A question I don't think creationists will answer.

[DerelictJunction]

Yep, the Darwinists are upset with the revelation that they are creationists. Darwinist creationism.

Actually, my definition is more apt than yours.

You haven't produced a definition of "creationism" that doesn't include a divine being of some kind, IOW, a god. Yet you persist in claiming that Darwinist creationism is atheistic.

You haven't shown that atheism is being taught in any public institution where students are required by law to attend, yet you bemoan the teaching of evolution in those institutions as atheistic.
Additionally, you attempt to rename portions of evolution regarding common descent through mutation and natural selection as "Darwinist creationism".

When confronted with inquiries regarding your source for the term, you post definitions that don't apply to the meaning you present for the term.
You also refuse to admit that you made up the term out of thin air, despite the fact that it must be obvious, even to you, that everyone reading this site knows you did.
It is becoming clear that your reason for using the term is to derisively refer to common descent as a belief rather than an evidenced theory and to insult those who agree that the evidence supports that theory.

If I were to continually refer to Christianity as "Jewish Polytheism", you and likely many Christians here would probably conclude that I did so to demean your beliefs.

 

[RickG]

Actually, my definition is more apt than yours.

You haven't produced a definition of "creationism" that doesn't include a divine being of some kind, IOW, a god. Yet you persist in claiming that Darwinist creationism is atheistic.

You haven't shown that atheism is being taught in any public institution where students are required by law to attend, yet you bemoan the teaching of evolution in those institutions as atheistic.
Additionally, you attempt to rename portions of evolution regarding common descent through mutation and natural selection as "Darwinist creationism".

When confronted with inquiries regarding your source for the term, you post definitions that don't apply to the meaning you present for the term.
You also refuse to admit that you made up the term out of thin air, despite the fact that it must be obvious, even to you, that everyone reading this site knows you did.
It is becoming clear that your reason for using the term is to derisively refer to common descent as a belief rather than an evidenced theory and to insult those who agree that the evidence supports that theory.

If I were to continually refer to Christianity as "Jewish Polytheism", you and likely many Christians here would probably conclude that I did so to demean your beliefs.

Spot on!

 

[bhsmte]

Actually, my definition is more apt than yours.

You haven't produced a definition of "creationism" that doesn't include a divine being of some kind, IOW, a god. Yet you persist in claiming that Darwinist creationism is atheistic.

You haven't shown that atheism is being taught in any public institution where students are required by law to attend, yet you bemoan the teaching of evolution in those institutions as atheistic.
Additionally, you attempt to rename portions of evolution regarding common descent through mutation and natural selection as "Darwinist creationism".

When confronted with inquiries regarding your source for the term, you post definitions that don't apply to the meaning you present for the term.
You also refuse to admit that you made up the term out of thin air, despite the fact that it must be obvious, even to you, that everyone reading this site knows you did.
It is becoming clear that your reason for using the term is to derisively refer to common descent as a belief rather than an evidenced theory and to insult those who agree that the evidence supports that theory.

If I were to continually refer to Christianity as "Jewish Polytheism", you and likely many Christians here would probably conclude that I did so to demean your beliefs.

Very well said and as obvious as the nose on my face.

This type of behavior is what you get, when psychological need meets confirmed reality and the psychological need is not satisfied with reality and reality is therefore denied.

 

[justlookinla]

Actually, my definition is more apt than yours.

Yours is from a theistic Darwinist creationist view.

You haven't produced a definition of "creationism" that doesn't include a divine being of some kind, IOW, a god. Yet you persist in claiming that Darwinist creationism is atheistic.

I've posted, several times now, the definitions which support the view that Darwinism is a creationist viewpoint. The Darwinist creationism which is taught in schools is inherently atheistic.

You haven't shown that atheism is being taught in any public institution where students are required by law to attend, yet you bemoan the teaching of evolution in those institutions as atheistic.

The view of Darwinist creationism which is taught in schools is inherently atheistic. No other view is allowed other than the atheistic view. The students are taught a viewpoint that they are totally, completely, solely the creation of a naturalistic process acting on a life form from long long ago. It doesn't matter there's no evidence for such a viewpoint, it's demanded by the atheist educational agenda.

Additionally, you attempt to rename portions of evolution regarding common descent

Here you go attempting to change the issue. The issue isn't about common descent, the issue is about what impetus, what power, what method, what force created humanity. The atheistic view of Darwinist creationism teaches that the only mechanism needed to create humanity is the mechanism of atheistic Darwinism.

through mutation and natural selection as "Darwinist creationism".

Yes, it's creationism, no doubt about that. Humanity was created somehow and the atheistic view of Darwinist creationism teaches that humanity is the result of natural mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

When confronted with inquiries regarding your source for the term, you post definitions that don't apply to the meaning you present for the term.

Not true. I've repeatedly posted the basis for the terminology.

You also refuse to admit that you made up the term out of thin air, despite the fact that it must be obvious, even to you, that everyone reading this site knows you did.

The term is simply a reflection of a specific view of how humanity was created from a single life form of long long ago.

It is becoming clear that your reason for using the term is to derisively refer to common descent

You, as others, keep evading the issue and try to introduce another issue. The issue is about what/who created humanity.

as a belief rather than an evidenced theory and to insult those who agree that the evidence supports that theory.

There is no evidence for the creationist viewpoint that humanity was created totally, only, solely, completely by naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

If I were to continually refer to Christianity as "Jewish Polytheism", you and likely many Christians here would probably conclude that I did so to demean your beliefs.

Refer to it however you wish. Use whatever terminology you think best describes Christianity. That's your decision.

 

[bhsmte]

Yours is from a theistic Darwinist creationist view.



I've posted, several times now, the definitions which support the view that Darwinism is a creationist viewpoint. The Darwinist creationism which is taught in schools is inherently atheistic.



The view of Darwinist creationism which is taught in schools is inherently atheistic. No other view is allowed other than the atheistic view. The students are taught a viewpoint that they are totally, completely, solely the creation of a naturalistic process acting on a life form from long long ago. It doesn't matter there's no evidence for such a viewpoint, it's demanded by the atheist educational agenda.



Here you go attempting to change the issue. The issue isn't about common descent, the issue is about what impetus, what power, what method, what force created humanity. The atheistic view of Darwinist creationism teaches that the only mechanism needed to create humanity is the mechanism of atheistic Darwinism.



Yes, it's creationism, no doubt about that. Humanity was created somehow and the atheistic view of Darwinist creationism teaches that humanity is the result of natural mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.



Not true. I've repeatedly posted the basis for the terminology.



The term is simply a reflection of a specific view of how humanity was created from a single life form of long long ago.



You, as others, keep evading the issue and try to introduce another issue. The issue is about what/who created humanity.



There is no evidence for the creationist viewpoint that humanity was created totally, only, solely, completely by naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.



Refer to it however you wish. Use whatever terminology you think best describes Christianity. That's your decision.

Now that was predictable.

 

[justlookinla]

Now that was predictable.

We're all a bit predictable, aren't we?

 

[bhsmte]

We're all a bit predictable, aren't we?

You bet, depending on one's morality, ideology and psychological needs.

 

[justlookinla]

You bet, depending on one's morality, ideology and psychological needs.

And spiritual encounters, or lack of them.

 

[bhsmte]

And spiritual encounters, or lack of them.

Sure, which relates to individual psyche and the needs that come from the same. Interesting stuff, human psychology.

 

[justlookinla]

Sure, which relates to individual psyche and the needs that come from the same. Interesting stuff, human psychology.

And it also relates to the supernatural.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yours is from a theistic Darwinist creationist view.

Now you do not know the meaning of "theistic".

I've posted, several times now, the definitions which support the view that Darwinism is a creationist viewpoint. The Darwinist creationism which is taught in schools is inherently atheistic.

No, you have posted nonsense that has been debunked. The theory of evolution is no more atheistic than the atomic theory, germ theory, or any other scientific theory. You have not shown that the theory of evolution is atheistic in any way at all. Also you just debunked your first claim. Logic is not your strong point.

The view of Darwinist creationism which is taught in schools is inherently atheistic. No other view is allowed other than the atheistic view. The students are taught a viewpoint that they are totally, completely, solely the creation of a naturalistic process acting on a life form from long long ago. It doesn't matter there's no evidence for such a viewpoint, it's demanded by the atheist educational agenda.

Again, no more atheistic than any other scientific theory. Other views are allowed. Unfortunately there are no other scientific views. Please name one. And once again, you have shown more than once that you do not know what is and what is not evidence. I can help you there. We can even limit the links to Wiki, a site I have seen you use.

Here you go attempting to change the issue. The issue isn't about common descent, the issue is about what impetus, what power, what method, what force created humanity. The atheistic view of Darwinist creationism teaches that the only mechanism needed to create humanity is the mechanism of atheistic Darwinism.

Do you even know what common descent is? And please do not spam your posts with your insulting terminology. To date the theory of evolution is the only theory supported by evidence.

Yes, it's creationism, no doubt about that. Humanity was created somehow and the atheistic view of Darwinist creationism teaches that humanity is the result of natural mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

No, since by definition creationism involves a creator it is not. There is no creator in evolution. In fact this is an inconsistency of yours. In one sentence you complain that the theory of evolution has no creator and then in the next your try to claim that it does. You cannot win a debate if you are inconsistent.

Not true. I've repeatedly posted the basis for the terminology.

Let me put this kindly: 9th Commandment warning.

The term is simply a reflection of a specific view of how humanity was created from a single life form of long long ago.

No. You are not fooling anyone.

You, as others, keep evading the issue and try to introduce another issue. The issue is about what/who created humanity.

You keep derailing the issue since you know that you would lose any debate where you tried to debate using proper terminology and real science and evidence.

There is no evidence for the creationist viewpoint that humanity was created(sic it is assumed that the poster means "evolved" here but since he will not use proper terminology it is not possible to make this claim for sure) totally, only, solely, completely by naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

Actually we have more than enough evidence to support this claim of ours. But first you have to learn what evidence is. Otherwise you will foolishly try to deny the evidence.

Refer to it however you wish. Use whatever terminology you think best describes Christianity. That's your decision.

Sorry, we are at a disadvantage here. If we used the same terms about Christianity that you use about evolution we would be banned from this site. We have to be respectful or we will be kicked off from here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

justlookinla, if evolution is a form of "creationism" that assumes a creator or a deity. Then it is not "atheistic". A belief cannot be both theistic and atheistic, yet in that long post of yours that I dismantled you claimed the theory of evolution was both. In fact you even said it was theistic.

 

[bhsmte]

And it also relates to the supernatural.

If the psychological need is present, anything is possible from a personal perspective, you bet.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Yours is from a theistic Darwinist creationist view.

As it must be by the very definition of "creationist".

I've posted, several times now, the definitions which support the view that Darwinism is a creationist viewpoint.

And your use of the definitions has been soundly refuted. Your definition of Darwinism doesn't mention creation or creationism. Your use of the definition for "creation" to support the "creationism" portion of the phrase had be shown to be inappropriate and contrived. At least my definition actually fit the words in the phrase.

The Darwinist creationism which is taught in schools is inherently atheistic.
The view of Darwinist creationism which is taught in schools is inherently atheistic. No other view is allowed other than the atheistic view. The students are taught a viewpoint that they are totally, completely, solely the creation of a naturalistic process acting on a life form from long long ago. It doesn't matter there's no evidence for such a viewpoint, it's demanded by the atheist educational agenda.

You have been shown time and again that teaching the mechanisms and evidence for evolution and common descent is not the same as telling students "there is no God". If it were the same, then teaching auto mechanics would have to be inherently atheistic. Spare me your claim that I am trying to deflect the discussion from evolution.

Here you go attempting to change the issue. The issue isn't about common descent, the issue is about what impetus, what power, what method, what force created humanity. The atheistic view of Darwinist creationism teaches that the only mechanism needed to create humanity is the mechanism of atheistic Darwinism.

Then it's a good thing the atheistic view is not taught in school. Has science found some evidence of God's, or other entity's hand in evolution? If not, then why should children be taught that there is some impetus other than the mechanisms thus far identified? You're not pushing for the U.S. public school system to teach that there is a God, are you? That would be unconstitutional.

Yes, it's creationism, no doubt about that. Humanity was created somehow and the atheistic view of Darwinist creationism teaches that humanity is the result of natural mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

No it's not. That's an attempt to insult science, the theory of evolution, and those who agree with the evidence. You have no support for your use of the term, "creationism", either by dictionary definition or colloquialism.

Not true. I've repeatedly posted the basis for the terminology.

Yes, you have repeatedly posted your contrived use of terminology that doesn't fit the definitions you are using.

The term is simply a reflection of a specific view of how humanity was created from a single life form of long long ago.

Your single-minded derisive view, held only by you.

You, as others, keep evading the issue and try to introduce another issue. The issue is about what/who created humanity.

Which you want taught in school. What next? Why don't we take all the children away from the non-Christian parents and send them to church? Better yet, let's simply "convince" non-Christians that they need to believe on Christ. We could employ a bunch of people for just that purpose...even give them special uniforms. I like the colors scarlet and black. What d'ya think?

There is no evidence for the creationist viewpoint that humanity was created totally, only, solely, completely by naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

You have been shown evidence and even been offered more evidence if you would show that you knew what evidence was. Your reply? "Nuh-uh, that's not evidence!"
Your simple denial of the evidence presented to you show this statement to be completely false. Additionally, in my opinion, you know it is false, yet you throw it into your reply anyway.

Refer to it however you wish. Use whatever terminology you think best describes Christianity. That's your decision.

My decision is to treat the institution of Christianity and its adherents with some respect. I try to do that despite my disagreements with their beliefs, although some people take mere disagreement as an insult. I am not always successful.
Your continued use of a term that has been revealed to you as insulting to a group of people on this forum shows that it was your intent to insult them. One wonders what that event 26 years ago actually accomplished besides providing you with a sense of superiority and self-righteousness.

 

[justlookinla]

Now you do not know the meaning of "theistic".

Another baseless claim.

No, you have posted nonsense that has been debunked. The theory of evolution is no more atheistic than the atomic theory, germ theory, or any other scientific theory. You have not shown that the theory of evolution is atheistic in any way at all. Also you just debunked your first claim. Logic is not your strong point.

The inherently atheistic Darwinist creationist view that humanity is the creation of a random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless (other than procreation) and directionless mechanisms acting upon a single life form from long long ago is based on nothing other than guesses and suppositions. There's no evidence, no proof for the viewpoint. It's a faith-based creationist view.

Again, no more atheistic than any other scientific theory. Other views are allowed. Unfortunately there are no other scientific views. Please name one. And once again, you have shown more than once that you do not know what is and what is not evidence. I can help you there. We can even limit the links to Wiki, a site I have seen you use.

Simply post your 'mountains of evidence' which I've requested from you for quite a while now.

Do you even know what common descent is?

Do you realize this isn't about common descent? Do you realize that this is about a creationist view?

And please do not spam your posts with your insulting terminology. To date the theory of evolution is the only theory supported by evidence.

I'm not spamming anything, any more than you're constantly spamming with your creationist viewpoint. There is no evidence for the creation of humanity entirely, solely, completely, totally, only by naturalistic mechanisms.

No, since by definition creationism involves a creator it is not.

By definition, when new life forms are created, something/someone creates them. Humanity wasn't the single life form from which humanity was created, humanity was created by something or someone, depending on one's creationist viewpoint.

There is no creator in evolution.

There's a creator in Darwinist creationism. The random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless (other than procreation) and directionless creation mechanism of naturalistic processes.

In fact this is an inconsistency of yours. In one sentence you complain that the theory of evolution has no creator and then in the next your try to claim that it does. You cannot win a debate if you are inconsistent.

You're once again unable to comprehend the issue. Darwinist creationism which embraces the viewpoint that humanity is a creation of only, solely, totally, completely naturalistic processes acting on a single life form from long long ago is an inherently atheistic creationist viewpoint.

Let me put this kindly: 9th Commandment warning.

Let me put this kindly....

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
Joh 1:4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.
Joh 1:5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
​

No. You are not fooling anyone.

The issue is with those upset by the revelation that folks are trying to fool everyone with their unproven, unsubstantiated claim that humanity is the creation of only, totally, completely, solely naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

You keep derailing the issue since you know that you would lose any debate where you tried to debate using proper terminology and real science and evidence.

The issue has been, and will remain, the same. The inherently atheistic viewpoint of Darwinist creationism.

Actually we have more than enough evidence to support this claim of ours. But first you have to learn what evidence is. Otherwise you will foolishly try to deny the evidence.

More baseless and meaningless claims by you.

Sorry, we are at a disadvantage here. If we used the same terms about Christianity that you use about evolution we would be banned from this site. We have to be respectful or we will be kicked off from here.

I use no disparaging terms about the inherently atheistic view of Darwinist creationism, I simply present the viewpoint.

Do I need to reference some of your language toward those who embrace creationist viewpoints which are contrary to yours? I suspect you would react in the same manner as you did when I posted your 'you are a liar' posts to me. Denial.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Another baseless claim.

Now you either do not know what the word "baseless" means or you are obviously wrong. You have claimed hundreds of times that the theory of evolution is not theistic. Clearly you do not know what the word means.

The inherently atheistic Darwinist creationist view that humanity is the creation of a random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless (other than procreation) and directionless mechanisms acting upon a single life form from long long ago is based on nothing other than guesses and suppositions. There's no evidence, no proof for the viewpoint. It's a faith-based creationist view.

But the theory of evolution does not claim that. Nor is it faith based. It is evidence based. If you could find evidence against it the belief would be quickly dropped. You know that you cannot do that therefore you try to derail the debate.

Simply post your 'mountains of evidence' which I've requested from you for quite a while now.

Once again you are trying to make a liar of me. You first have to learn what qualifies as evidence. Did you forget your agreement again? I can link it for you again.

Do you realize this isn't about common descent? Do you realize that this is about a creationist view? [/quote[

Wrong, evolution is about common descent. Do you know what common descent is?

I'm not spamming anything, any more than you're constantly spamming with your creationist viewpoint. There is no evidence for the creation of humanity entirely, solely, completely, totally, only by naturalistic mechanisms.

Please, that is so wrong even you know it is wrong. 9th Commandment warning. And once again you do not know what evidence is so you cannot make that later claim of yours.

By definition, when new life forms are created, something/someone creates them. Humanity wasn't the single life form from which humanity was created, humanity was created by something or someone, depending on one's creationist viewpoint.

But we do not believe that new life forms are created. We believe they evolved. Created in the sense that you used the term implies a creator. There is no creator needed. Again, you are trying to play word games.

There's a creator in Darwinist creationism. The random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless (other than procreation) and directionless creation mechanism of naturalistic processes.

You can repeat that line all you want, it does not make it so.

You're once again unable to comprehend the issue. Darwinist creationism which embraces the viewpoint that humanity is a creation of only, solely, totally, completely naturalistic processes acting on a single life form from long long ago is an inherently atheistic creationist viewpoint.

Oops, there you go using the "c" word again. You can't have it both ways. Make up your mind.

Let me put this kindly....

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
Joh 1:4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.
Joh 1:5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
​

And what is a poetic Bible verse supposed to prove? It says nothing about what "the Word" is. It in no way even implies that "the Word" is the Bible. You are going to have to do a lot better than that. You are only interpreting the Bible to mean what you want it to mean.

The issue is with those upset by the revelation that folks are trying to fool everyone with their unproven, unsubstantiated claim that humanity is the creation of only, totally, completely, solely naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

Another error. Our claims are substantiated. That is why we win in courts of law. Your view is based upon religious views that vary from sect to sect without any physical evidence that supports them.

The issue has been, and will remain, the same. The inherently atheistic viewpoint of Darwinist creationism.

And once again you contradict yourself.

More baseless and meaningless claims by you.

You mean more correct claims by me that you cannot refute. I notice that whenever you have no answer that is your fall back.

I use no disparaging terms about the inherently atheistic view of Darwinist creationism, I simply present the viewpoint.

The utterer of the terms is not the one that can judge if they are disparaging or not. Odds are that person will lie. Is Redskin a disparaging term for American Indians? Most of them seem to think so. And yet the owner of the NFL team of that name claims it isn't. He is not one to judge. Neither are you.

Do I need to reference some of your language toward those who embrace creationist viewpoints which are contrary to yours? I suspect you would react in the same manner as you did when I posted your 'you are a liar' posts to me. Denial.

Go ahead. I showed how you were wrong in your "you are a liar" complaints, I could probably show that you are wrong in my other posts. Sadly most creationists are ignorant of the science that they are trying to debate against. You would be hard pressed to find a creationist that I treated with less respect than they deserved.

 

[justlookinla]

As it must be by the very definition of "creationist".

The very act of humanity being created from a previous life form only by naturalistic mechanism is creationism.

And your use of the definitions has been soundly refuted. Your definition of Darwinism doesn't mention creation or creationism.

The definition of Darwinism addresses the question of how humanity was created from a single life form from long long ago.

From Wikipedia.....

"all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations"​

Your use of the definition for "creation" to support the "creationism" portion of the phrase had be shown to be inappropriate and contrived.

It seems to be your position that it's "inappropriate and contrived", but in actuality it's simply recognizing the fact that humanity was created where humanity did not exist before the inherently atheistic process of Darwinist creationism created humanity.

At least my definition actually fit the words in the phrase.
You have been shown time and again that teaching the mechanisms and evidence for evolution and common descent is not the same as telling students "there is no God".

You can continue with your attempt to change the issue to common descent, but the issue is going to remain the same. How was humanity created. In the classrooms today, the students are taught that they are the creation, the result, the product of only, completely, totally, solely naturalistic processes acting on a single life form from long long ago. Their creator, their existence is only, completely, totally, solely a random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless (other than procreation) and directionless mechanism.

If it were the same, then teaching auto mechanics would have to be inherently atheistic. Spare me your claim that I am trying to deflect the discussion from evolution.

You're continually attempting to divert the issue from creationism.

Then it's a good thing the atheistic view is not taught in school.

But it is taught in school, per my post above.

Has science found some evidence of God's, or other entity's hand in evolution?

Has science found evidence that humanity is totally, completely, solely, totally the creation of naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago? Not at all. Nothing. Zero.

If not, then why should children be taught that there is some impetus other than the mechanisms thus far identified?

The question is, why should they be taught a creationist theory without any evidence for the creationist theory?

You're not pushing for the U.S. public school system to teach that there is a God, are you? That would be unconstitutional.

I'm pushing for the educational system to drop the creationist viewpoint of Darwinist creationism.

No it's not. That's an attempt to insult science, the theory of evolution, and those who agree with the evidence. You have no support for your use of the term, "creationism", either by dictionary definition or colloquialism.

You have no evidence that humanity was created only, solely, totally, completely by naturalistic mechanisms.

Yes, you have repeatedly posted your contrived use of terminology that doesn't fit the definitions you are using.
Your single-minded derisive view, held only by you.
Which you want taught in school. What next? Why don't we take all the children away from the non-Christian parents and send them to church?

How about focusing on what's occurring even as we discuss this. The atheist agenda is taking children and teaching a Godless creationist viewpoint to them as truth, as fact, as the only creationist viewpoint allowed to be taught.

Better yet, let's simply "convince" non-Christians that they need to believe on Christ. We could employ a bunch of people for just that purpose...even give them special uniforms. I like the colors scarlet and black. What d'ya think?

I think you're reverting to a very very common behavior seen on the forum by the Darwinist camp when they can't control the conversation. Ridicule. Mockery.

You have been shown evidence and even been offered more evidence if you would show that you knew what evidence was. Your reply? "Nuh-uh, that's not evidence!"
Your simple denial of the evidence presented to you show this statement to be completely false. Additionally, in my opinion, you know it is false, yet you throw it into your reply anyway.

There's not been on whit of evidence given for the creationist view that humanity is only, totally, completely, solely the result of naturalistic mechanisms acting on a life form from long long ago.

What is very common is the attempt to respond with an effort to change the focus from that to another issue within the Darwinist worldview.

My decision is to treat the institution of Christianity and its adherents with some respect.

Right. And this is respectful?.......

"Better yet, let's simply "convince" non-Christians that they need to believe on Christ. We could employ a bunch of people for just that purpose...even give them special uniforms. I like the colors scarlet and black. What d'ya think?"​

And this is just a mild example of the typical mockery, ridicule and personal attacks on Christians who hold a different creationist view than the atheistic creationist view.

I try to do that despite my disagreements with their beliefs, although some people take mere disagreement as an insult. I am not always successful.

This isn't "mere disagreement".....

"Better yet, let's simply "convince" non-Christians that they need to believe on Christ. We could employ a bunch of people for just that purpose...even give them special uniforms. I like the colors scarlet and black. What d'ya think?"​

Your continued use of a term that has been revealed to you as insulting to a group of people on this forum shows that it was your intent to insult them. One wonders what that event 26 years ago actually accomplished besides providing you with a sense of superiority and self-righteousness.

I'm sorry if some take it as an insult, it's not used insultingly, it's not used derisively, it's used to present a certain creationist viewpoint which I've explained over and over.

 

[Subduction Zone]

justlook, how is the so called atheistic approach to evolution as taught in schools any different from the atheistic approach to gravity as taught in schools?

 

[justlookinla]

justlook, how is the so called atheistic approach to evolution as taught in schools any different from the atheistic approach to gravity as taught in schools?

The issue is with the atheistic approach to creation, how humanity was created from a single life form from long long ago. Not common descent, not abiogenesis, but what force, power, process, mechanism created humanity.

 

[bhsmte]

The issue is with the atheistic approach to creation, how humanity was created from a single life form from long long ago. Not common descent, not abiogenesis, but what force, power, process, mechanism created humanity.

You need an issue to feed your personal motivation, so you create one.

We get it, you have to keep feeding the personal fire with some kind of fuel, or it burns out.