Evolution is Not Atheistic

justlookinla · Nov 25, 2015

PsychoSarah said:
Of course the over 100 year old postulations are easy to defeat; how about attacking the modern version of the theory?

I'm just saying to apply the scientific method to the 'how' of Darwinist evolution. It can't be done.

Graham Lloyd Dull · Nov 25, 2015

Genesis describes evolution.
"It will produce thorns and thistles for you," Genesis 3:18
Plants not producing thorns and thistles become such. This is clearly evolution.
Theistic Evolutionists would not accept this Biblical account because it implies a perfect creation, and evolution moves away from perfection.

PsychoSarah · Nov 25, 2015

Graham Lloyd Dull said:
Genesis describes evolution.
"It will produce thorns and thistles for you," Genesis 3:18
Plants not producing thorns and thistles become such. This is clearly evolution.
Theistic Evolutionists would not accept this Biblical account because it implies a perfect creation, and evolution moves away from perfection.

Perfection is not a thing, it is completely subjective. There can be no "perfect creature"; evolution does make populations become more specialized and suited for their environments, but even this has its cost. What does come to mind though is the water bear, which makes cockroaches look like the most delicate flowers. Can survive even in space, more than a century without water, temperatures of more than 300 degrees Fahrenheit and less than -200 degrees Fahrenheit, and far more radiation than a cockroach. Good thing they aren't intelligent and are tiny, or they would take over the world XD

PsychoSarah · Nov 25, 2015

justlookinla said:
I'm just saying to apply the scientific method to the 'how' of Darwinist evolution. It can't be done.

It has been done with studying disease. Vaccines would be impossible without that.

Graham Lloyd Dull · Nov 26, 2015

PsychoSarah said:
Perfection is not a thing, it is completely subjective.
.
the water bear...Good thing they aren't intelligent

Good is not a thing, it is completely subjective.

justlookinla · Nov 26, 2015

PsychoSarah said:
It has been done with studying disease. Vaccines would be impossible without that.

This is a claim which is frequently made, but is unsupportable.

Darwinist evolution is based on the process being random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless. Now, are you suggesting that the development of vaccines is based on a random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless process?

As I was saying · Nov 27, 2015

Subduction Zone said:
You are wrong again of course. The theory of evolution is not dependent upon the first source of life at all. But by moving the goal posts that far you in effect admit that evolution is correct. Are you sure that you want to do that? Now if you ask politely people may discuss abiogenesis for you.

Also it seems like most creationists you do not understand the nature of evidence. I am sure that evidence has been given to you, but since you do not understand the concept of evidence you believe that none was given. I can help you with that lack of yours.

A good answer to a question the person asked can't answer or doesn't want to answer. So typical of atheists "you are wrong..." Of course we know we are wrong that is why we don't believe a word you say as NO ONE can always be wrong and NO ONE can always be right.

But the fact that is what you believe just shows how insecure you are as a secure person doesn't spend all his life putting other people down.

By the way, in case you did not know you are wrong. All life regardless of how you decide it operates is dependant on knowing how it began. Common sense tells you that because if you didn't know the way to make babies was boy meets girl. Boy marries girl. Boy and girl join together and become one flesh and hey, hey a little boy or girl arrives into the world.

If they didn't know that and thought the stork brought the little baby along, there would be no little baby.

And do tell me, what has abiogenesis got to do with how life began. That is if you know.

As I was saying · Nov 27, 2015

Subduction Zone said:
Sorry, atheists can be wrong quite often. Of course not anywhere near as often as creationists, but they can be wrong.

I gave you a reasonable demand. And the Christian thing to do would be to demonstrate that you did not break the Ninth Commandment by supporting your claim with a quote. Sadly by not doing so you make it look as if you were making false claims about your neighbor.

And please, looking at how weak your beliefs are you should never call the beliefs of another a fairy tale.

If atheists can be wrong, why is it they say they are never wrong? That is what an atheist told me on another forum. Oh I forgot, no one atheist speaks for another so they just believe whatever suits them at any given time.

Oh, in case you didn't know, atheists are always wrong because they claim God does not exist. No evidence mind you but it doesn't stop them saying it. And creationists say that God does exist, then they are right so they are not wrong as much as atheists are.

On another site an atheist was getting very angry because I would not submit to his demands. I said to him, "you don't want an answer, you want an argument." His reply was "of course I want an argument."

That being the case, I don't give to dogs what belongs to God. They will only turn and attack me. I don't throw pearls down in front of pigs. They will trample all over them. Matthew 7:6

As for my beliefs looking weak, after 62 years of study and being mentored by spiritual giants, I am the first port of call in my church (10,000 people) if people want to know about belief.

RickG · Nov 27, 2015

As I was saying said:
If atheists can be wrong, why is it they say they are never wrong?

Are you aware the virtually all of the science presented by the creation science community contains absolutely no original research. Rather it is contains misrepresentations of actual science. Some even goes as far as to quote things scientists have said out of context and presenting them as if that person was saying something different.

ecco · Nov 27, 2015

justlookinla said:
The scientific method destroys Darwinist evolution.

What's your point? Surely it cannot be "The scientific method destroys the basic concepts of evolution".

The knowledge that planets make elliptical orbits instead of circular orbits around the sun did not destroy heliocentricity.

I'll repeat;

Justlookinla believes in the concept of scientific evidence up to the point where it conflicts with his literal interpretation of Genesis and all stories thereafter.

Really, just say "GodDidIt" and stop trying to make pseudo-scientific comments. They just make you look bad.

ecco · Nov 27, 2015

Graham Lloyd Dull said:
Genesis describes evolution.
"It will produce thorns and thistles for you," Genesis 3:18
Plants not producing thorns and thistles become such. This is clearly evolution.
Theistic Evolutionists would not accept this Biblical account because it implies a perfect creation, and evolution moves away from perfection.

And yet, there are Theistic Evolutionists. It all just goes to where one draws the line between a literal read of scripture and an allegorical read of scripture.

ecco · Nov 27, 2015

PsychoSarah said:
Good thing they aren't intelligent and are tiny, or they would take over the world XD

With neither size nor intelligence it seems they have taken over the world:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tardigrade

Scientists have reported tardigrades in hot springs, on top of the Himalayas, under layers of solid ice, and in ocean sediments. Many species can be found in milder environments such as lakes, ponds, and meadows, while others can be found in stone walls and roofs.

ecco · Nov 27, 2015

As I was saying said:
If atheists can be wrong, why is it they say they are never wrong? That is what an atheist told me on another forum.

I wouldn't ask you to go back to other forums to verify you comments. However, perhaps you can find a quote in this forum of an atheist saying atheists are never wrong.

justlookinla · Nov 27, 2015

ecco said:
What's your point? Surely it cannot be "The scientific method destroys the basic concepts of evolution".

The point is that Darwinist evolution isn't based on the scientific method but is rather a faith-based belief system of guesses and suppositions.

The knowledge that planets make elliptical orbits instead of circular orbits around the sun did not destroy heliocentricity.

The knowledge that Darwinism isn't based on the scientific method is essential to understanding that it's based on guesses and suppositions.

I'll repeat;

Justlookinla believes in the concept of scientific evidence up to the point where it conflicts with his literal interpretation of Genesis and all stories thereafter.

I reject Darwinism because it's not based on the scientific method.

Really, just say "GodDidIt" and stop trying to make pseudo-scientific comments. They just make you look bad.

Really, just say "willynillydidit" and acknowledge your Darwinist creator.

ecco · Nov 27, 2015

justlookinla said:
I reject Darwinism because it's not based on the scientific method.

You reject evolution because it goes against your belief in Genesis.

justlookinla · Nov 27, 2015

ecco said:
You reject evolution because it goes against your belief in Genesis.

No, I reject Darwinist evolution because it's not supported by the scientific method.

ecco · Nov 27, 2015

ecco

You reject evolution because it goes against your belief in Genesis.

justlookinla said:
No, I reject Darwinist evolution because it's not supported by the scientific method.

So you do accept evolution, just not "Darwinist evolution"!

justlookinla · Nov 27, 2015

ecco said:
ecco

You reject evolution because it goes against your belief in Genesis.

So you do accept evolution, just not "Darwinist evolution"!

There are many views of evolution. As I've said repeatedly, I support any evolutionary view supported by the scientific method.

bhsmte · Nov 27, 2015

ecco said:
You reject evolution because it goes against your belief in Genesis.

Don't you get a kick out of the talk of; the scientific method?

lesliedellow · Nov 27, 2015

justlookinla said:
No, I reject Darwinist evolution because it's not supported by the scientific method.

You reject Evolution because you want to believe that Genesis 1-11 is history.

Evolution is Not Atheistic

Regular Member

lifefromgod.com

Chaotic Neutral

Chaotic Neutral

lifefromgod.com

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Poster

Poster

Poster

Poster

Regular Member

Poster

Regular Member

Poster

Regular Member

Newbie

Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency