Do creationists accept the evolution of plants?

[Subduction Zone]

No, it's not a bogus site. It's defining Godless evolution.

Wrong, it is a bogus site. They have a prejudice, and a misleading site name. They oppose the science of biology and do not support it. And the question was not about the made up word "evolutionism". It was about the "Godless form of evolution". You need to be able to show what that was with real words.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No it's not. The current laws of nature allows for no such supernatural view. That's why it's supernatural. Your 'yeah it could be we just don't know it yet' claim is completely worthless.

The view is not supernatural and it does allow for it. Watch a Universe From Nothing. If you have any questions we can help you answer them. And your strawman argument is dishonest.

The fact that you do not understand something does not make it supernatural.

The laws of nature do not allow for nothing to create a universe from nothing.

It all depends upon how you define "nothing". Your idea of "nothing" may not exist. Your idea of nothing may be supernatural and not real.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, it's not a bogus site. It's defining Godless evolution.

Funny how it is the same as Godless chemistry, Godless physics, and Godless thermodynamics. Why don't they just define science as evil and Godless, and be done with it?

 

[justlookinla]

Wrong, it is a bogus site. They have a prejudice, and a misleading site name. They oppose the science of biology and do not support it. And the question was not about the made up word "evolutionism". It was about the "Godless form of evolution". You need to be able to show what that was with real words.

The real words were presented in the definition.

"Evolutionism is the atheistic worldview that says life developed without God and without purpose. Instead, we agree with Christians who adhere to Intelligent Design and Creationism that the God of the Bible created the universe and all life."​

If you have a problem with Godless evolution meaning that life developed without God, you could actually point out where you disagree with the definition instead of responding with your typical meaningless dribble.

 

[justlookinla]

Funny how it is the same as Godless chemistry, Godless physics, and Godless thermodynamics. Why don't they just define science as evil and Godless, and be done with it?

The forum is about creation and evolution. Stick with that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Wrong,

What's wrong?

Both passages?

Perhaps you could highlight in red?

 

[justlookinla]

The view is not supernatural and it does allow for it. Watch a Universe From Nothing. If you have any questions we can help you answer them. And your strawman argument is dishonest.

The fact that you do not understand something does not make it supernatural.

If you have the ability, summarize the conclusion of Krauss' video. I've asked you more than once to do this and you've typically ignored the request. It could be that your understanding is of such an inadequate nature that you cannot actually summarize his views. If so, try something a little simpler.

It all depends upon how you define "nothing". Your idea of "nothing" may not exist. Your idea of nothing may be supernatural and not real.

No, you define nothing as Krauss presents it. You're the person promoting the supernatural guess that nothing created the universe from nothing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The real words were presented in the definition.

"Evolutionism is the atheistic worldview that says life developed without God and without purpose. Instead, we agree with Christians who adhere to Intelligent Design and Creationism that the God of the Bible created the universe and all life."​

If you have a problem with Godless evolution meaning that life developed without God, you could actually point out where you disagree with the definition instead of responding with your typical meaningless dribble.

No, I do not respond to dishonest sites. That is not dribble, your nonsense is dribble.

So why do you not have a problem with "godless gravity"? God may have been involved with evolution, if he exists. There is no evidence of any god's presence. The same applies to gravity. There is n evidence of god's mucking around with gravity so theories of gravity are "atheistic".

Try to respond with correct English. Remember how you were nitpicking last night, and how you lost terribly? Do not use made up words and answer the question.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What's wrong?

Both passages?

Perhaps you could highlight in red?

Your quote mining is wrong.

Sadly, the beliefs of many Christians is based upon the dishonest practice of quote mining their own Bible. It is amazing that they cannot see the sin and hypocrisy involved.

 

[justlookinla]

No, I do not respond to dishonest sites. That is not dribble, your nonsense is dribble.

So why do you not have a problem with "godless gravity"? God may have been involved with evolution, if he exists. There is no evidence of any god's presence. The same applies to gravity. There is n evidence of god's mucking around with gravity so theories of gravity are "atheistic".

Try to respond with correct English. Remember how you were nitpicking last night, and how you lost terribly? Do not use made up words and answer the question.

You asked for a definition of Godless evolution. What part of the definition are you having a problem with?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The forum is about creation and evolution. Stick with that.

His example showed how your claim of "godless evolution" is incorrect. If you cannot answer why godless chemistry, godless physics, and even godless geometry are not a problem then you have no valid claim when you spout the phrase "godless evolution".

 

[AV1611VET]

Wrong, it is a bogus site. They have a prejudice, and a misleading site name. They oppose the science of biology and do not support it. And the question was not about the made up word "evolutionism". It was about the "Godless form of evolution". You need to be able to show what that was with real words.

If you don't know what 'Godless form of evolution' means, then I don't think we can help you.

Let's try "dysteleological evolution".

Does that help?

 

[Loudmouth]

You asked for a definition of Godless evolution. What part of the definition are you having a problem with?

The part where it defines all of science as being godless.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You asked for a definition of Godless evolution. What part of the definition are you having a problem with?

The fact that you substituted a made up word from a bogus site for the word evolution.

Please try to argue honestly.

 

[Loudmouth]

If you don't know what 'Godless form of evolution' means, then I don't think we can help you.

How is it any different than a godless form of chemistry, a godless form of thermodynamics, or a godless form of particle physics?

 

[justlookinla]

The part where it defines all of science as being godless.

"Evolutionism is the atheistic worldview that says life developed without God and without purpose. Instead, we agree with Christians who adhere to Intelligent Design and Creationism that the God of the Bible created the universe and all life. "​

Point out the "all of science" part.

 

[Loudmouth]

The forum is about creation and evolution. Stick with that.

You have made it about atheistic creationism, which you define as all of science.

 

[justlookinla]

How is it any different than a godless form of chemistry, a godless form of thermodynamics, or a godless form of particle physics?

Yes, the Godless Darwinists are continually attempting to change the focus from creation and evolution but it's not going to work.

 

[justlookinla]

You have made it about atheistic creationism, which you define as all of science.

Show me where I have defined atheistic creationism is "all of science".

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you don't know what 'Godless form of evolution' means, then I don't think we can help you.

Let's try "dysteleological evolution".

Does that help?

I know what it means, the problem is that justlookin seems to have his own definition of words. It is a foolish term the use of which most creationists cannot defend. All science is "atheistic" in the sense that it does not rely on god. Chemistry is atheistic, physics is atheistic, geology is atheistic.

Why is it okay to use all of those atheistic sciences but it is not okay to use atheistic evolution?