Do creationists accept the evolution of plants?

[justlookinla]

I comprehend punctuation just fine. According to the rules of the U.S. your usage was wrong. The quoted part does not need to have single quotes. My use of double quotes shows that I was quoting you directly assuming that you were not U.S. born and raised.

I made no comment about your "error" (those are called scare quotes by the way). You should have kept quiet about your perceived error that I made.

And as I have pointed out using a strawman argument is a form of lying and the way you are using it is possibly a violation of the rules here. Please refrain from doing so. As a Christian you are supposed to follow the 9th Commandment.

Actually, that should be 'error'.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When a guess is presented which demands the viewpoint that life is the creation of only naturalistic mechanisms then it's a closed guess as to what created mankind.



"Theories are tentative" means that it's a series of guesses and suppositions.

No "Theories are tentative" (and I see you used quotes correctly this time, good boy!) means that scientists are always open to the fact that they could be wrong.


The theory of gravity is tentative. But don't think that can mean you can drop a hundred pound weight on your sneaker clad foot with impunity.

 

[Loudmouth]

Do you understand truth?

I understand that scientific theories do not claim to define philosophical truths, contrary to the stories you tell.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually, that should be 'error'.

Nope, double quotation marks are used for scare quotes.

 

[justlookinla]

When justlook is getting his heinie spanked he will use any means rather than to address the actual argument.

The actual argument is what the actual argument has been for quite a while now. Is humanity the result of only, solely, totally, random, meaningless, mindless, purposeless (other than procreation) and directionless mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago or is humanity a creation of God.

Depends on what faith-based, theistic or Godless, creationist view you embrace.

 

[Loudmouth]

When a guess is presented which demands the viewpoint that life is the creation of only naturalistic mechanisms then it's a closed guess as to what created mankind.

We are talking about scientific theories, not guesses.

"Theories are tentative" means that it's a series of guesses and suppositions.

Completely false. It means that the evidence has supported the theory thus far. That can not be said for guesses or suppositions.

 

[justlookinla]

Nope, double quotation marks are used for scare quotes.

Double quotes means you are actually quoting someone. You're having a hard time comprehending that very basic, very simple, rule aren't you?

 

[Loudmouth]

The actual argument is what the actual argument has been for quite a while now. Is humanity the result of only, solely, totally, random, meaningless, mindless, purposeless (other than procreation) and directionless mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago or is humanity a creation of God.

Depends on what faith-based, theistic or Godless, creationist view you embrace.

Define "creationist" using a real dictionary.

 

[justlookinla]

We are talking about scientific theories, not guesses.

Guesses. Suppositions. Maybe so's. Could be's. Possiblys. Might have beens.

Completely false. It means that the evidence has supported the theory thus far. That can not be said for guesses or suppositions.

Completely false. Not a single solitary bit of evidence has been show for the guess that all of life is from a Godless source.

 

[justlookinla]

Define "creationist" using a real dictionary.

No humanity, now humanity. Deal with it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Guesses. Suppositions. Maybe so's. Could be's. Possiblys. Might have beens.

None of which are scientific theories.

Completely false. Not a single solitary bit of evidence has been show for the guess that all of life is from a Godless source.

Evidence has been presented that is consistent with natural mechanisms. You refuse to deal with that evidence, and instead retreat to the same nonsense in the quote above.

 

[Loudmouth]

No humanity, now humanity. Deal with it.

I will ask again.

Define "creationist" using a real dictionary.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The actual argument is what the actual argument has been for quite a while now. Is humanity the result of only, solely, totally, random, meaningless, mindless, purposeless (other than procreation) and directionless mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago or is humanity a creation of God.

Depends on what faith-based, theistic or Godless, creationist view you embrace.

No, it depends upon whether you follow the evidence or not. There is no evidence of god, so why should we assume one? Again, with a ball falling there is no evidence of a god's action. Should we assume one there?

It seems that you do not know the meaning of the word "faith" either. As typical creationists know that they are wrong and try to project their faults upon others in their defense. You should watch the Aron Ra video that I linked. He explains your projection and self delusion in it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No humanity, now humanity. Deal with it.

Wow! He is going off the deep end. The inability to form sentences is a key indicator.

 

[Loudmouth]

Wow! He is going off the deep end. The inability to form sentences is a key indicator.

This happens when the cognitive dissonance starts to peg the red.

 

[Skaloop]

The actual argument is what the actual argument has been for quite a while now. Is humanity the result of only, solely, totally, random, meaningless, mindless, purposeless (other than procreation) and directionless mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago or is humanity a creation of God.

Depends on what faith-based, theistic or Godless, creationist view you embrace.

Neither. Evolution is neither only nor solely nor totally random.

 

[justlookinla]

Neither. Evolution is neither only nor solely nor totally random.

Solely by naturalistic mechanisms and partially random? Prove it.

 

[Skaloop]

Completely false. Not a single solitary bit of evidence has been show for the guess that all of life is from a Godless source.

Now you're talking abiogenesis, not evolution. It doesn't matter where life came from (God, some other god, aliens, primordial soup) at the start, it evolved after that. All the relevant and verifiable evidence says so, and none says otherwise.

 

[justlookinla]

Now you're talking abiogenesis, not evolution. It doesn't matter where life came from (God, some other god, aliens, primordial soup) at the start, it evolved after that. All the relevant and verifiable evidence says so, and none says otherwise.

Nope, not about abiogenesis. The Godless source is the first little life form from which all other life arose, according to the Godless.

 

[Skaloop]

Nope, not about abiogenesis. The Godless source is the first little life form from which all other life arose, according to the Godless.

Yeah, and where that first little life form came of doesn't matter to the theory of evolution.