A question I don't think creationists will answer.

[justlookinla]

No it's not misleading in the least.

I will state again, the majority of Christians agree with the TOE.

If you claim this simple statement is false, provide evidence that it is false, as evidence has been provided numerous times, that supports this fact.

Two things here. You're presenting the same misleading and intellectually dishonest argument by referencing the theory of evolution as if it was a generic term and it's not. Second, most Christians do not agree with the inherently atheistic creationist position of Darwinist creationism.

 

[justlookinla]

I'm not making that claim. You are. Post the part where it says that life is the result of "only, totally, completely and solely naturalistic mechanisms..." as you keep claiming it states.

I keep claiming that's the only view allowed and presented in schools. If you know of another creationist view, please post it.

 

[bhsmte]

Two things here. You're presenting the same misleading and intellectually dishonest argument by referencing the theory of evolution as if it was a generic term and it's not. Second, most Christians do not agree with the inherently atheistic creationist position of Darwinist creationism.

Hey, you can twist however you like, it's no skin off my nose.

Bottom line, the majority of Christians agree with the TOE.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Two things here. You're presenting the same misleading and intellectually dishonest argument by referencing the theory of evolution as if it was a generic term and it's not. Second, most Christians do not agree with the inherently atheistic creationist position of Darwinist creationism.

How can you say it's inherently atheistic?

Darwinist creationism:

The belief that living organisms originate from the specific act of divine creation which was the ensuring that all species of organisms arise and develop through natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individuals ability to compete, survive and reproduce.​

It has divine creation in its definition...how is that atheistic?

 

[bhsmte]

I keep claiming that's the only view allowed and presented in schools. If you know of another creationist view, please post it.

I didn't know creationist views were taught in science class.

Have any evidence to support this claim?

 

[Delphiki]

I keep claiming that's the only view allowed and presented in schools. If you know of another creationist view, please post it.

Creationist views are religious.

This teaches the Theory of Evolution which makes no claims and takes no side on the duality of natural versus supernatural. It only explains and is limited to what the entirety of the existing evidence indicates and nothing more.

Welcome to Evolution 101!


If you want to wedge the supernatural in there, find evidence of the supernatural, and it will change to include it.

It's that simple, and I think you know it.

 

[Dizredux]

There are two ways of looking at ToE. The objective evidence and the evidence that is supportive of the theory.

The objective evidence is of course that which can be observed, the reproducibility of the evidence, and tested. This included studies such as determining environmental factors on genes and can be shown in animal breeding.

The second is historical evidence. This can not be tested in an objective manner since it can't be tested, reproduced or observed in its own time. This second area of ToE has evidence that is supportive of the theory. This is where common ancestry comes in. Genetic similarity is something that is used to support the theory.

This is incorrect. Historical sciences can be tested as well as any other kind of science. Evidence does not have to be "tested in its own time" or else (for example) geology, astronomy paleontology, archeology, and a fair amount of physics would not be sciences. For any hypothesis or theory be science, it must be able to be tested but there are a number of ways of doing this scientifically.

With the "historical" sciences, testing is usually done in some form of look over there and you will find thus. This is what was done with Neil Shubin finding Tiktaalik roseae. The TOE suggested that this kind of fossil would be found in a certain type of formation and Shubin went there and found Tiktaalik.

The same with archeology, a prediction can be made that in ruins of a particular type of culture certain artifacts will be found and others will not. The scientists go there excavate and see how well their predictions work out.

The idea of splitting science into two types in this manner is advocated by Answers in Genesis but few if any scientists agree with them. All science uses the same process. There are considered to be two general classifications in science but it is more along the lines of "experimental" (Ham calls this observational science) and historical but with no clear dividing lines.

Something to go along with this: What is reproduced are the observations not necessarily the event. How could you research stellar physics if you had to reproduce a sun forming in the lab? What is reproduced and studied are the recordings made of stellar events. The observations are the evidence and they are often observations of events that happened millions of years ago. The same principle holds true for geology and all the rest.

For an archeologist to work by the "in its own time" restriction means they would have to replicate the culture they are studying people and all. No, in archeology, the artifacts are the observations and those are studied in the here and now.

While techniques vary, all science works the same.


Dizredux

 

[Delphiki]

Evidence does not have to be "tested in its own time" ...

It does if your CF username is dad.

 

[justlookinla]

Hey, you can twist however you like, it's no skin off my nose.

Bottom line, the majority of Christians agree with the TOE.

\\

Bottom line, the majority of Christians do not agree with the Darwinist creationist viewpoint that God wasn't involved in any manner in the creation of humanity from a single life form of long long ago.

 

[Dizredux]

Diz, I have a question. Why is it that non-theists use ToE and the natural processes to claim that God is not needed and that this provides a strong case against God? If ToE is neutral on the question of God, why do so many use it as an argument against God?

I don't know. You are probably describing anti theists more than the general run of non theists. Most non theists will admit that there is no evidence disproving the existence of God just that in the absence of evidence either way they will provisionally not believe in a deity.

Anti theists on the other hand are usually asserting the non existence of a deity. In my opinion, they cannot back that up and are mostly blowing smoke. Why they are anti theists is a whole other question much too complex to get into here.

Just my thoughts though. Others may and can differ.

Dizredux

 

[Delphiki]

\\

Bottom line, the majority of Christians do not agree with the Darwinist creationist viewpoint that God wasn't involved in any manner in the creation of humanity from a single life form of long long ago.

Only because the "Darwinist Creationist" viewpoint of humanity coming from a single life form long long ago is something you made up.

Which, if you read the content at the link below, you would know.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

 

[justlookinla]

Creationist views are religious.

This teaches the Theory of Evolution which makes no claims and takes no side on the duality of natural versus supernatural. It only explains and is limited to what the entirety of the existing evidence indicates and nothing more.

Welcome to Evolution 101!


If you want to wedge the supernatural in there, find evidence of the supernatural, and it will change to include it.

It's that simple, and I think you know it.

The position of Darwinist creationism does make claims. It claims that all of life is only, totally, completely, solely by naturalistic processes. No other view is permitted. No other view is allowed. All other views are discarded. There's only one view which is presented in schools, the inherently atheistic view of Darwinist creationism.

 

[justlookinla]

Only because the "Darwinist Creationist" viewpoint of humanity coming from a single life form long long ago is something you made up.

Which, if you read the content at the link below, you would know.

Welcome to Evolution 101!

No, I'm no making it up. Only one viewpoint is allowed in Darwinist creationism.

 

[Delphiki]

The position of Darwinist creationism does make claims. It claims that all of life is only, totally, completely, solely by naturalistic processes. No other view is permitted. No other view is allowed. All other views are discarded. There's only one view which is presented in schools, the inherently atheistic view of Darwinist creationism.

You have the link. Show me where that claim is and where "no other view is allowed".

Until then, you are simply lying. How does God sort liars?

 

[justlookinla]

You have the link. Show me where that claim is and where "no other view is allowed".

Until then, you are simply lying. How does God sort liars?

If you know of any other view allowed in schools, other than the Darwinist creationist view, please show me.

Thanks.

 

[DerelictJunction]

The position of Darwinist creationism does make claims. It claims that all of life is only, totally, completely, solely by naturalistic processes.

No it doesn't

Darwinist creationism:

The belief that living organisms originate from the specific act of divine creation which was the ensuring that all species of organisms arise and develop through natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individuals ability to compete, survive and reproduce.​

See? "Divine creation" right in the definition.

 

[DerelictJunction]

If you know of any other view allowed in schools, other than the Darwinist creationist view, please show me.

Thanks.

The Darwinist creationist view isn't taught in school because it attributes the development of species to an act of divine creation.

 

[Dizredux]

\\

Bottom line, the majority of Christians do not agree with the Darwinist creationist viewpoint that God wasn't involved in any manner in the creation of humanity from a single life form of long long ago.

And most Christians do not agree with the viewpoint that Jesus and the 16 disciples were beheaded in Rome.

You made yours up, I made up mine. Fair's fair.

Dizredux

 

[Oncedeceived]

There is no objective "twin nested hierarchy" of common descent. This is extremely ambiguous at best. There are a plethora of rescue devices used when these supposed nested hierarchies run into trouble.

The fact that the Nested Hierarchy was developed before Darwin, this is one of non-theists favorite "evidence" for evolution. They claim that it proves that God could not have created life.

And there is no reason to expect similar phenotypes should not have similar genotypes in general. Claiming this as evidence is desperation.

And if two similar phenotypes do have different genotypes then evolution will just say the phenotype was convergent. Evolution doesn't explain anything, but accommodates anything.

True.

Lenski's bacteria didn't "evolve" anything after over 50,000 generations. An aerobic promoter got shuffled next to a gene for citrate transportation. It's a terrible example of evolution in action, and this is considered one of the best... most evolutionists erroneously believe the bacteria evolved the ability to digest citrate.

Nothing really earth-shattering here. When an unexpected distribution pops up evolutionists just say things rafted, just like Creationists do. Additionally, some animals like leopards and jaguars are claimed by evolutionists to have been separated for millions of years yet can still produce offspring. All sorts of awkward scenarios like this. Of course Evolution, being so well insulated from potential falsification, can simply say mutations and selection dunnit to just about anything.

Studies are showing that studies of mRNA are finding the classifications are not coming out as expected.

A fine example of changes within limits. Plant and animal breeders found that out decades ago.

Right.

Embryology is a terrible example of evidence for evolution. Certain stages of the embryos of vertebrate groups form in completely different ways. There is a "problem of homology" that has been known for decades now, where even closely related species have extremely different developmental pathways.

Sharks and rays (Chondrichthyes), despite being closely related, will develop the gut cavity in different regions of the embyro.

Certain species of flies (Dipterans) will use different genetic pathways for sex determination during early development.

And there are many more examples of such patterns. Evolutionists are always talking about how patterns of homology are proof, and then when it is contradicted they just say "well something different happened there"... This theory is a joke.

I am always a little surprised when this is brought up in the defense of evolution.

NCSE and TalkOrigins even admit the "homology problem" exists but assure their readers that evolutionists are working on it! Isn't it interesting how all the weaknesses of evolution theory are carefully swept under the rug?

Watch it, you are making an argument from ignorance here according to some.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And most Christians do not agree with the viewpoint that Jesus and the 16 disciples were beheaded in Rome.

You made yours up, I made up mine. Fair's fair.

Dizredux

What?