I suppose you think that was some kind of rebuttal to what I wrote. Sorry, it's not.
That's you subjective view.
Well, that's 0 for 2. Did ya notice that the words "creation" and "creationism" are notably absent from the definition?
Actually, the definition for Darwinism says "developed". No "created" in there. You did read the definition you wrote, didn't you?
Yes I did. The creation concepts are very well presented in the Darwinist view of how humanity was created.
Evidence please. Can you supply a textbook or lesson plan from a public school that states "...only, completely, totally, solely naturalistic processes..." or "...their existence is only, completely, totally, solely a random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless (other than procreation) and directionless mechanism"? If you cannot, then this is a baseless assertion.
And you're continually showcasing your poor reading comprehension skills.
You have provided no evidence to support your tirade above nor this baseless assertion.
There is no other impetus allowed or presented other than the naturalistic impetus for all of life we observe today. The view that naturalistic processes alone, completely, totally, solely, only are needed to create humanity is at the very core of the inherently atheistic Darwinist creationist view. I can find no other impetus allowed, permitted or considered other than the inherently atheistic Darwinist creationist view. If you know of any, I'd certainly be interested in seeing them.
This is a lie. You have been provided evidence that supports this. You say it is not evidence but provide no reasoning or counter-evidence, so the evidence stands despite your denial.
Nope, it's the truth. Science has not found evidence that humanity is totally, completely, solely, totally the creation of naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago. Post it, if you think it has. Remember, don't respond with your typical common descent evasion, remember the issue is about what, or who, created humanity where humanity did not exist before.
They are not being taught a creationist theory.
Yes they are. Humanity did not exist at a point in time, now it exists. This existence of humanity is only explained by the naturalistic mechanisms creating humanity from a single life form of long long ago according to the Darwinist creationism model being presented in schools.
Sure it's a creationist viewpoint. An inherently atheistic viewpoint.
No mention of a god or other entity.
Exactly. The mention is that the only explanation, the only impetus needed to create humanity, is that you, children, are the result of entirely naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago. And then they're taught the error that there is evidence for the creationist view.
This is a creation vs evolution site. The people espousing the hypotheses that a god was involved in the creation of humanity and all other things are called creationists. That means the atheist view of evolution is not a creationist view. Don't like that? Take it up with all the creationist websites on the web.
Depends on one's view of creation and evolution. I accept evolution. I don't accept the inherently atheistic viewpoint of Darwinist creationism.
are wrong...so wrong we have to get another map.
They don't teach the creationist viewpoint. However, let's go out on a fragile limb and say they were teaching atheistic evolution. What would you have them replace it with?
Nothing. Why replace it with anything?
Another statement that you have been shown is untrue. Going for a record?
They are not being taught that God does not exist.
They are taught that all of the variety and complexity of life we observe today is the result, totally, completely, only, solely by naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago. I've pointed this out probabaly a hundred times now. The message is clear, God isn't needed or allowed or permitted or accepted in the creation of the complex and varied life forms we observe today. It's an inherently atheistic viewpoint of creation.
The theory of evolution through mutation and natural selection is the only theory that has evidence supporting it. (Cue: "Nuh-uh")
Ignoring your continual mockery, the fact remains, not a single shred of evidence is given that only naturalistic mechanisms created all the complex and varied life forms we observe today.
Since you don't provide cogent responses to my posts, I feel a little mockery is in order.
Ok.
Give me something of substance to respond to and the mockery machine will slow down.
No, continue with your mockery. It makes you feel better doesn't it? If so, by all means do it.
That's three in one post! Technically, they are all the same lie, but we'll give you credit for the attempt. I'm sure if you try harder you can beat the record. Plus this one is accompanied by a reiteration of your inability to comprehend simple comparisons.
Nothing of substance there, move on.
That wasn't an insult to Christianity or it's adherents. That was entirely meant for you, alone. I respect Christianity.
No Just you. It takes a particularly incalcitrant person to bring me to this level.
Right, your behavior is my fault, not yours. I understand.
Liked it so much, you printed it twice. Does it strike a chord in you?
This doesn't ring true either. You have been told that the phrase is not only incorrect and nonsensical but that it is also derisive and insulting. So, I'm gonna have to chalk this up as lie number 4. I could be wrong though and you are just not able to see when you are derisive and insulting despite being told directly.
Two words. Darwinist creationism.
You will continue to see those. Unless you ignore me, of course.
