A question I don't think creationists will answer.

[justlookinla]

Of course ToE has been shown to be true on a number of levels. However, I think the most compelling evidence is that of the fossil record. It could not be laid out in such a manner without evolution, that is unless all those fossils just popped into existence at just the right place and time as to describe what we would expect to see in evolution.

The claim that all of life we observe today is completely, solely, totally, only by naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago has never been proven. That particular claim of Darwinist creationism is based on guesses and suppositions.

 

[justlookinla]

That is easy, because our viewpoint is based upon and supported by science. Yours is not.

No, the Darwinist creationist viewpoint is based on guesses and suppositions.

 

[RickG]

The claim that all of life we observe today is completely, solely, totally, only by naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago has never been proven. That particular claim of Darwinist creationism is based on guesses and suppositions.

By single life form, does not mean an individual, rather a population of a single life form.

 

[justlookinla]

By single life form, does not mean an individual, rather a population of a single life form.

Explain.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, the Darwinist creationist viewpoint is based on guesses and suppositions.

Wrong, and we have independent court cases that support my claim. What do you have that supports yours? Just the rantings and ravings of creationists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The claim that all of life we observe today is completely, solely, totally, only by naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago has never been proven. That particular claim of Darwinist creationism is based on guesses and suppositions.

Actually it has and as soon as you pass my evidence class I will be more than happy to show you that evidence.

 

[justlookinla]

Wrong, and we have independent court cases that support my claim. What do you have that supports yours? Just the rantings and ravings of creationists.

You have nothing to support the claim that the impetus for creation of all life we observe today was entirely, completely, totally, solely, only by naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

 

[justlookinla]

Actually it has and as soon as you pass my evidence class I will be more than happy to show you that evidence.

If you can't get creationism correct, you surely have no credibility to teach any Darwinist view.

 

[RickG]

Explain.

I don't view abiogenesis as a single event, nor do I see any reason why it cannot be an ongoing process.

 

[Dizredux]

Originally Posted by Subduction Zone

Actually it has and as soon as you pass my evidence class I will be more than happy to show you that evidence.
​

Just

If you can't get creationism correct, you surely have no credibility to teach any Darwinist view.

"Run rabbit run, the hounds are gonna catch you. Run rabbit run, you better get away."


Dizredux

 

[justlookinla]

I don't view abiogenesis as a single event, nor do I see any reason why it cannot be an ongoing process.

Ok, I thought you had evidence for something concerning the first life form. You're certainly entitled to your subjective views.

 

[justlookinla]

Originally Posted by Subduction Zone

Actually it has and as soon as you pass my evidence class I will be more than happy to show you that evidence.
​

Just "Run rabbit run, the hounds are gonna catch you. Run rabbit run, you better get away."


Dizredux

Mockery certainly doesn't address the failure of Darwinist creation, does it?

It only makes you feel better about yourself.

 

[Dizredux]

Mockery certainly doesn't address the failure of Darwinist creation, does it?

It only makes you feel better about yourself.

Then don't run, learn about evidence. Learning is not painful you know. It is really a good thing so why don't you try it.

Dizredux

 

[justlookinla]

Then don't run, learn about evidence. Learning is not painful you know. It is really a good thing so why don't you try it.

Dizredux

But why the mockery?

And I've asked for evidence for the view that all of life we've observed today is the result of only, totally, solely naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago. I get reactions such as yours but no evidence.

 

[bhsmte]

Then don't run, learn about evidence. Learning is not painful you know. It is really a good thing so why don't you try it.

Dizredux

Well Diz, for some, acknowledging or learning evidence can be painful. Do you know what i mean?

 

[RickG]

But why the mockery?

And I've asked for evidence for the view that all of life we've observed today is the result of only, totally, solely naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago. I get reactions such as yours but no evidence.

Actually the term "Darwinist Creationism" is mockery.

As for evidence, I know I have posed this many times, but if you are looking for evidence look at the fossil record over the past 3.5 Ga. How did it get there without evolution?

 

[Dizredux]

But why the mockery?

And I've asked for evidence for the view that all of life we've observed today is the result of only, totally, solely naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago. I get reactions such as yours but no evidence.

Why the mockery. You invite it when you say things like natural selection, the weather, earthquakes and volcanoes are random.

You invite it when you keep on saying the same phrases and when asked to support your ideas you simply repeat the phrases over again.

You invite it when people try to engage you in a discussion of your ideas and you continue to repeat the same phrases again over an over.

You invite it when you assert your definition given above but when asked to show where you found it you give a different definition and refuse to acknowledge the difference.

You have been given evidence for the TOE many times and shown that it was not atheistic but refuse to listen or perhaps understand what was said.

I think perhaps the biggest reason is that you present some very out of the main stream ideas and will not consider even the possibility you might be wrong in any way.

At least that is the way I see it. Others may get different mileage.

Dizredux

 

[justlookinla]

Actually the term "Darwinist Creationism" is mockery.

As for evidence, I know I have posed this many times, but if you are looking for evidence look at the fossil record over the past 3.5 Ga. How did it get there without evolution?

Nope, you're diverting from the issue at hand. The issue is concerning by what impetus, what power, what mechanism, what force created the complexity and variety of life we observe today from a single life form of long long ago. What evidence do we have identifying the impetus by which this occurred?

 

[justlookinla]

Why the mockery. You invite it when you say things like natural selection, the weather, earthquakes and volcanoes are random.

Those may be worldviews with which you disagree, but to react with mockery is simply an attack on the individual who embraces a view different from you, it doesn't address the differences.

You invite it when you keep on saying the same phrases and when asked to support your ideas you simply repeat the phrases over again.

I've posted the basis for my views over and over. I can deal with disagreement, and mockery, and personal disparaging but it's just interesting to observe individuals attempting to inflict some sort of emotional hurt on a person in order to make themselves feel better. Do you feel better when you do that?

You invite it when people try to engage you in a discussion of your ideas and you continue to repeat the same phrases again over an over.

When the same claim is made over and over and over and over, then the same response to challenge the claim is made over and over and over and over. Don't expect to keep making the same claims without the same objections being posted.

You invite it when you assert your definition given above but when asked to show where you found it you give a different definition and refuse to acknowledge the difference.

You have been given evidence for the TOE many times and shown that it was not atheistic but refuse to listen or perhaps understand what was said.

Not one shred of evidence has been given for the view that all of creation we observe today is totally, completely, only, solely by naturlaistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago. You keep repeating your claim and your claim will be repeatedly challenged.

I think perhaps the biggest reason is that you present some very out of the main stream ideas and will not consider even the possibility you might be wrong in any way.

It certainly looks as if most of us are convinced of our position. The truth is, I've changed my position on many issues over the years and have no problem changing again.

At least that is the way I see it. Others may get different mileage.

Dizredux

What I see is you becoming angry and frustrated when your views are continually challenged and will respond with personal malice instead of simply discussing your views. We each personally decide how to respond when discussing issues, the responsibility of our behavior is ours and ours alone.

 

[justlookinla]

Actually the term "Darwinist Creationism" is mockery.

No it's not. I've explained why I use the term many many times now. But again, there is a view, Darwinism, that "all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations". This view only allows for one impetus for the creation of humanity, or for all of life (not abiogenesis) for that matter. This view teaches that naturalistic mechanisms are adequate for the creation of all life (not abiogenesis) and not only is it adequate, it's the only valid explanation.

As for evidence, I know I have posed this many times, but if you are looking for evidence look at the fossil record over the past 3.5 Ga. How did it get there without evolution?

Nope, you're still attempting to divert from the issue of how life was created from a single life form from long long ago. Your question "how did it get there without evolution" offers nothing concerning evidence for the view that only, totally, by naturalistic mechanisms did the creation of all of life (not abiogenesis) occur.