• 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.

God used Evolution to create man

Status
Not open for further replies.

justlookinla

Regular Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,767
199
✟35,675.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Diz Just Your response does not relate to my statement in the least. Reading comprehension again?​


Read it again. Slowly. Especially the part about my comments not carrying much weight, but of course yours does. Close your eyes, clear your mind and ponder it.

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.

Every time someone challenges the Godless viewpoint that humanity is the product of something other than only naturalistic mechanisms, you show up to defend the Godless view. Your whiffling on the subject does little to establish your viewpoint.

Lastly I wonder about the smiley:thumbsup:. 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

It's an 'attaboy'. :thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0

justlookinla

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

There is no science supporting, nor evidence for, the atheistic Darwinist creationist view which teaches all life forms are the result of only random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.
 
Upvote 0
D

DerelictJunction

Guest
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.
Prove it.
I just told you it's not taught. All you have to do is show me evidence of one place that it is taught as science.

Because you cannot provide that evidence, I expect you will repeat the evasive show-me-something-other-than-naturalistic-mechanisms request.
 
Upvote 0
D

DerelictJunction

Guest
There is no science supporting, nor evidence for, the atheistic Darwinist creationist view which teaches all life forms are the result of only random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.
This is, of course, incorrect, which you have been told many times before.

BTW: Did you ever learn what evidence is?
 
Upvote 0

justlookinla

Regular Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,767
199
✟35,675.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Prove it.
I just told you it's not taught. All you have to do is show me evidence of one place that it is taught as science.

When evolution is taught in schools, is any other impetus other than ONLY random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanisms acting on an alleged single life form from long long ago included, allowed, permitted or discussed? Of course it isn't.

Stop playing games.

Because you cannot provide that evidence, I expect you will repeat the evasive show-me-something-other-than-naturalistic-mechanisms request.

You betcha! That's because that's the only creationist view allowed for the evolutionary 'science' taught in schools. No evidence for the view, only guesses and suppositions. But it's still the only creationist view taught.

Why?
 
Upvote 0

selfinflikted

Under Deck
Jul 13, 2006
11,441
786
46
✟39,014.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
There is no science supporting, nor evidence for, the atheistic Darwinist creationist view which teaches all life forms are the result of only random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

Aside from what other posters have been repeatedly pointing out to you regard what the ToE actually says and what is taught in science classes in this country, you are, again, wrong. There are mountains of evidence supporting the ToE and the processes involved therein. There is, conversely, not ONE shred of evidence that anything supernatural is going on in evolution. Not one.
 
Upvote 0

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟46,103.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
Point out where any impetus, other than only naturalistic mechanisms, is allowed, permitted or discussed in our schools.
What other kinds of "mechanisms" are there, that could be covered in a science class?
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.
Please provide an actual example of a textbook or course synopsis for this. I make it a point to review the biology textbooks that my children are using, and I have seen no mention of this "atheistic Darwinist creationist view".
 
Upvote 0

justlookinla

Regular Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,767
199
✟35,675.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
This is, of course, incorrect, which you have been told many times before.

BTW: Did you ever learn what evidence is?

Give it. Show that ONLY naturalistic mechanisms created humanity from a single life form of long long ago. No guesses and suppositions, might be's, could have been's and possibly's now.
 
Upvote 0

justlookinla

Regular Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,767
199
✟35,675.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
What other kinds of "mechanisms" are there, that could be covered in a science class?

Why cover mechanisms which are nothing more than guesses and suppositions, could be's, might have been's and possibly's?

Please provide an actual example of a textbook or course synopsis for this. I make it a point to review the biology textbooks that my children are using, and I have seen no mention of this "atheistic Darwinist creationist view".

Do you see anything other than the guesses and suppositions of only naturalistic mechanisms producing humanity from an alleged single life form of long long ago?
 
Upvote 0

FredVB

Regular Member
Mar 11, 2010
5,013
1,015
America
Visit site
✟325,547.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Getting out of what? Not having anything for an explanation for all that there is? If you actually look carefully to understand my argument, you would likely see that the logic doesn't appeal to God existing, the logic establishes that there is necessary existence, that existence is not finite by its necessity and is without any limit, and that has this necessary existence being the cause of all other things coming into being. This does not appeal to God, but what is established by logic with it is fully consistent with people's belief in God. There is no argument against that logically possible.
If the necessary existence was the universe itself, the universe would show all the characteristics of necessary existence. Necessary existence is absolutely necessary, it wouldn't be otherwise, by that necessity, and so would not change by evolving, never having a beginning either, that would only be something possible for what wouldn't be necessary existence. With the absolute necessity would be no limit or being finite. There would not be any uneven gaps. With there being power with being necessary existence, there would be infinite power. If there were ever any intelligence then there would be intelligence that is all-knowing. I could go on like that. The universe the way it appears is not like that at all. But one who believes that the universe is a manifestation of that infinite, omnipresent being, which would be omnipotent, would be consistent with that much of the logic, being a pantheist that way. This would not be an atheist position though, and the atheists have no explanation and are ignorant of that logic, either willfully if it is heard or conceived, or else never having come to that logic. So they cannot have anything consistent with it from their position.

The same argument would apply for fairies, leprechauns, and unicorns.
Believing in something that has no evidence is not logical.
Then all you have is a God of the Gaps argument.

How do those who don't want to see the logic of necessary existence equate it with things that are believed in without the logic or evidence? There isn't the same argument at all, it can't even be shown. And even you will believe some things without evidence. And there are abundant gaps in evidence for what is believed of evolution from natural processes without intelligence. The argument I made throughout my posts here wouldn't have really been looked at and considered then, you will put faith instead then in all that was needed for all the universe being here coming into existence when there was absolutely nothing existing for it before, and still claim the only position that is logical.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
D

DerelictJunction

Guest
How do those who don't want to see the logic of necessary existence equate it with things that are believed in without the logic or evidence? There isn't the same argument at all, it can't even be shown. And even you will believe some things without evidence. And there are abundant gaps in evidence for what is believed of evolution from natural processes without intelligence. The argument I made throughout my posts here wouldn't have really been looked at and considered then, you will put faith instead then in all that was needed for all the universe being here coming into existence when there was absolutely nothing existence for it before, and still claim the only position that is logical.
What is "necessary existence"?

Why does "necessary existence" require something to exist besides this universe?
 
Upvote 0

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟46,103.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
<snip strawman>
I asked, what other kinds of "mechanisms" are there, that could be covered in a science class?
<snip strawman>
Please provide an actual example of a textbook or course synopsis to support your claim. I make it a point to review the biology textbooks that my children are using, and I have seen no mention of this "atheistic Darwinist creationist view".

If you cannot provide this information, or if there is a reading and comprehension problem on your part, just repeat yourself.
 
Upvote 0

justlookinla

Regular Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,767
199
✟35,675.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I asked, what other kinds of "mechanisms" are there, that could be covered in a science class?

And I told you. Those mechanisms which created humanity from an alleged single life form of long long ago. Can't identify them? Of course not. You can guess, suppose and wish, but there's nothing there, is it?

Please provide an actual example of a textbook or course synopsis to support your claim. I make it a point to review the biology textbooks that my children are using, and I have seen no mention of this "atheistic Darwinist creationist view".

If you cannot provide this information, or if there is a reading and comprehension problem on your part, just repeat yourself.

I don't have a biology textbook handy, but since you do have a biology textbook, I challenge you to find anything other than the guesses and suppositions of only naturalistic mechanisms producing humanity from an alleged single life form of long long ago. Can't do it?
 
Upvote 0

selfinflikted

Under Deck
Jul 13, 2006
11,441
786
46
✟39,014.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
And I told you. Those mechanisms which created humanity from an alleged single life form of long long ago. Can't identify them? Of course not. You can guess, suppose and wish, but there's nothing there, is it?



I don't have a biology textbook handy, but since you do have a biology textbook, I challenge you to find anything other than the guesses and suppositions of only naturalistic mechanisms producing humanity from an alleged single life form of long long ago. Can't do it?

You should seriously stop. I mean, you're making our case FOR us at this point, and making yourself look absolutely barking mad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bhsmte
Upvote 0

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟46,103.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
And I told you. Those mechanisms which created humanity from an alleged single life form of long long ago. Can't identify them? Of course not. You can guess, suppose and wish, but there's nothing there, is it?
Indeed, only naturalistic mechanisms. By all objective measures to date, there is nothing else, your own guesses, presuppositions, and wishes notwithstanding.
I don't have a biology textbook handy, but since you do have a biology textbook, I challenge <snip move of goalposts>
Grab some intellectual integrity, and go to the library, and get your own science textbook, and show us this "atheistic Darwinist creationist view" that you go on about, or abdicate.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.