God used Evolution to create man

[PsychoSarah]

Just to be clear here, we're talking about only naturalistic mechanisms creating humanity, right?

Evolution is just an explanation of observation. If we ever observe god in some definite way, they'll be theories abound in regards to details about its existence, etc. We observe that populations change over time, and we observe certain mechanisms that facilitate the change. Evolutionary theory explains this observation in a concise way.

 

[bhsmte]

Problem is, evolution doesn't go into anything in regards to philosophy or theology on way or the other, and it is evidenced based, regardless as to whether or not you like it.

No question he doesnt like it.

When reality doesnt suit your needs, some do the only thing they can, manufacture their own reality.

 

[justlookinla]

Evolution is just an explanation of observation. If we ever observe god in some definite way, they'll be theories abound in regards to details about its existence, etc. We observe that populations change over time, and we observe certain mechanisms that facilitate the change. Evolutionary theory explains this observation in a concise way.

Let me ask again, we're talking about only naturalistic mechanisms creating humanity?

 

[justlookinla]

It seems clear that you consider any scientific that doesn't mention God as atheistic. As viewpoints go, this is a little (cough, cough) one might say--strange?.

I consider the viewpoint that only random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form of long long ago as atheistic.

[QUOTE It is your story and you are going to stick to it no matter what the evidence.[/QUOTE]

Like it or not, the creative impetus for the creation of all life we observe today eliminates anything other than non-theistic guesses and suppositions.

If you have anything of substance to offer....do it.

Since you know so terribly little about either science or evolution, your comment doesn't carry much weight.

Dizredux

I know that atheistic Darwinist creationism promoted by 'scientists' isn't science.

 

[justlookinla]

Problem is, evolution doesn't go into anything in regards to philosophy or theology on way or the other, and it is evidenced based, regardless as to whether or not you like it.

First, no atheistic Darwinist creationism isn't evidence based. It's a creationist viewpoint of how humanity was created and their value. In ADC, a human is no more than a sack of chemicals.

That's the basis for ADC worldview.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

it's more awkward because the ekklesia born from above don't allow such discussions in their meetings. - pagan discussions of things opposed to yhvh, opposed to truth, oppressing souls.

yet, still, the emissary paul went right into the midst of the pagan statues (like here), and boldly and plainly proclaimed the 'unknown god' as the one true Creator Yhvh and the savior, the only savior, Yahushua Messiah.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Let me ask again, we're talking about only naturalistic mechanisms creating humanity?

Only because that is all we can see really. In a definitive way, but non naturalistic influences are not denied nor suggested.

 

[justlookinla]

Only because that is all we can see really. In a definitive way, but non naturalistic influences are not denied nor suggested.

But you cannot see only naturalistic mechanisms creating anything remotely as complex as the human machine.

 

[PsychoSarah]

But you cannot see only naturalistic mechanisms creating anything remotely as complex as the human machine.

I could jokingly mention procreation...

We can observe it more than you observe a deity creating anything. At least evolution has fossil evidence, you can't even claim Genesis as being an eyewitness account because there wouldn't have been any human witnesses to it; especially not any you would claim as an author of the bible.

And while I will never deny the possibility that a deity could be involved in the existence of life, any scenario that would make the theory of evolution as it stands completely invalid because of a deity's involvement would require said deity to make it look all naturalistic on purpose. Which means evolution supporters would still be the people making logical observations, thanks to the quirks of deity trolling.

 

[Delphiki]

But you cannot see only naturalistic mechanisms creating anything remotely as complex as the human machine.

On the contrary. The internet is full of videos and photos of the natural processes for creating human life. We're just not allowed to link them here.

 

[Davian]

Let me ask again, we're talking about only naturalistic mechanisms creating humanity?

What other kinds of "mechanisms" are there?

 

[JayFern]

Let me ask again, we're talking about only naturalistic mechanisms creating humanity?

What other kinds of "mechanisms" are there?

Magic?

 

[Davian]

Magic?

 

[justlookinla]

By that definition, Atheistic Darwinist creationism is not a scientific theory. Therefore it is not taught in schools as science.

Point out where any impetus, other than only naturalistic mechanisms, is allowed, permitted or discussed in our schools. Yes, the atheistic Darwinist creationist view is the only view allowed in our schools for the creation of all life from an alleged single life form.

 

[bhsmte]

What other kinds of "mechanisms" are there?

Interesting question.

 

[justlookinla]

It seems clear that you consider any scientific that doesn't mention God as atheistic. As viewpoints go, this is a little (cough, cough) one might say--strange?.

Atheistic Darwinist creationism isn't scientific, it's a creationist viewpoint which teaches that one's existence is from, and only from, a random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanism acting on an alleged single life form from long long ago.

No God needed or allowed for you to exist is the message.

It is your story and you are going to stick to it no matter what the evidence.

There is no evidence that humanity owes it's existence to only random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago. That view is simply a faith based view of atheistic Darwinist creationism.

Since you know so terribly little about either science or evolution, your comment doesn't carry much weight.

Dizredux

I'm sure in your mind yours does. Keep promoting the Godless view of humanity's existence and you'll have the Godless to support your delusions.

 

[selfinflikted]

Point out where any impetus, other than only naturalistic mechanisms, is allowed, permitted or discussed in our schools. Yes, the atheistic Darwinist creationist view is the only view allowed in our schools for the creation of all life from an alleged single life form.

Things that belong in science class: science.

Things that do not belong in science class: superstitions.

 

[justlookinla]

Things that belong in science class: science.

Things that do not belong in science class: superstitions.

And this is why the baseless view of a form of creationism which teaches all life forms are the result of only random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless is not science and shouldn't be taught in schools.

 

[Dizredux]

Diz

Since you know so terribly little about either science or evolution, your comment doesn't carry much weight.

Just

I'm sure in your mind yours does. Keep promoting the Godless view of humanity's existence and you'll have the Godless to support your delusions.

Your response does not relate to my statement in the least. Reading comprehension again?

Next, where do you get the idea that I am promoting a Godless view of humanity's existence? I have said many times that I believe God made the world/universe and it all operates under the rules he made. I don't understand what you said in light of what I have made it very clear that I believe. I find myself wondering if this also doesn't go back to reading comprehension issues.

Lastly I wonder about the smiley. It is a interesting one to use after a rather insulting comment. I see you doing this often. I wonder if it is you giving a thumbs up to your own comment?

Dizredux

​

 

[selfinflikted]

And this is why the baseless view of a form of creationism which teaches all life forms are the result of only random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless is not science and shouldn't be taught in schools.

Wrong. One is based on science and evidence; the other on superstition. One belongs in a science class, one does not.

You want to teach your kids about gods and creation myths, send them to church.