Do creationists accept the evolution of plants?

[Subduction Zone]

I can show you "atheistic evolution" in Wikipedia.

Can you show me "atheistic chemistry" from the same source?

The article you are referring to points out that "atheistic evolution" is a bogus term. Why do you think that Wikipedia would have an article on every bogus term? Your inability to think logically is showing again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Go paraphrase something, that should keep you entertained for a bit.

I love a poor loser. You can keep jabbing them with their losses when they won't own up to them.

 

[justlookinla]

You would have to point them out, first.

That all of life is the result of only, completely, solely, random, meaningless, mindless, purposeless (other than procreation) and directionless natural mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

That's a faith-based creationist belief system based on guesses and suppositions.

 

[Loudmouth]

That all of life is the result of only, completely, solely, random, meaningless, mindless, purposeless (other than procreation) and directionless natural mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

That is not a supposition made by the theory of evolution, or by Darwin.

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."--Charles Darwin, "Origin of Species"

The theory works just as well with multiple origins of life.

Secondly, the theory never states that the proposed mechanisms are the sole mechanisms.

As usual, you lie about the theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wanna talk about the guesses and suppositions of the creation of humanity? You know, relating to the topic of this board.

I know that creationists use all sorts of guesses and suppositions. Those on the evolution side are minimized and any so called "guess" is usually tested too. At that point it no longer is a guess but a tested hypothesis.

If you don't test your ideas, which is what creationists do, all you will ever have are guesses. If you test them to see if they are valid or not then you can start to form a hypothesis. Further testing and confirmation can lead to the formation of a theory.

There is a huge difference between guesses that you are afraid to test and ideas that have been tested and held up under testing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That all of life is the result of only, completely, solely, random, meaningless, mindless, purposeless (other than procreation) and directionless natural mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

That's a faith-based creationist belief system based on guesses and suppositions.

Again, you are being dishonest and projecting by misusing words.

By the way you misuse words you are as much as admitting that you are wrong and that you know you are wrong.

 

[justlookinla]

That is not a supposition made by the theory of evolution, or by Darwin.

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."--Charles Darwin, "Origin of Species"

The theory works just as well with multiple origins of life.

Secondly, the theory never states that the proposed mechanisms are the sole mechanisms.

As usual, you lie about the theory.

I'm certainly willing to be corrected. What other mechanisms, other than natural mechanisms, were involved in the creation of humanity?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is not a supposition made by the theory of evolution, or by Darwin.

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."--Charles Darwin, "Origin of Species"

The theory works just as well with multiple origins of life.

Secondly, the theory never states that the proposed mechanisms are the sole mechanisms.

As usual, you lie about the theory.

Oh oh! You told justlook that he told a lie. Be ready for a diatribe about how that is a personal attack and against the rules here.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm certainly willing to be corrected. What other mechanisms, other than natural mechanisms, were involved in the creation of humanity?

The theory does not make absolute statements of what is or isn't involved. That's what you fail to understand at every turn. Methinks you don't want to understand it so you can keep uttering the same lies and ignorant statements.

 

[justlookinla]

Oh oh! You told justlook that he told a lie. Be ready for a diatribe about how that is a personal attack and against the rules here.

If your continual 'yer a liar' doesn't bother the admins, it sure doesn't bother me.

Carry on.

 

[AV1611VET]

What is the difference? Both propose natural mechanisms as explanations for natural phenomena. If the theory of evolution is atheistic for only proposing natural mechanisms, then so too is chemistry.

Then why does Wikipedia document it as a valid term, and not the others?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm certainly willing to be corrected. What other mechanisms, other than natural mechanisms, were involved in the creation of humanity?

"Creation" is a very poor word choice. It falls under "assuming the antecedent" as a logical error. It is better to ask using the word "arose" or some other neutral world.

And assuming that you used the correct technical terms the answer is that no other mechanisms besides natural ones have ever been observed, and the science shows that no other mechanisms besides natural ones are necessary.

 

[Loudmouth]

If your continual 'yer a liar' doesn't bother the admins, it sure doesn't bother me.

Carry on.

It does bother me when someone feels it necessary to lie about science, especially when it is done to prop up pseudoscientific nonsense like you have been spouting in these threads.

 

[justlookinla]

The theory does not make absolute statements of what is or isn't involved. That's what you fail to understand at every turn. Methinks you don't want to understand it so you can keep uttering the same lies and ignorant statements.

I ask again, what other impetus, other than natural mechanisms, are allowed, promoted or suggested in the creation of humanity?

I guess if you ignore the question it will go away.....until it comes up again.

 

[Loudmouth]

Then why does Wikipedia document it as a valid term, and not the others?

Wikipedia doesn't consider "atheistic evolution" to be a valid term. As already stated, it makes as much sense as atheistic chemistry or atheistic aerodymanics.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then why does Wikipedia document it as a valid term, and not the others?

They don't document "atheistic evolution" as a valid term. In fact they claim the opposite:

This term has been in use since at least 1906 in The Metaphysical Magazine,[4] and is contrasted with theistic evolution, which asserts that God used evolution to create the universe.[5][6] Owen Gingerich, a historian of science at Harvard University, has stated that both views are outside the domain of scientific empiricism:

Atheistic evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you are going to refer to an article you should at least have read it.

 

[Loudmouth]

I ask again, what other impetus, other than natural mechanisms, are allowed, promoted or suggested in the creation of humanity?

This is the dishonest bait and switch that you always use. Not listing a mechanisms is not the same as ruling a mechanism out.

I guess if you ignore the question it will go away.....until it comes up again.

I will not ignore your dishonesty. I will point it out every time.

In this case, we have your dishonest conflation of leaving a mechanism out and claiming it doesn't exist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If your continual 'yer a liar' doesn't bother the admins, it sure doesn't bother me.

Carry on.

Strawman arguments are not honest either.

No one has ever said "yer a liar" to you. Your individual lies have been pointed out.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I ask again, what other impetus, other than natural mechanisms, are allowed, promoted or suggested in the creation of humanity?

I guess if you ignore the question it will go away.....until it comes up again.

If you were honest and used correct terminology you might get the answer that you are looking for.

 

[AV1611VET]

The article you are referring to points out that "atheistic evolution" is a bogus term.

Show me.

Here's the article in its entirety:

Atheistic evolution (also known as dysteleological evolution)is the view referring to biological evolution occurring "apart from any supernatural process." This term has been in use since at least 1906 in The Metaphysical Magazine, and is contrasted with theistic evolution , which asserts that God used evolution to create the universe. Owen Gingerich, a historian of science at Harvard University, has stated that both views are outside the domain of scientific empiricism: "Can mutations be inspired? Here is the ideological watershed, the division between atheistic evolution and theistic evolution; and frankly, it lies beyond the capability of science to prove the matter one way or the other."

In the Southern United States, Gallup found that "49 percent accepted creation, 34 percent believed in theistic evolution, and only 6 percent accepted atheistic evolution." A supporter of atheistic evolution is author Richard Dawkins, and evolutionary biologist and outspoken member of the New Atheism movement. However, atheistic evolution has also received criticism from Francis Collins, a physician-geneticist notable for his leadership of the National Institute of Health and Human Genome Project, who stated "A conclusion which is actually quite comfortable for me as a believer and for me as a scientist [is] that yes, Darwin was right, and a brilliant insight he had, but that all he was really doing was to deduce the mechanism of God's creation.

SOURCE