Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Actually, my definition is more apt than yours.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.
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.
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.
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.
You bet, depending on one's morality, ideology and psychological needs.
Sure, which relates to individual psyche and the needs that come from the same. Interesting stuff, human psychology.
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.
No. You are not fooling anyone.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(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.
Refer to it however you wish. Use whatever terminology you think best describes Christianity. That's your decision.
As it must be by the very definition of "creationist".Yours is from a theistic Darwinist creationist view.
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.I've posted, several times now, the definitions which support the view that Darwinism is a creationist viewpoint.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
Yes, you have repeatedly posted your contrived use of terminology that doesn't fit the definitions you are using.Not true. I've repeatedly posted the basis for the terminology.
Your single-minded derisive view, held only by you.The term is simply a reflection of a specific view of how humanity was created from a single life form of long long ago.
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?You, as others, keep evading the issue and try to introduce another issue. The issue is about what/who created humanity.
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!"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.
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.Refer to it however you wish. Use whatever terminology you think best describes Christianity. That's your decision.
Now you do not know the meaning of "theistic".
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.
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.
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.
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.
Let me put this kindly: 9th Commandment warning.
No. You are not fooling anyone.
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.
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.
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.
Another baseless claim.
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.
Simply post your 'mountains of evidence' which I've requested from you for quite a while now.
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.
And once again you contradict yourself.The issue has been, and will remain, the same. The inherently atheistic viewpoint of Darwinist creationism.
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.
As it must be by the very definition of "creationist".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?