How were you taught Evolution?

[Kylie]

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

There you go sticking that ONLY in there again...

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.

If something does not mention X but leaves space where X can be, then the thing is not denying X. You need to learn this.

 

[EternalDragon]

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.

There is just one problem. God never said he used evolution nor long ages to create life. He said he created all the varieties, fully grown and mature, in six, 24 hour days. Humans and plants as well. Jesus confirms that part of the bible in the NT as true history.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

There is just one problem. God never said he used evolution nor long ages to create life. He said he created all the varieties, fully grown and mature, in six, 24 hour days. Humans and plants as well. Jesus confirms that part of the bible in the NT as true history.

Nope.

 

[EternalDragon]

Nope.

Have you not read?

Matt. 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.


John 5:45 Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; uthere is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. 46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; vfor he wrote about Me. 47 But if you wdo not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Have you not read?

Matt. 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.


John 5:45 Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; uthere is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. 46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; vfor he wrote about Me. 47 But if you wdo not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”

Oh, you should have said in the first place that the Bible said you were right. Now I'm convinced...said no atheist ever.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

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.

Desperate. You don't like the answer he gave because it proves you wrong, so you're going to keep asking him if he was taught that humans were created solely by natural processes for the billionth time. He'll say no and you'll ask him exactly the same thing again because you can't accept that you're wrong.

I asked him point blank if the posted definition was what he was taught and he said yes. You're so blinded by your utter certainty that the definition you posted is inherently atheistic that you can't accept the obvious conclusion: if Catholics are teaching that definition, it must not be inherently atheistic. Plus numerous Christians here have told you explicitly that the posted definition is in line with what they believe and still you insist that it's atheistic. What's wrong with you?

 

[Atheos canadensis]

duplicate

 

[Dizredux]

KTS

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?

Just

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

Oh the irony. You add the words "only, totally, completely, solely" to a perfectly good but limited definition of evolution offered by Wiki and then insist that definition and yours agree.

Then you have the chutzpah to complain because KTS added the words "as used by God" when you add your magic words "only, totally, completely, solely " to the Wiki statement and expect people to buy it.

Just, a lot of people on the forum are trying to tell you something. Do try to listen, listening is a productive part of achieving good mental health.

Dizredux

 

[EternalDragon]

Oh, you should have said in the first place that the Bible said you were right. Now I'm convinced...said no atheist ever.

Um...the person I was responding to said they were a Christian. Christian's follow God's word. So your response is sort of redundant and out of place.

 

[justlookinla]

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.

How could it be a possibility and in agreement with this scripture...

Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
​

If that scripture is true, then humanity wasn't created only, solely, totally, completely by naturalistic mechanisms, but was created by naturalistic mechanisms plus something else, in this instance, Jesus Christ. That's theistic evolution, isn't it? A view of theistic creationism?

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.

The naturally evolved spiritual beings would still be a creation of Jesus Christ and not by a completely naturalistic process.

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.

Interesting viewpoint.

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

Nope, I've never suggested that evolution is evil or misplaced. I do believe that a Godless creation, a creation of only, totally, completely, solely naturalistic mechanisms creating humanity is evil though. It's Godless. Godlessness is evil.

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.

This isn't about evolution, this is about what/who created humanity...and all life. From no humanity to humanity. From a single life form of long long ago to the complex and varied life we observe today. How?

 

[bhsmte]

Um...the person I was responding to said they were a Christian. Christian's follow God's word. So your response is sort of redundant and out of place.

Do all Christians believe the bible is inerrant?

Do all Christians interpret scripture as you do?

 

[justlookinla]

There you go sticking that ONLY in there again...

You betcha. No other impetus is allowed for the creation of humanity from non-humanity but...only....completely, totally, solely naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

If something does not mention X but leaves space where X can be, then the thing is not denying X. You need to learn this.

There is no space for X...or Y....or Z. There is only space for A (Atheistic creationism).

 

[justlookinla]

Desperate. You don't like the answer he gave because it proves you wrong, so you're going to keep asking him if he was taught that humans were created solely by natural processes for the billionth time. He'll say no and you'll ask him exactly the same thing again because you can't accept that you're wrong.

I asked him point blank if the posted definition was what he was taught and he said yes. You're so blinded by your utter certainty that the definition you posted is inherently atheistic that you can't accept the obvious conclusion: if Catholics are teaching that definition, it must not be inherently atheistic. Plus numerous Christians here have told you explicitly that the posted definition is in line with what they believe and still you insist that it's atheistic. What's wrong with you?

This is what's wrong with the viewpoint that only, totally, completely, solely naturalistic mechanisms created humanity from non-humanity.....

Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

 

[justlookinla]

Do all Christians believe the bible is inerrant?

Do all Christians interpret scripture as you do?

Do any Christians deny this scripture.....

Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

 

[Dizredux]

Do any Christians deny this scripture.....

Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

What is the problem? Any Christian probably would agree with this passage but I can see no way it conflicts with the view that natural processes were put in place by God. That includes evolution.

Can you point out the problem without using the words only, totally, completely or solely?

An interesting challenge. I bet you can come up with a way but we shall see in your response if you are able to address the issue or will you pull up another non sequitur. Hope springs eternal.

Inquiring minds and all of that.

Dizredux

 

[Strathos]

Do any Christians deny this scripture.....

Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Guess what: The ToE doesn't deny that either!

 

[justlookinla]

What is the problem? Any Christian probably would agree with this passage but I can see no way it conflicts with the view that natural processes were put in place by God. That includes evolution.

It conflicts with the view that humanity was created from non-humanity by only, totally, solely, completely naturalistic processes.

Can you point out the problem without using the words only, totally, completely or solely?

That is the problem. Creationism by only, solely, completely, totally naturalistic process acting on a single life form from long long ago.

An interesting challenge. I bet you can come up with a way but we shall see in your response if you are able to address the issue or will you pull up another non sequitur. Hope springs eternal.

Yes, an interesting challenge, especially from the viewpoint of atheistic creationism. You, as well as the atheistic creationists on the forum, are upset with the exposure that Darwinism, as defined many time, is inherently Godless creationism.

Why is it Godless? It's Godless because all of life, including humanity, is the product of solely, completely, totally, only naturalistic processes acting on a single life form from long long ago.

Do you understand what that means?

Inquiring minds and all of that.

Dizredux

Yes, and I'm enjoying the inquiry.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Um...the person I was responding to said they were a Christian. Christian's follow God's word. So your response is sort of redundant and out of place.

I guess I was confused by the way your post was addressed to me. You sprayed your literalist nonsense, I said "nope",then you responded with scripture and I mocked the absurdity.

 

[justlookinla]

Guess what: The ToE doesn't deny that either!

This form of atheistic creationism does......

"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. "​

 

[Atheos canadensis]

This is what's wrong with the viewpoint that only, totally, completely, solely naturalistic mechanisms created humanity from non-humanity.....

Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Let's try that again, only this time try addressing the content of my post instead of just redundantly stating that you don't believe in an atheistic view of origins:

Desperate. You don't like the answer he gave because it proves you wrong, so you're going to keep asking him if he was taught that humans were created solely by natural processes for the billionth time. He'll say no and you'll ask him exactly the same thing again because you can't accept that you're wrong.

I asked him point blank if the posted definition was what he was taught and he said yes. You're so blinded by your utter certainty that the definition you posted is inherently atheistic that you can't accept the obvious conclusion: if Catholics are teaching that definition, it must not be inherently atheistic. Plus numerous Christians here have told you explicitly that the posted definition is in line with what they believe and still you insist that it's atheistic. What's wrong with you?