesn't want to admit that.

You've actually said a thing here or there that may have merit in this regard. I encourage Christians to reconcile these differences by a deeper study of God's Word, mainly by looking at what can be known of what the passages in question meant to the original audience. I have to be in the right mood for it but when I am, it's pretty interesting stuff. There is def a logic to it, and it fits with the rest of what we know of God's character.

I told him to contact the national academy of sciences and see if he can petition them to add God to the TOE and see what they say.

I bet you enjoyed that entirely too much!

 

[HitchSlap]

Yet that is the crux of his statement which you will not affirm. You will affirm when he quotes wiki, but as soon as he simplifies things to become relevant to the discussion here, nobody will address it.

That's PREJUDICE.

And btw I'm not going to demand that you "prove it," where you affirmed his wiki quote. I didn't see it, but it would still violate the purpose of a talk forum.



You (collectively!) only think this because you DO NOT READ. Instead, you assume. And thus you have the current state of affairs of this whole section of the website.

No theory is going to state any such thing and both these people know that fully. You (collectively!) are merely blinded by your PREJUDICE. It's sad.




A simple statement to that effect could be added, in class, by the teacher, and it would prevent a LOT of the blowback we as a Nation experience. You could even add to that that the ToE itself does NOT say anything about it, one way or the other. And maybe even a mention that anything submitted on any test in any science had better be well-evidenced.

Simple solution It would take what, 15 seconds or less?




Granted, there's lots of that to wade through. Sometimes entertaining, sometimes not. I was careful NOT to draw any of your attention to that though.



You've actually said a thing here or there that may have merit in this regard. I encourage Christians to reconcile these differences by a deeper study of God's Word, mainly by looking at what can be known of what the passages in question meant to the original audience. I have to be in the right mood for it but when I am, it's pretty interesting stuff. There is def a logic to it, and it fits with the rest of what we know of God's character.



I bet you enjoyed that entirely too much!

Long time no see Ray, how ya' been?

 

[theophilus777]

It is not by definition that God is not factored in it is there is currently no evidence and method of doing so.

Key words: no method of doing so. Just like I said, by definition God cannot be tested by science. No, my statement is not wrong. Should that change in the future fine, but until then my point stands. And good luck getting Him to be controlled in a lab.

Not in the least. Just says that God is not allowed in and I say that he would be if Just could come up with some evidence or at least a way to factor God in.

Moot point. See above. If any of you are going to claim superior knowledge of the subject, you owe it to him to cater to his lesser ability to word things. You know what he means very well, you merely refuse to answer his question due to PREJUDICE. It's unbecoming.

To me it is simple, right now we have no scientific evidence for or against God. For some reason he made it that way. I feel that simple faith is what what he wants from me but that is just my faith and for me, it works well.

I agree with you. Reality needs to be accepted. Just is a Brother, who for whatever reason has some difficulty in an area where you are strong.

In any case if Just would simply supply the evidence and the method, we can test his claims.

His singular claim of late is quite correct. He throws in needless words which make it more difficult to read, but it is still correct. All I'm asking is that you guys read it (w/o prejudice) and respond fairly, so he can get off that particular hobby horse and onto his further steps where the problems actually lay.

 

[bhsmte]

Yet that is the crux of his statement which you will not affirm. You will affirm when he quotes wiki, but as soon as he simplifies things to become relevant to the discussion here, nobody will address it.

That's PREJUDICE.

And btw I'm not going to demand that you "prove it," where you affirmed his wiki quote. I didn't see it, but it would still violate the purpose of a talk forum.



You (collectively!) only think this because you DO NOT READ. Instead, you assume. And thus you have the current state of affairs of this whole section of the website.

No theory is going to state any such thing and both these people know that fully. You (collectively!) are merely blinded by your PREJUDICE. It's sad.




A simple statement to that effect could be added, in class, by the teacher, and it would prevent a LOT of the blowback we as a Nation experience. You could even add to that that the ToE itself does NOT say anything about it, one way or the other. And maybe even a mention that anything submitted on any test in any science had better be well-evidenced.

Simple solution It would take what, 15 seconds or less?




Granted, there's lots of that to wade through. Sometimes entertaining, sometimes not. I was careful NOT to draw any of your attention to that though.



You've actually said a thing here or there that may have merit in this regard. I encourage Christians to reconcile these differences by a deeper study of God's Word, mainly by looking at what can be known of what the passages in question meant to the original audience. I have to be in the right mood for it but when I am, it's pretty interesting stuff. There is def a logic to it, and it fits with the rest of what we know of God's character.



I bet you enjoyed that entirely too much!

Prejudice? Not quite, but nice try at least, I will give you that.

It is what it is, some choose to see it, some don't.

 

[justlookinla]

Wrong.

When he decided to quote the definition of Darwinism accurately from wiki, I and others confirmed with him that was correct.

It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out no scientific theory mentions God in the affirmative as being involved or in the negative. This appears to be something that bothers just greatly, along with oncedeceived. They just can't understand why the theory couldn't even mention; well, God may have been part of this, we just don't have any evidence to confirm that. If one wants to add God for their own personal satisfaction, they are more then welcome to.

From that, just added his own tid bits to Darwinism, that WERE NOT part of the definition, but where his own assumptions, hence the CREATION of; justlookinlaism.

Just's problems are really with science in general, but he doesn't want to admit that.

I told him to contact the national academy of sciences and see if he can petition them to add God to the TOE and see what they say. Maybe even contacting Francis Collins, who is a devout Christian, would be someone who just can grill on this:

Francis Collins: "The evidence is overwhelming. And it is becoming more and more robust down to the details almost by the day, especially because we have this ability now to use the study of DNA as a digital record of the way Darwin’s theory has played out over the course of long periods of time.
Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory because he didn’t know about DNA - but we have that information. I would say we are as solid in claiming the truth of evolution as we are in claiming the truth of the germ theory. It is so profoundly well-documented in multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that make it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics"

I love it when Darwinist creationists quote Collins. Here's a bit of information from Collins' website, BioLogos.....

What We Believe
1. We believe the Bible is the inspired and authoritative word of God. By the Holy Spirit it is the “living and active” means through which God speaks to the church today, bearing witness to God’s Son, Jesus, as the divine Logos, or Word of God.
2. We believe that God also reveals himself in and through the natural world he created, which displays his glory, eternal power, and divine nature. Properly interpreted, Scripture and nature are complementary and faithful witnesses to their common Author.
3. We believe that all people have sinned against God and are in need of salvation.
4. We believe in the historical incarnation of Jesus Christ as fully God and fully man. We believe in the historical death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, by which we are saved and reconciled to God.
5. We believe that God is directly involved in the lives of people today through acts of redemption, personal transformation, and answers to prayer.
6. We believe that God typically sustains the world using faithful, consistent processes that humans describe as "natural laws." Yet we also affirm that God works outside of natural law in supernatural events, including the miracles described in Scripture. In both natural and supernatural ways, God continues to be directly involved in creation and in human history.
7. We believe that the methods of science are an important and reliable means to investigate and describe the world God has made. In this, we stand with a long tradition of Christians for whom Christian faith and science are mutually hospitable. Therefore, we reject ideologies such as Materialism and Scientism that claim science is the sole source of knowledge and truth, that science has debunked God and religion, or that the physical world constitutes the whole of reality.
8. We believe that God created the universe, the earth, and all life over billions of years. God continues to sustain the existence and functioning of the natural world, and the cosmos continues to declare the glory of God. Therefore, we reject ideologies such as Deism that claim the universe is self-sustaining, that God is no longer active in the natural world, or that God is not active in human history.
9. We believe that the diversity and interrelation of all life on earth are best explained by the God-ordained process of evolution with common descent. Thus, evolution is not in opposition to God, but a means by which God providentially achieves his purposes. Therefore, we reject ideologies that claim that evolution is a purposeless process or that evolution replaces God.
10. We believe that God created humans in biological continuity with all life on earth, but also as spiritual beings. God established a unique relationship with humanity by endowing us with his image and calling us to an elevated position within the created order.
11. We believe that conversations among Christians about controversial issues of science and faith can and must be conducted with humility, grace, honesty, and compassion as a visible sign of the Spirit’s presence in Christ’s body, the Church.
​

 

[bhsmte]

I love it when Darwinist creationists quote Collins. Here's a bit of information from Collins' website, BioLogos.....

What We Believe
1. We believe the Bible is the inspired and authoritative word of God. By the Holy Spirit it is the “living and active” means through which God speaks to the church today, bearing witness to God’s Son, Jesus, as the divine Logos, or Word of God.
2. We believe that God also reveals himself in and through the natural world he created, which displays his glory, eternal power, and divine nature. Properly interpreted, Scripture and nature are complementary and faithful witnesses to their common Author.
3. We believe that all people have sinned against God and are in need of salvation.
4. We believe in the historical incarnation of Jesus Christ as fully God and fully man. We believe in the historical death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, by which we are saved and reconciled to God.
5. We believe that God is directly involved in the lives of people today through acts of redemption, personal transformation, and answers to prayer.
6. We believe that God typically sustains the world using faithful, consistent processes that humans describe as "natural laws." Yet we also affirm that God works outside of natural law in supernatural events, including the miracles described in Scripture. In both natural and supernatural ways, God continues to be directly involved in creation and in human history.
7. We believe that the methods of science are an important and reliable means to investigate and describe the world God has made. In this, we stand with a long tradition of Christians for whom Christian faith and science are mutually hospitable. Therefore, we reject ideologies such as Materialism and Scientism that claim science is the sole source of knowledge and truth, that science has debunked God and religion, or that the physical world constitutes the whole of reality.
8. We believe that God created the universe, the earth, and all life over billions of years. God continues to sustain the existence and functioning of the natural world, and the cosmos continues to declare the glory of God. Therefore, we reject ideologies such as Deism that claim the universe is self-sustaining, that God is no longer active in the natural world, or that God is not active in human history.
9. We believe that the diversity and interrelation of all life on earth are best explained by the God-ordained process of evolution with common descent. Thus, evolution is not in opposition to God, but a means by which God providentially achieves his purposes. Therefore, we reject ideologies that claim that evolution is a purposeless process or that evolution replaces God.
10. We believe that God created humans in biological continuity with all life on earth, but also as spiritual beings. God established a unique relationship with humanity by endowing us with his image and calling us to an elevated position within the created order.
11. We believe that conversations among Christians about controversial issues of science and faith can and must be conducted with humility, grace, honesty, and compassion as a visible sign of the Spirit’s presence in Christ’s body, the Church.
​

Why do you think I quoted Collins? I am very familiar with his faith and also his science.

What was that he said about DNA evidence supporting Darwin's work again?

 

[ob77]

Why don't you blame Heliocentrism instead?

"First, . . . to want to affirm that in reality the sun is at the center of the world and only turns on itself without moving from east to west, and the earth . . . revolves with great speed about the sun . . . is a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false."--Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615

Being new here, I do not know if you are serious or not. I am a Christian, I do not believe the Earth is 7,000 years old, the flood of Noah's day was not worldwide, nor do I believe Adam was the first man.
Christians often say things they cannot back up, not knowing what is truth and what is not, for they may not have studied to the extent that some others have. We may have future conversations, I hope. I was once an atheist.
I have no desire to convert you or anyone else.
Later.................

 

[bhsmte]

You aren't aware that you're the creative product of only naturalistic forces acting on a single life form from long ago? That's Darwinist creationism.



Darwinist creationism certainly teaches that " all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations". All life we observe today is solely, completely, totally by naturalistic forces, according to Darwinist creationism.



There is no observation and experimentation which presents evidence for Darwinist creationism. It's a faith based creationist view.

Darwinist creation = justlookinlaism

What was it that Collin's said about how strong the evidence is to support Darwin's work again?

 

[Davian]

Do I dare ask? At least you're consistent with your avatar, and your signature line

We were at the mall with the kids during a snowstorm, and we had Santa to ourselves. the kids were getting their candy canes, and Santa and I were discussing cameras (my wife had brought her new digital SLR rather than pay the mall people to take pictures).

All of a sudden I was talking to Santa. The real Santa. Any disbelief had lifted, and Santa was a real as any person I knew.

We talked for bit - this is cool, as Santa has got to be the ultimate "tech head" - and after a short bit he asked me a question. This, of course, popped the bubble - the real Santa would know everything about cameras.

That experience does give me a glimpse of what the human mind is capable of convincing itself to be real. It still gives me goosebumps.

Merry Christmas, everyone.

 

[Davian]

Being new here, I do not know if you are serious or not. I am a Christian, I do not believe the Earth is 7,000 years old, the flood of Noah's day was not worldwide, nor do I believe Adam was the first man.
Christians often say things they cannot back up, not knowing what is truth and what is not, for they may not have studied to the extent that some others have. We may have future conversations, I hope. I was once an atheist.
I have no desire to convert you or anyone else.
Later.................

Welcome to CF!

 

[Davian]

I love it when Darwinist creationists quote Collins. Here's a bit of information from Collins' website, BioLogos.....

What We Believe
1. We believe the Bible is the inspired and authoritative word of God. By the Holy Spirit it is the “living and active” means through which God speaks to the church today, bearing witness to God’s Son, Jesus, as the divine Logos, or Word of God.
2. We believe that God also reveals himself in and through the natural world he created, which displays his glory, eternal power, and divine nature. Properly interpreted, Scripture and nature are complementary and faithful witnesses to their common Author.
3. We believe that all people have sinned against God and are in need of salvation.
4. We believe in the historical incarnation of Jesus Christ as fully God and fully man. We believe in the historical death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, by which we are saved and reconciled to God.
5. We believe that God is directly involved in the lives of people today through acts of redemption, personal transformation, and answers to prayer.
6. We believe that God typically sustains the world using faithful, consistent processes that humans describe as "natural laws." Yet we also affirm that God works outside of natural law in supernatural events, including the miracles described in Scripture. In both natural and supernatural ways, God continues to be directly involved in creation and in human history.
7. We believe that the methods of science are an important and reliable means to investigate and describe the world God has made. In this, we stand with a long tradition of Christians for whom Christian faith and science are mutually hospitable. Therefore, we reject ideologies such as Materialism and Scientism that claim science is the sole source of knowledge and truth, that science has debunked God and religion, or that the physical world constitutes the whole of reality.
8. We believe that God created the universe, the earth, and all life over billions of years. God continues to sustain the existence and functioning of the natural world, and the cosmos continues to declare the glory of God. Therefore, we reject ideologies such as Deism that claim the universe is self-sustaining, that God is no longer active in the natural world, or that God is not active in human history.
9. We believe that the diversity and interrelation of all life on earth are best explained by the God-ordained process of evolution with common descent. Thus, evolution is not in opposition to God, but a means by which God providentially achieves his purposes. Therefore, we reject ideologies that claim that evolution is a purposeless process or that evolution replaces God.
10. We believe that God created humans in biological continuity with all life on earth, but also as spiritual beings. God established a unique relationship with humanity by endowing us with his image and calling us to an elevated position within the created order.
11. We believe that conversations among Christians about controversial issues of science and faith can and must be conducted with humility, grace, honesty, and compassion as a visible sign of the Spirit’s presence in Christ’s body, the Church.
​

Ironically, that last line should have been posted in this thread some time ago....

 

[justlookinla]

Darwinist creation = justlookinlaism

What was it that Collin's said about how strong the evidence is to support Darwin's work again?

What was it that Collins said about how God is creator?

 

[justlookinla]

Ironically, that last line should have been posted in this thread some time ago....

Would that have changed anything? I find that on this thread, as well as other threads in which I've participated, the responses from Darwinists frequently include mocking, ridicule and personal disparaging.

I try to stay above such behavior, simply post my views and let the truth be presented.

 

[bhsmte]

Would that have changed anything? I find that on this thread, as well as other threads in which I've participated, the responses from Darwinists frequently include mocking, ridicule and personal disparaging.

I try to stay above such behavior, simply post my views and let the truth be presented.

The common denominator in those threads is; you.

 

[bhsmte]

What was it that Collins said about how God is creator?

It was I who brought Collins into the thread, mentioning that he was a devout Christian.

Remember that?

Now, lets look again at what Collin's says about Darwin's theory:

Francis Collins: The evidence is overwhelming. And it is becoming more and more robust down to the details almost by the day, especially because we have this ability now to use the study of DNA as a digital record of the way Darwin’s theory has played out over the course of long periods of time.
Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory because he didn’t know about DNA - but we have that information. I would say we are as solid in claiming the truth of evolution as we are in claiming the truth of the germ theory. It is so profoundly well-documented in multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that make it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics

 

[Dizredux]

Key words: no method of doing so. Just like I said, by definition God cannot be tested by science. No, my statement is not wrong. Should that change in the future fine, but until then my point stands. And good luck getting Him to be controlled in a lab.

No it is not by definition unless you have a private version of the scientific method. Right now I don't think it is possible but in the future God may see fit to give us emphirical evidence for his existence. By the rules of science, room must be kept open for this.

Moot point. See above. If any of you are going to claim superior knowledge of the subject, you owe it to him to cater to his lesser ability to word things.

I think he appears to be not unintelligent. The problem is that he does not understand evolution but continues to tell us what it means.

You know what he means very well, you merely refuse to answer his question due to PREJUDICE. It's unbecoming.

First, how is it prejudice? Second, his question makes no sense. Just take one small part of it. He continues to insist that evolution and natural selection is random. He holds to this no matter what the evidence. He is not really asking a question but making statements he cannot and apparently does not care to back up.

At least for now, I am through trying to reach him. I suspect nothing will get through but I never give up hope.

I agree with you. Reality needs to be accepted. Just is a Brother, who for whatever reason has some difficulty in an area where you are strong.

I started out trying to discuss with him calmly and logically. I have become very frustrated at his imperviousness and I found myself getting quite aggravated. For that reason I am not going to try to get through for a while. But as I said , I never give up on anybody.

You can avoid reality but you can't escape it.

His singular claim of late is quite correct. He throws in needless words which make it more difficult to read, but it is still correct. All I'm asking is that you guys read it (w/o prejudice) and respond fairly, so he can get off that particular hobby horse and onto his further steps where the problems actually lay.

At first I tried very hard to respond fairly but after a while I saw that it is very unlikely that he will get off his hobby horse so to speak. He seems to be totally fixated on it to exclusion of all evidence. I wish it were other but it is what it is.

Dizredux