How were you taught Evolution?

[Dizredux]

"Only" is suggested by the definition of Darwinism.

But it appears that it is suggested only by your own private internal voices. Can you show where anyone else is saying what you assert is suggested? So far you seem to be a church composed of only one person. Perhaps we can call it the Church of "Only".


Dizredux

 

[Kylie]

Because Darwinists have never demonstrated that such a thing is what actually happens. Why would God set up a system that violates his very laws?

Are you actually suggesting that we've never seen natural selection occur? Oh, goodness, that's hilarious!

 

[Kylie]

That's one creationist viewpoint. It's not the one taught in our public schools though. And shouldn't be, IMO.

And in the scientific explanation, WHO is the creating entity?

God could do it. The issue is why only one creationist viewpoint, which is inherently atheistic, is being taught as fact in our schools.

Doesn't a creationist viewpoint need a creating entity? WHO is the creating entity in the scientific explanation?

"Only" is suggested by the definition of Darwinism.

So you are ASSUMING that it is there, aren't you?

This creationist viewpoint denies God's involvement...

"Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. "

​

Where in there does it deny God's involvement?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Read my questions to her concerning her post.

You're trying mightily for the 'yer a liar' response. Typical.

And you are trying mightily to avoid a direct answer. Quatona told us that the definition you posted was taught in his Catholic school. Do you dispute this? Simple yes or no answer.

If yes, on what basis? Note: if the basis on which you dispute this conforms, like your previous posts, to this argument structure:

You: This peg is square!

Me: No, this peg is round. See how it fits in the round hole?

You: It can't fit in the round hole because it is square!

...then you are begging the question rather than supplying an argument. The fact is that we have heard from Quatona that his Catholic school was teaching the posted definition. You know this proves that said definition is not atheistic so you have no recourse but to claim baselessly that Quatona is wrong or lying. Or you could admit you're wrong.

 

[justlookinla]

But it appears that it is suggested only by your own private internal voices. Can you show where anyone else is saying what you assert is suggested? So far you seem to be a church composed of only one person. Perhaps we can call it the Church of "Only".


Dizredux

Perhaps we should call it the Church of the Creator. You do know that the creator isn't only naturalistic mechanisms, don't you?

 

[justlookinla]

And in the scientific explanation, WHO is the creating entity?

In atheistic creationism, only naturalistic mechanisms is creator. You're a product of only, totally, solely naturalistic mechanisms....according to the atheistic gospel.

Doesn't a creationist viewpoint need a creating entity? WHO is the creating entity in the scientific explanation?

When non-humanity becomes humanity, yes there is creator. Depends on one's worldview who creator is. In atheistic creationism, naturalistic mechanisms is the only creator.

So you are ASSUMING that it is there, aren't you?

No, nothing else is suggested in the definition.

Where in there does it deny God's involvement?

It denies any involvement other than naturalistic mechanisms. Find something else in the definition and point it out, if you can.

"all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations"​

 

[justlookinla]

And you are trying mightily to avoid a direct answer. Quatona told us that the definition you posted was taught in his Catholic school. Do you dispute this? Simple yes or no answer.

If yes, on what basis? Note: if the basis on which you dispute this conforms, like your previous posts, to this argument structure:

You: This peg is square!

Me: No, this peg is round. See how it fits in the round hole?

You: It can't fit in the round hole because it is square!

...then you are begging the question rather than supplying an argument. The fact is that we have heard from Quatona that his Catholic school was teaching the posted definition. You know this proves that said definition is not atheistic so you have no recourse but to claim baselessly that Quatona is wrong or lying. Or you could admit you're wrong.

Read my response to her. Let's see what she says.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Read my response to her. Let's see what she says.

Why do I have to wait for her to respond for you to address what Quatona has already posted? That's absurd. Please address Quatona's testimony:

Quatona told us that the definition you posted was taught in his Catholic school. Do you dispute this? Simple yes or no answer.

If yes, on what basis? Note: if the basis on which you dispute this conforms, like your previous posts, to this argument structure:

You: This peg is square!

Me: No, this peg is round. See how it fits in the round hole?

You: It can't fit in the round hole because it is square!

...then you are begging the question rather than supplying an argument. The fact is that we have heard from Quatona that his Catholic school was teaching the posted definition. You know this proves that said definition is not atheistic so you have no recourse but to claim baselessly that Quatona is wrong or lying. Or you could admit you're wrong.

 

[justlookinla]

Why do I have to wait for her to respond for you to address what Quatona has already posted? That's absurd. Please address Quatona's testimony:

Quatona told us that the definition you posted was taught in his Catholic school. Do you dispute this? Simple yes or no answer.

If yes, on what basis? Note: if the basis on which you dispute this conforms, like your previous posts, to this argument structure:

You: This peg is square!

Me: No, this peg is round. See how it fits in the round hole?

You: It can't fit in the round hole because it is square!

...then you are begging the question rather than supplying an argument. The fact is that we have heard from Quatona that his Catholic school was teaching the posted definition. You know this proves that said definition is not atheistic so you have no recourse but to claim baselessly that Quatona is wrong or lying. Or you could admit you're wrong.

I've questioned Quatona for further clarification on what was taught in the Catholic school. Let's find out if the Catholic school actually does teach a Godless creation. Personally, I doubt it does.

 

[Kylie]

I've questioned Quatona for further clarification on what was taught in the Catholic school. Let's find out if the Catholic school actually does teach a Godless creation. Personally, I doubt it does.

They'd teach what you said, but unlike you, they can see that there's room for God in there.

 

[justlookinla]

They'd teach what you said, but unlike you, they can see that there's room for God in there.

Where is there room for anything but naturalistic processes in the following definition....

"all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations"​

 

[Kylie]

Where is there room for anything but naturalistic processes in the following definition....

"all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations"​

How about this?

All species of organisms arise and develop through the tool of natural selection of small, inherited variations as used by God.​

I am not contradicting you since I have not removed anything you said.

Now, if you want to show me what, if anything, in what you said, prevents God from operating?

 

[justlookinla]

How about this?

All species of organisms arise and develop through the tool of natural selection of small, inherited variations as used by God.​

I am not contradicting you since I have not removed anything you said.

Now, if you want to show me what, if anything, in what you said, prevents God from operating?

That's no longer the definition for Darwinism. You've added something to it that wasn't there.

 

[Kylie]

That's no longer the definition for Darwinism. You've added something to it that wasn't there.

There is nothing in there that PREVENTS what I said. If you want to show me something that PREVENTS it, feel free. Otherwise, just drop it.

 

[justlookinla]

There is nothing in there that PREVENTS what I said. If you want to show me something that PREVENTS it, feel free. Otherwise, just drop it.

There is nothing which prevents you from changing the definition, but you have to change the definition to include anything other than atheistic creationism by only, totally, solely naturalistic mechanisms.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

No, there are millions who reject the inherently atheistic Darwinist creationist viewpoint. No Christian embraces the inherently atheistic view of Darwinist creationism.

I am a Christian and I accept that evolution is God's chosen means of creating the varieties of life.

I accepted Christ at the age of nine before I learned about evolution.

 

[Kylie]

There is nothing which prevents you from changing the definition, but you have to change the definition to include anything other than atheistic creationism by only, totally, solely naturalistic mechanisms.

You're the one claiming that it's inherently atheistic in the first place!

And my point is that while we understand the process fairly well, there's NOTHING to say it is not a tool used by God!

 

[justlookinla]

I am a Christian and I accept that evolution is God's chosen means of creating the varieties of life.

I accepted Christ at the age of nine before I learned about evolution.

Do you accept the view that humanity was created only, solely, totally, completely by naturalistic means?

 

[justlookinla]

You're the one claiming that it's inherently atheistic in the first place!

And my point is that while we understand the process fairly well, there's NOTHING to say it is not a tool used by God!

It is inherently atheistic. You have to modify it, change it, for it to include creation impetuses other than solely, completely, totally, only naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Do you accept the view that humanity was created only, solely, totally, completely by naturalistic means?

I consider that as one possibility, and it may be that it is necessary for mankind to be created that way in order to finally wrest control of earth away from Satan.

Here's a possible scenario: Satan is postponing his eventual judgement by clinging to his pre-fall gift of stewardship of this earth. There's no legal way to kick him out. However, if naturally evolved spiritual beings come along and take over the planet, they can kick him out being of the earth themselves. Not in our own strength of course, but in our own right to be here.

Hence evolution of mankind, the desperation of Satan to bring about the fall, and the postponed final eviction of Satan. When the resurrection of all mankind takes place, and the lost are dispatched and the redeemed left, they will then complete our mission of casting Satan out of the earth.

See? Not only is evolution natural, it has to be that way in order for the plan to work right!

That's just a suggested scenario, it is not an article of faith for anyone.

But it is enough to show you your ideas that evolution has to be evil are misplaced, you haven't considered all the possibilities.

And since we know evolution is true . . . as certainly as the sky is blue and the galaxies are beyond our reach . . . you should be striving to reconcile evolution with your religion instead of making your religion proveably in error.