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.
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"."Only" is suggested by the definition of Darwinism.
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?
That's one creationist viewpoint. It's not the one taught in our public schools though. And shouldn't be, IMO.
God could do it. The issue is why only one creationist viewpoint, which is inherently atheistic, is being taught as fact in our schools.
"Only" is suggested by the definition of Darwinism.
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. "
Read my questions to her concerning her post.
You're trying mightily for the 'yer a liar' response. Typical.
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
And in the scientific explanation, WHO is the creating entity?
Doesn't a creationist viewpoint need a creating entity? WHO is the creating entity in the scientific explanation?
So you are ASSUMING that it is there, aren't you?
Where in there does it deny God's involvement?
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.
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.
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"
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.
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.
No, there are millions who reject the inherently atheistic Darwinist creationist viewpoint. No Christian embraces the inherently atheistic view of Darwinist creationism.
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.
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.
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!
Do you accept the view that humanity was created only, solely, totally, completely by naturalistic means?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?