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.
Funny how the votes go from 0 to 4 when I point out that nobody voted for the first option, even justlookingla... Now, I wonder if it's a matter of dishonesty or a matter of not understanding the poll.
If by 'people' you are referring specifically to anyone who bothers to answer your question, then no.
First, for me, is the scripture in my signature. A close second is the impossibility for solely naturalistic mechanisms to produce the infinitely complex and varied life we observe today by a series of random, meaningless, mindless, purposeless (other than procreation) and directionless mechanisms which is the basis for Darwinist creationism.
The evidence for solely naturalistic processes producing humanity from a single life form of long long ago.....please?
Ditto.
What is being taught in science class is a single creation worldview. The smokescreen of 'we can only teach science in a science class' doesn't hide the conclusion of this 'science' is actually a creationist view that all of life we observe today is the completely, totally, only, solely the result of naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago. Your leading, and misleading, questions concerning God being mentioned or not mentioned thereby suggesting a neutral position concerning creation is a false conclusion. It's not neutral. The creationist worldview taught doesn't mention God, but it does teach, covertly, that God isn't needed. Isn't required. The only thing that is responsible for non-humanity becoming humanity are naturalistic mechanisms. They're adequate, proven and the only answer allowed for non-humanity becoming humanity.
This the the issue you're not dealing with.
Of course it does, according to the 'science' being taught to our children. Nothing is needed for humanity to be created from a single life form of long long ago other than naturalistic mechanisms. There is no other creative process proven except for one....naturalistic mechanisms.
Deal with the issue.
So do you actually believe evolution (or macroevolution if you prefer) occurred?
Perhaps you could provide a rare straight answer to this: if evolutionary theory is so inherently atheistic, why do so many Christians here and worldwide accept it in exactly the same form that atheists do? I know you will claim they don't, but that's just your assertion against first hand testimony from numerous members here.
No Christian accepts the view that all of life, including humanity, is a Godless creation process.
Not in the sense of Darwinist, undirected, evolution. I embrace intelligent design.
I see you've finally had some marginal success in your attempt to swing the discussion in the direction of evidence for evolution. I mean it was a fairly artless attempt to avoid presenting even one shred of evidence that your "atheistic creationism" is taught in any science class besides those populating your overwrought imagination, but nice try.
You also refuse to give a straight answer on whether you think "other impetuses" besides the natural ones should be taught in science class. I think we both know the answer is yes, but we also both know that you can't admit that without undermining that high horse you're perched upon.
Correct. So the fact that many have professed belief in the wiki definition you posted and the lessons they learned in school should lead you to the obvious conclusion that those things are not inherently atheistic as you imagine.
Does that mean you accept that we are descended from a non-human ancestor?
Also, you missed this:
You also refuse to give a straight answer on whether you think "other impetuses" besides the natural ones should be taught in science class. I think we both know the answer is yes, but we also both know that you can't admit that without undermining that high horse you're perched upon.
You're still not getting it. Or maybe you are but just aren't able to face it. This is about creationism, how was humanity created from a single life form of long long ago. Answer: Not by a series of random, meaningless, mindless, purposeless (other than procreation) and directionless naturalistic processes.
Teach all the natural impetuses you have observation and evidence for. Don't teach psuedo-science of atheistic creationism.
sci·ence
ˈsīəns/Submit
noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
If it ain't that, don't teach it. If it is, teach it.
That alone would, and will in the future, eliminate the one creationist worldview being taught as science today.....atheistic creationism.
Yet a gain you've avoided actually answering the question asked. Do you think "other impetuses" besides the natural ones should be taught in science class?
If the creationist view teaches that only naturalistic processes created humanity, no other impetus, no other involvement, no other power needed than only, solely, completely naturalistic processes, then that creationist view is an atheistic creationist view.
Nope. We are a special creation.
I answered above.
Correct. But you have not given evidence that such a view is being taught. And it certainly doesn't address the fact that many Christians have professed belief in the wiki definition you posted and the lessons they learned in school and that this proves that those views are not inherently atheistic. You keep dancing around this for obvious reasons.
That's what I thought. So you really object to evolution being taught at all.
If you think we are a special creation than you should not be happy even if science classes taught explicitly that humans evolved through natural processes guided by God.
You quoted that post, but you avoided actually responding to the question posed.
Of course not. I've stated that over and over.
I'm not dancing around anything. No Christian believes in a Godless creation of all life.
Nope. And this is something else I've made clear over and over.
Creationism has no place in our schools, IMO. That's why the one creationist view which is being promoted in schools now will be challenged and eliminated.
That will leave a form of evolution of which we have evidence and observation for. (Science)
Of course the atheist agenda will oppose pulling their creationist worldview out of our schools.
So to review, you don't think that any non-natural mechanisms should be taught, but you also think it is inherently atheistic not to mention those non-natural mechanisms. Seems like you're setting yourself up for disappointment.
There, you just did it again. Instead of responding to the point you just repeated the obvious point that Christians aren't atheists. Please address the fact that Christians accept the view of origins in the wiki definition.
So is it just the idea that humans evolved from non-humans that you object to or does your displeasure extend to all other organisms as well (e.g. birds evolved from dinosaurs)?
Nope. It's inherently atheistic to teach that natural mechanisms alone, needing nothing else, sufficient within themselves, created humanity from a single life form from long long ago.
After discussion, Christians modify the wiki definition to include God in some form or fashion.
Once again, no Christian embraces the viewpoint that all of life we observe today is a Godless creation. And that is addressing the wiki definition.
I object to the viewpoint that any life was created entirely, totally, completely, only by naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.
Atheistic creationism, creation of all life by only, solely naturalistic mechanisms isn't science. It's faith-based creationism.
So you agree that supernatural mechanisms shouldn't be taught, but natural mechanisms shouldn't be considered sufficient. That seems like a paradox.
They modify it no more than you do. To you it is implicitly atheistic, to them it is implicitly theistic. But you refuse to accept this.
Not what I asked. You don't believe that humans evolved from non-humans whether by divine influence or not.
Do you believe that birds evolved from dinosaurs with the help of God?
There's a whole bunch of evidence for evolution that conforms to the definition of science. A discussion of that evidence is not the focus of this thread and would not, I suspect based on your attitude, be fruitful.
Not at all. Why teach the creationist viewpoint that only, solely, completely naturalistic mechanisms created all life from a single life form of long long ago?
It's theistic only if it's modified to include God. In discussions with Christians, those who do not embrace the worldview of Godless creationism, humanity isn't the product of only, solely, completely naturalistic mechanisms.
Right. I don't embrace that creationist viewpoint which claims humans were created from non-humans.
No.
There's no evidence for the creation of humanity from a single life form of long long ago which would fit that definition of science.
Really. Please roughly outline how you would teach evolution in a way that doesn't invoke supernatural influences but also doesn't present natural mechanisms as sufficient.
Not quite. When they invoke God they are not modifying the scientific theory, they are expressing a metaphysical position. The theory remains unchanged.
, as I said you don't actually believe in evolution (in the way real evolutionary biologists, not you, use the word) at all.
This seems to be at the root of your refusal to accept that the theory can be accepted by theists and atheists alike. I'm very interested to see what you would consider an acceptable way to teach it in science class.
There's no evidence that refutes the possibility of supernatural influence because no such influence could be detected scientifically.
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?