How were you taught Evolution?

[PsychoSarah]

What body?

Good point, if god doesn't have a body, how can one consider it to be male or female.

 

[justlookinla]

Calling it names won't stop the fact that human existence wasn't intentional.

Yes, you're certainly promoting the worldview presented to our children in school.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Yes, you're certainly promoting the worldview presented to our children in school.

Even the god of the bible didn't intend humans to turn out this way. Supposedly.

 

[AV1611VET]

Good point, if god doesn't have a body, how can one consider it to be male or female.

We have a top secret Document that explains all that.

 

[justlookinla]

Good point, if god doesn't have a body, how can one consider it to be male or female.

In the role of Father, the identity becomes male.

 

[CabVet]

Good point, if god doesn't have a body, how can one consider it to be male or female.

Oh, don't worry, God is male.

 

[justlookinla]

Even the god of the bible didn't intend humans to turn out this way. Supposedly.

Prove it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

We have a top secret Document that explains all that.

The gender of god is never explicitly given as being permanently male or female, I told you the bible describes it as both genders depending on the parts you read.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Prove it.

Garden of Eden, and shock/anger it expressed at humanity from eating of the forbidden fruit.

 

[CabVet]

The gender of god is never explicitly given as being permanently male or female, I told you the bible describes it as both genders depending on the parts you read.

Not the way most Christians read it.

 

[CabVet]

Garden of Eden, and shock/anger it expressed at humanity from eating of the forbidden fruit.

Not to mention destroying everything with a flood.

 

[bhsmte]

Not to mention destroying everything with a flood.

God likes water; walking on it and flooding everything.

 

[AV1611VET]

The gender of god is never explicitly given as being permanently male or female, I told you the bible describes it as both genders depending on the parts you read.

What pronoun would Jesus use?

 

[justlookinla]

Garden of Eden, and shock/anger it expressed at humanity from eating of the forbidden fruit.

Shock/anger? Do you have a reference for that?

 

[PsychoSarah]

What pronoun would Jesus use?

Jesus was human, and only 1/3 of the trinity. What pronoun would the Holy Spirit use?

 

[AV1611VET]

God likes water; walking on it and flooding everything.

Don't worry.

There's a place water can't go.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Shock/anger? Do you have a reference for that?

Should I really need to reference Genesis for you? Can you honestly not remember god being shocked that Adam and Eve knew they were naked?

 

[justlookinla]

Should I really need to reference Genesis for you? Can you honestly not remember god being shocked that Adam and Eve knew they were naked?

I've read the Genesis story many many many times and I don't remember where God was shocked that Adam and Eve knew they were naked.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I've read the Genesis story many many many times and I don't remember where God was shocked that Adam and Eve knew they were naked.

Genesis 3:10 to 3:13 at the shortest, although it becomes even more obvious if you read further than that.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Thing is, you have no idea, all you have is a series of guesses and suppositions which are then interpolated into 'facts', but there are no facts concerning the impetus which is capable of producing humanity from a single life form of long long ago. Doing this is directly attributing the creation of humanity to only naturalistic mechanisms, suggesting, or directly claiming, that there is evidence supporting this view, which is a creationist view.

Anything more than "we don't know how humanity was created" is suggestive of 'we do know how humanity was created', which is a false claim.

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the difference between guesses and inferences. Whether one thinks natural processes are all there is or that there is divine power ordaining them doesn't alter the evidence we have for the natural processes we have identified or their effect on biodiversity. You may not agree with that evidence, but that doesn't make scientific inferences unscientific guesses as you characterize them. I'm still waiting in fact for your to justify your claim that evolution as taught doesn't fit the requirements for science beyond simply posting the definition of science repeatedly.

The issue isn't about evolution by natural processes, the issue is what/who created humanity from a single life form of long long ago. Humanity was created either by entirely naturalistic mechanisms, or those naturalistic mechanisms are incapable of creating humanity therefore needing additional impetuses. Christians reject the viewpoint that naturalistic mechanisms are sufficient in and of themselves to create humanity and involve, in some manner, God as being an inseparable part of the creation process.

Your thinking is too black and white. As several Christians have tried to explain to you, it is perfectly possible to believe that our biota was created by natural processes. They accept that the natural processes we have identified are sufficient to create our biome. They think that God created these processes to provide them means of creating. Please note this distinction. Both theistic and atheistic evolution proponents accept that natural processes are sufficient to produce our biota, the only difference is the former believe that those processes are created by God. Do you understand? It is no different ultimately from believing that God just poofed everything into existence, but instead of using His "poofing" powers, God, used natural processes to create. The point is that according to methodological naturalism (the proper way to do science), there is no way to distinguish between divinely ordained processes and natural processes alone. That's why the same theory is taught in both Christian and secular schools and why both Christians and atheists accept it.

"The kind supported by science" is the best answer I can give. If the evolutionary view has scientific support, I accept it, if it doesn't, I tend to mostly reject it. Guesses and suppositions are just that.....guesses and suppositions.

No, I do not believe birds evolved, in a divinely ordained and sustained process, from dinosaurs.

.

Give an example. You don't even believe in two species of the same genus (crows and ravens) sharing an ancestor, something which even most creationists pass off as change within kind. Do you believe that the classic peppered moth example where the colour of the moths changed based on the colour of the substrate on which they lived represents evolution?