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.
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.
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.
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?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.
I keep claiming that's the only view allowed and presented in schools. If you know of another creationist view, please post it.
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.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.
Evidence does not have to be "tested in its own time" ...
\\Hey, you can twist however you like, it's no skin off my nose.
Bottom line, the majority of Christians agree with the TOE.
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.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?
\\
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.
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.
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!
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?
No it doesn'tThe position of Darwinist creationism does make claims. It claims that all of life is only, totally, completely, solely by naturalistic processes.
The Darwinist creationist view isn't taught in school because it attributes the development of species to an act of divine creation.If you know of any other view allowed in schools, other than the Darwinist creationist view, please show me.
Thanks.
And most Christians do not agree with the viewpoint that Jesus and the 16 disciples were beheaded in Rome.\\
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.
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.
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.
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.
A fine example of changes within limits. Plant and animal breeders found that out decades ago.
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.
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?
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
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?