A question I don't think creationists will answer.

[justlookinla]

The Darwinist creationist view isn't taught in school because it attributes the development of species to an act of divine creation.

No it doesn't. It attributes the creation of humanity to only, solely, totally, completely naturalistic processes.

 

[justlookinla]

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

Amazing.

 

[DerelictJunction]

No it doesn't. It attributes the creation of humanity to only, solely, totally, completely naturalistic processes.

I'm sorry but you're wrong. See the definition:

Darwinist creationism:

The belief that living organisms originate from the specific act of divine creation which was the ensuring that all species of organisms arise and develop through natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individuals ability to compete, survive and reproduce.​

See?

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

I said tested objectively. We can not go back in time and observe or test the actual event.

With the "historical" sciences, testing is usually done in some form of look over there and you will find thus. This is what was done with Neil Shubin finding Tiktaalik roseae. The TOE suggested that this kind of fossil would be found in a certain type of formation and Shubin went there and found Tiktaalik.

The same with archeology, a prediction can be made that in ruins of a particular type of culture certain artifacts will be found and others will not. The scientists go there excavate and see how well their predictions work out.

Which doesn't conflict with what I said.

The idea of splitting science into two types in this manner is advocated by Answers in Genesis but few if any scientists agree with them.

I don't know why you bring in these organizations like I parrot other people's views. My views are my own. I may be influenced by "people" or "ideas" but I rarely agree with a wide set organization other than the Church and only in that by what the Bible claims.

All science uses the same process. There are considered to be two general classifications in science but it is more along the lines of "experimental" (Ham calls this observational science) and historical but with no clear dividing lines.

I don't know much of Ham but what I gather from snips here and there I really don't care what he calls anything.

Something to go along with this: What is reproduced are the observations not necessarily the event. How could you research stellar physics if you had to reproduce a sun forming in the lab? What is reproduced and studied are the recordings made of stellar events. The observations are the evidence and they are often observations of events that happened millions of years ago. The same principle holds true for geology and all the rest.

Which does not conflict with what I said.

For an archeologist to work by the "in its own time" restriction means they would have to replicate the culture they are studying people and all. No, in archeology, the artifacts are the observations and those are studied in the here and now.

While techniques vary, all science works the same.

Sigh...yes thanks for the lesson, to bad I am aware of what science is I've used it for years.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

Anti theists on the other hand are usually asserting the non existence of a deity. In my opinion, they cannot back that up and are mostly blowing smoke. Why they are anti theists is a whole other question much too complex to get into here.

Just my thoughts though. Others may and can differ.

Dizredux

I would assume that for the most part on this forum that it is the anti-theist that posts the most frequently and who are most vocal about the ToE being devoid of God?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I said tested objectively. We can not go back in time and observe or test the actual event.

So what? That does not mean they cannot be tested objectively.

Which doesn't conflict with what I said.

I believe it may, but I am late to this conversation. The fact is that we can test our claims about the past objectively.

 

[justlookinla]

I'm sorry but you're wrong. See the definition:

Darwinist creationism:

The belief that living organisms originate from the specific act of divine creation which was the ensuring that all species of organisms arise and develop through natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individuals ability to compete, survive and reproduce.​

See?

Now you're speaking of theistic evolution. Is that what Darwinism promotes in our schools? Of course not.

As there is a difference between micro and macro evolution, there is a difference between theistic evolution view and the inherently atheistic Darwinist creationist view. One invokes God in the process, the other demands creation without Him.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I would assume that for the most part on this forum that it is the anti-theist that posts the most frequently and who are most vocal about the ToE being devoid of God?

Them and some extremists such as justlookinla

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would assume that for the most part on this forum that it is the anti-theist that posts the most frequently and who are most vocal about the ToE being devoid of God?

From what I have seen it is the theists who make that claim.

Most anti-theists and even atheists will admit that the ToE is as devoid of God as the theories of gravity, atomic theory, the Laws of Thermodynamics, etc..

 

[Oncedeceived]

So what? That does not mean they cannot be tested objectively.





I believe it may, but I am late to this conversation. The fact is that we can test our claims about the past objectively.

I think the fault of this understanding is mine, rather than using the term objective I should have used the term empirical evidence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

From what I have seen it is the theists who make that claim.

Most anti-theists and even atheists will admit that the ToE is as devoid of God as the theories of gravity, atomic theory, the Laws of Thermodynamics, etc..

Just don't try to prove it...right?

 

[Delphiki]

Just don't try to prove it...right?

On the contrary. Science demands proof of all claims. It's just that some of those get butt hurt because they can't provide it and act like there is some sort of conspiracy against them.

 

[justlookinla]

On the contrary. Science demands proof of all claims. It's just that some of those get butt hurt because they can't provide it and act like there is some sort of conspiracy against them.

There is an obvious effort by atheists to promote their worldview in the classrooms and in society. Nothing surprising about that.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Now you're speaking of theistic evolution. Is that what Darwinism promotes in our schools? Of course not.

As there is a difference between micro and macro evolution, there is a difference between theistic evolution view and the inherently atheistic Darwinist creationist view. One invokes God in the process, the other demands creation without Him.

The Darwinist creationist view is not atheistic. I just provided you with the definition. Here, I'll do it again.

Darwinist creationism:

The belief that living organisms originate from the specific act of divine creation which was the ensuring that all species of organisms arise and develop through natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individuals ability to compete, survive and reproduce.​

See? Not atheistic...in fact, it can't be taught in school because it specifically references divine creation.

 

[PsychoSarah]

There is an obvious effort by atheists to promote their worldview in the classrooms and in society. Nothing surprising about that.

Nope, but there are plenty of efforts on the part of people to try to make out atheists to be evil satan worshippers who want to destroy all religion.

 

[Dizredux]

Just

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.

Diz

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.

Once

What?]

I was simply paralleling Just's statement to demonstrate how equally foolish both statements were.

That is why I often try to put all of the relevant comments in a post so readers can get an accurate idea of the context of the discussion. Just to run off the quote function can result in a lot of confusion.

Dizredux

 

[justlookinla]

The Darwinist creationist view is not atheistic. I just provided you with the definition. Here, I'll do it again.

Darwinist creationism:

The belief that living organisms originate from the specific act of divine creation which was the ensuring that all species of organisms arise and develop through natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individuals ability to compete, survive and reproduce.​

See? Not atheistic...in fact, it can't be taught in school because it specifically references divine creation.

It would be wonderful if the theistic view of creation that you reference would be allowed in schools, but it's not. Only the atheistic view of Darwinist creationism is allowed under the guise of science.

One view and one view only. The atheistic Darwinist creationist view.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think the fault of this understanding is mine, rather than using the term objective I should have used the term empirical evidence.

Nope, our views on the past are based upon empirical evidence too.

The only problem is that we do not view the process visually. But then there are all sorts of processes that are not observed visually.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Just DizOnce I was simply paralleling Just's statement to demonstrate how equally foolish both statements were.

That is why I often try to put all of the relevant comments in a post so readers can get an accurate idea of the context of the discussion. Just to run off the quote function can result in a lot of confusion.

Dizredux

That is fine with short posts but it gets too long in longer posts.

 

[justlookinla]

Nope, but there are plenty of efforts on the part of people to try to make out atheists to be evil satan worshippers who want to destroy all religion.

Some may try to do that, but most atheists I know, and granted they're few, are good people. But, that doesn't dismiss the fact there is an atheist agenda to promote their creationist, an only their creationist, viewpoint in schools.