A question I don't think creationists will answer.

[justlookinla]

I don't see the word "creationism".

Please provide a source for the definition of Darwinist creationism.

Note that this is speaking of how "all life" was created....

"Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce."

Darwinist creationism.

 

[justlookinla]

And that something could be a chemical process.

Ok, here you go with the typical guesses and suppositions, could be's, might be's, possibly's, ect.

Are you guessing that humanity is completely the result of chemical processes acting on a single life form from long long ago?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Something or someone created humanity. That's creationism.

You are assuming that humanity was "created". That is begging the question.

So you believe in creationism. We get that. I don't. The people that you are arguing with don't. You are trying to lie by playing semantic games. That is not honest.

As Rick's signature says "Remember and keep the 9th Commandment".

Why do we need to remind creationists what their own holy book says?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, here you go with the typical guesses and suppositions, could be's, might be's, possibly's, ect.

Are you guessing that humanity is completely the result of chemical processes acting on a single life form from long long ago?

No.

 

[RickG]

Ok, here you go with the typical guesses and suppositions, could be's, might be's, possibly's, ect.

Are you guessing that humanity is completely the result of chemical processes acting on a single life form from long long ago?

I made no guesses. I simply stated that the "something" you stated could have been a chemical process. It is a statement that neither confirms or denies.

 

[justlookinla]

You are assuming that humanity was "created". That is begging the question.

So you believe in creationism. We get that. I don't. The people that you are arguing with don't. You are trying to lie by playing semantic games. That is not honest.

As Rick's signature says "Remember and keep the 9th Commandment".

Why do we need to remind creationists what their own holy book says?

Remember and keep the 1st commandment.

 

[Aman777]

And that something could be a chemical process.

Dear Readers, Magical Chemical Generation is False. The proponants of Abiogenesis have rejected God's Truth in favor of their "belief" in Magic. Unable to reproduce their supposed formula doesn't stop them from falsely teaching it to little children in the Public Schools. Some even claim the Miller Urey experiment is proof, but the experiment does NOT produce life.

Science does NOT know what caused life to begin, but they do know that it happened in the water. God tells us that He created and brought forth EVERY living creature that moves, from the WATER, on Day 5, which was some 3.7 Billion years ago, in man's time.

Scripture and Science agree and Odd man out is the false teaching of Magical Chemical Abiogenesis. Beware the false teaching of some Evols. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[justlookinla]

Something or someone created humanity. That's creationism.

And that something could be a chemical process.

Ok, here you go with the typical guesses and suppositions, could be's, might be's, possibly's, ect.

Are you guessing that humanity is completely the result of chemical processes acting on a single life form from long long ago?

I made no guesses. I simply stated that the "something" you stated could have been a chemical process. It is a statement that neither confirms or denies.

"Could have been" is a guess, a supposition. A subjective view of which there is no evidence.

 

[RickG]

Remember and keep the 1st commandment.

Technically he does.

 

[justlookinla]

Technically he does.

Welp, that's a biggie.

 

[RickG]

"Could have been" is a guess, a supposition. A subjective view of which there is no evidence.

You know that I previously stated that I am not a biologist, but I can provide evidence supporting evolution from a geologic point of view. I gather you did not see that post because you keep asking for evidence from everyone but me.

 

[RickG]

Welp, that's a biggie.

Your claim. I showed you were incorrect.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Something or someone created humanity. That's creationism.

No.

Try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Remember and keep the 1st commandment.

That does not apply to me since I do not believe in your god.

I know right from wrong without having them written down for me.

You unfortunately must live by those rules. When you break one we will be happy to point it out for you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You know that I previously stated that I am not a biologist, but I can provide evidence supporting evolution from a geologic point of view. I gather you did not see that post because you keep asking for evidence from everyone but me.

Interesting. What do you want to bet he simply denies your evidence?

 

[RickG]

Interesting. What do you want to bet he simply denies your evidence?

I'll tell him de nile is a river in Northeastern Africa.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'll tell him de nile is a river in Northeastern Africa.

Or as I like to say:

"Time to get into a shorter river".

 

[Queller]

I aquaint macro evolution as having extra genetic information that is not present from which it assumingly had sprung from.

It presents a problem when theorists extraopolate a cow to a whale scenario. That would the genetic information is present in the whale that it had legs once, but all they can do is point to mutation which they attribute to having legs once but it is still not found in the DNA which suggests that they are not legs that they are looking at.

I was not aware that the DNA responsible for legs had been identified.

They have been building on fossilized sea cows with legs as a link but it could just be an extinct mammal, but evolutionists will not consider it.

Look again: it is under that first graphic block of bettes, insect, and Arthro....

What is macroevolution?

OK, thanks.

 

[Delphiki]

Yes they do...from Wikipedia...

Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce.​

There is no evidence suggesting that all of life is the result of only, totally, solely, completely naturalistic processes acting on a single life form from long long ago.

What you grabbed from Wikipedia and what you are saying are two different things. Do you think everyone else is too stupid to notice or is it really just you?


You still haven't answered my question. What forces are involved in anything besides natural forces?

 

[USincognito]

What you grabbed from Wikipedia and what you are saying are two different things. Do you think everyone else is too stupid to notice or is it really just you?

I've never understood why Creationists, especially those who suffer the most from Dunning-Kruger, think false equivocation and straw men argued ad nauseum is a good debate tactic. It just makes them look dishonest.