• 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.

A question I don't think creationists will answer.

justlookinla

Regular Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,767
199
✟35,675.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
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.
 
Upvote 0

RickG

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟106,373.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
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. :)
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
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.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
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.
 
Upvote 0

justlookinla

Regular Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,767
199
✟35,675.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
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.
 
Upvote 0

Dizredux

Newbie
Dec 20, 2013
2,465
69
✟18,021.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
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
 
Upvote 0

justlookinla

Regular Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,767
199
✟35,675.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
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.
 
Upvote 0

justlookinla

Regular Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,767
199
✟35,675.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
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. :) :thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0

Dizredux

Newbie
Dec 20, 2013
2,465
69
✟18,021.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Mockery certainly doesn't address the failure of Darwinist creation, does it?

It only makes you feel better about yourself. :) :thumbsup:
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
 
Upvote 0

justlookinla

Regular Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,767
199
✟35,675.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
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.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
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?
 
Upvote 0

RickG

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟106,373.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
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?
 
Upvote 0

Dizredux

Newbie
Dec 20, 2013
2,465
69
✟18,021.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
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
 
  • Like
Reactions: USincognito
Upvote 0

justlookinla

Regular Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,767
199
✟35,675.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
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?
 
Upvote 0

justlookinla

Regular Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,767
199
✟35,675.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
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.
 
Upvote 0

justlookinla

Regular Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,767
199
✟35,675.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
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.
 
Upvote 0