Understanding Evolution

[DogmaHunter]

Point out where it's wrong.

You mean like I have done so many times before? Why should I?
I already did plenty of times, why would I assume that this time you will not ignore it and continue to spread falsehoods?

Here goes nothing....
The word "only" - the way you phrase it, you imply that evolution theory is completely closed to any factor other then the ones that are known today. This is false. Come up with evidence of deities thinkering with DNA and biology will happily include it in the theory. The only reason non-natural mechanisms aren't included today is because there is no evidence such mechanisms exist - let alone play a role in this process.

Identify which part of random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless is in error.

All those terms are inappropriate to describe biological processes.
Take gravity as an example. It's neither purposefull nore purposeless. There's nothing there to label those attributes on. It's just a property of matter and it does what it does. It's just the nature of matter. It's a phenomena and words that are reserved for sentient activity are inappropriate to use to describe it. You could do it as a metaphore, but you must realise that it is just a metaphor in that case.

Of course non-naturalistic mechanisms are not allowed.

False. The only thing not allowed are things that have no evidence, that can't be supported. If tomorrow you demonstrate a role of a deity in the process, it will be included. Why would anyone inlclude anything for which not a shred of evidence exist (natural or non-natural)?

That's the reason there are court cases when such impetuses are suggested.

No. Creationists don't suggest anything. They impose without evidence and expect people to not question or scrutinize their nonsense. They want a free ride. They wish to bypass the entire scientific process. It has nothing to do with what they claim. It has everything to do with the intellectual bankrupcy they advocate.

Do you understand the difference between these two statements:

- non-natural mechanisms are not allowed
- there are no non-natural mechanisms known to play any kind of role in the process

The final conclusion is there is no difference.

Thanks for admitting your intellectual dishonesty.


That was the last straw for me.
I'm done feeding the troll now...

 

[DogmaHunter]

Those who believe like this believes war is necessary to remove the weak.

I'm living evidence of the contrary then I guess.

This belief of natural selection is in direct war with Christianity since we believe in protecting the weak and remove as much as possible the almighty natural selection from human society.

When you start with a false premise (the previous quote), then only nonsense will follow (like this quote).

 

[Mainframes]

I think you don't understand natural selection since it's not a real force. Death is the real force not NS. NS is all about eliminating the weak.

Then you dont understand natural selection at all. It is not about eliminating the weak, it is about ability to procreate given current environmental conditions.

 

[Mainframes]

Those who believe like this believes war is necessary to remove the weak. This belief of natural selection is in direct war with Christianity since we believe in protecting the weak and remove as much as possible the almighty natural selection from human society.
Some evolutionist believes by removing natural selection that the human race will become extinct.

Presumably you missed the bit in the bible where, after escaping Egypt and wandering the desert, the israelites proceeded to slaughter the inhabitants of Jericho down to the last man, woman and child......

 

[Smidlee]

Presumably you missed the bit in the bible where, after escaping Egypt and wandering the desert, the israelites proceeded to slaughter the inhabitants of Jericho down to the last man, woman and child......

There are times the war is necessary but not to wipe out the weak. We had to go to war to stop Hitler for example.

 

[Smidlee]

Then you dont understand natural selection at all. It is not about eliminating the weak, it is about ability to procreate given current environmental conditions.

Natural selection doesn't procreate anything as it's not a real force of nature. Death is how "nature" selects. It's so simple that a caveman can understand it.

 

[SkyWriting]

The word "only" - the way you phrase it, you imply that evolution theory is completely closed to any factor other then the ones that are known today. This is false. Come up with evidence of deities thinkering with DNA and biology will happily include it in the theory. The only reason non-natural mechanisms aren't included today is because there is no evidence such mechanisms exist - let alone play a role in this process.

That is correct. God does not show any supernatural effects on our reality. But that would be impossible anyway. Supernatural effects could not be detected using natural tools. You can't see the invisible.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That is correct. God does not show any supernatural effects on our reality. But that would be impossible anyway. Supernatural effects could not be detected using natural tools.

So, you can't tell the difference between a universe with and a universe without supernatural effects?

Then how can you tell that there are supernatural effects in this universe? Or anywhere else for that matter?

You can't see the invisible.

The non-existant and the invisible look very much alike ;-)

 

[JayFern]

The non-existant and the invisible look very much alike ;-)

They are exactly alike, every religion on earth bears testimony to that.

 

[justlookinla]

You mean like I have done so many times before? Why should I?
I already did plenty of times, why would I assume that this time you will not ignore it and continue to spread falsehoods?

Here goes nothing....
The word "only" - the way you phrase it, you imply that evolution theory is completely closed to any factor other then the ones that are known today. This is false.

You begin by using "evolution theory" as a monolithic term, with one meaning, with one view.....and that's not the case and is completely misleading in your usage. My argument and contention is with the evolutionary view that all of life we observe today is attributable to only one allowable impetus. This form of creationism, and it is creationism, has one impetus for changing an alleged single life form to humanity....naturalistic mechanisms. That form of evolutionary theory not "known today", that's simply a faith based creationist worldview.

Come up with evidence of deities thinkering with DNA and biology will happily include it in the theory.

Come up with evidence that only naturalistic mechanisms are capable of producing the incomprehensible complexity and variety of life we observe today and the challenge to Godless creationism will cease.

The only reason non-natural mechanisms aren't included today is because there is no evidence such mechanisms exist - let alone play a role in this process.

There is no evidence that only naturalistic mechanisms, driven by random/chance events and impetuses, is capable of producing the incomprehensibly complex human machine, yet they're included today. Evidence seems to not be the determining factor in the consideration of only one form of creationism.

All those terms are inappropriate to describe biological processes.
Take gravity as an example. It's neither purposefull nore purposeless. There's nothing there to label those attributes on. It's just a property of matter and it does what it does. It's just the nature of matter. It's a phenomena and words that are reserved for sentient activity are inappropriate to use to describe it. You could do it as a metaphore, but you must realise that it is just a metaphor in that case.

We aren't talking about gravity, we're talking about the impetus which created you and me....and all of life we observe on earth today. For example, beginning with the alleged first life form, something happened to change that life form to a new form which had not existed before. The only impetus allowed in atheistic Darwinist creationism for creating the new life form is the creative power of random/chance mutations. At this point, the natural selection process hasn't started yet, there's nothing but the new life form and it was created by an impetus which has no forward-looking ability, is mindless in it's creative process, has no meaning in it's creative process, no purpose, no goal...just a random/chance event in nature that somehow created a new life form. This is the worldview, the life philosophy which atheistic Darwinist creationism is producing today in the guise of 'science'.

So, yes, you and I are products of only a random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanism acting on an alleged single life form from long long ago, according to atheistic Darwinist creationism.

False. The only thing not allowed are things that have no evidence, that can't be supported. If tomorrow you demonstrate a role of a deity in the process, it will be included. Why would anyone inlclude anything for which not a shred of evidence exist (natural or non-natural)?

There is not a shred of evidence for you and I being the product of only a naturalistic mechanism acting on a single life form of long long ago. Why would anyone wish to claim there was?

No. Creationists don't suggest anything.

Of course they do. Again, why the court cases challenging the views of those who oppose the faith based atheistic Darwinist creationist viewpoints?

They impose without evidence and expect people to not question or scrutinize their nonsense.

Atheistic Darwinist creationism is built upon this.

They want a free ride.

Atheistic Darwinist creationism is built upon this.

They wish to bypass the entire scientific process.

Atheistic Darwinist creationism is built upon this.

It has nothing to do with what they claim. It has everything to do with the intellectual bankrupcy they advocate.

Atheistic Darwinist creationism hopes to continue to spread their Godless message opposing God's creation, do it with the guesses and suppositions of pseudo-science and hope it affects the gullible enough to be as spiritually bankrupt as they are.

Thanks for admitting your intellectual dishonesty.

There's no intellectual dishonesty in my exposing your doublespeak.

That was the last straw for me.
I'm done feeding the troll now...

I ain't through challenging the Godless atheistic Darwinist creationist pseudo-science worldview and philosophy though.

Move on.

 

[justlookinla]

Delete

 

[Smidlee]

They are exactly alike, every religion on earth bears testimony to that.

Hello? No, they are not. Just because something is not visible doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Now this statement by definition has to be true:
"The non-existent and the invisible look very much alike"

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

There is no evidence that only naturalistic mechanisms, driven by random/chance events and impetuses, is capable of producing the incomprehensibly complex human machine, yet they're included today. Evidence seems to not be the determining factor in the consideration of only one form of creationism.

There's that spurious "only" again.

Oh, and you have a plural subject (naturalistic mechanisms) with a singular verb ("is") . . . shame you for that as well.

The only impetus allowed in atheistic Darwinist creationism for creating the new life form is the creative power of random/chance mutations. At this point, the natural selection process hasn't started yet, there's nothing but the new life form and it was created by an impetus which has no forward-looking ability, is mindless in it's creative process, has no meaning in it's creative process, no purpose, no goal...just a random/chance event in nature that somehow created a new life form. This is the worldview, the life philosophy which atheistic Darwinist creationism is producing today in the guise of 'science'.

There's that spurious linking of atheism with evolution again.

So, yes, you and I are products of only a random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanism acting on an alleged single life form from long long ago, according to atheistic Darwinist creationism.

Setting up a version of the other side's point of view that does not actually exist and then declaring it to be false is the well known straw man fallacy, and you are exploiting it to the hilt. Don't think you are getting away with it.

There is not a shred of evidence for you and I being the product of only a naturalistic mechanism acting on a single life form of long long ago. Why would anyone wish to claim there was?

Perhaps not, except there are gobs and gobs of evidence of descent from previous life forms, and gobs and gobs of evidence for natural causes of that descent, and we haven't any scientific evidence of non-natural causes promoting that descent. Now if you take away the word "only" in your assertion here, it becomes a false statement. You leave the word "only" in your assertion here, it is misleading but true.

Why do you insist on being so misleading?

I ain't through challenging the Godless atheistic Darwinist creationist pseudo-science worldview and philosophy though.

Move on.

So that means you are quite happy to tolerate and perhaps even accept the Theistic Evolutionist point of view, accepting the findings of real science as it does?

After all, its not atheistic, it doesn't say evolution is only materialistic, and it includes Christians among its adherents. Such as myself.

 

[justlookinla]

There's that spurious "only" again.

There's that inclusive "only" again which reveals the Godless creationism of atheistic Darwinist creationism.

Oh, and you have a plural subject (naturalistic mechanisms) with a singular verb ("is") . . . shame you for that as well.

It'll take me months to get over that. I'm crushed emotionally.

There's that spurious linking of atheism with evolution again.

There's that appropriate linking of atheism with the view that only evolutionary impetuses was adequate for, and totally responsible for, the creation of humanity. No, evidence for such a view, only faith based guesses and suppositions.

Setting up a version of the other side's point of view that does not actually exist and then declaring it to be false is the well known straw man fallacy, and you are exploiting it to the hilt. Don't think you are getting away with it.

Of course it exists. Start with Dawkins and go from there for evolutionary atheists.

Perhaps not, except there are gobs and gobs of evidence of descent from previous life forms, and gobs and gobs of evidence for natural causes of that descent, and we haven't any scientific evidence of non-natural causes promoting that descent.

There's absolutely no evidence, not even the wisp of a gob, that only naturalistic mechanisms created humanity from an alleged single life form of long long ago. If you have such evidence, post it.

Now if you take away the word "only" in your assertion here, it becomes a false statement. You leave the word "only" in your assertion here, it is misleading but true.

Why do you insist on being so misleading?

The suggestion that evolution is science and isn't anti-theistic is misleading, deceitful and wrong. Folks use the term "evolution" as if it was a monolithic term and of course it's not. I'll continue to expose the Godlessness, error and 'religion' of atheistic Darwinist creationism and point out the lack of integrity of those who attempt to use "evolution" in a misleading manner.

So that means you are quite happy to tolerate and perhaps even accept the Theistic Evolutionist point of view, accepting the findings of real science as it does?

God can, and did, create however He wished.

After all, its not atheistic, it doesn't say evolution is only materialistic, and it includes Christians among its adherents. Such as myself.

If any creationist viewpoint teaches that the creation of humanity does not include, nor requires, God as creator, the viewpoint is antichrist, satanic, Godless and must be challenged. As Christians, we are commanded to do that.

 

[Euler]

There's that inclusive "only" again which reveals the Godless creationism of atheistic Darwinist creationism.



It'll take me months to get over that. I'm crushed emotionally.



There's that appropriate linking of atheism with the view that only evolutionary impetuses was adequate for, and totally responsible for, the creation of humanity. No, evidence for such a view, only faith based guesses and suppositions.



Of course it exists. Start with Dawkins and go from there for evolutionary atheists.



There's absolutely no evidence, not even the wisp of a gob, that only naturalistic mechanisms created humanity from an alleged single life form of long long ago. If you have such evidence, post it.



The suggestion that evolution is science and isn't anti-theistic is misleading, deceitful and wrong. Folks use the term "evolution" as if it was a monolithic term and of course it's not. I'll continue to expose the Godlessness, error and 'religion' of atheistic Darwinist creationism and point out the lack of integrity of those who attempt to use "evolution" in a misleading manner.



God can, and did, create however He wished.



If any creationist viewpoint teaches that the creation of humanity does not include, nor requires, God as creator, the viewpoint is antichrist, satanic, Godless and must be challenged. As Christians, we are commanded to do that.

How do you explain the appearance of, and patterns of, ERV's in primates?

 

[bhsmte]

How do you explain the appearance of, and patterns of, ERV's in primates?

He can't.

At this point, just sit back and enjoy the show.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

God can, and did, create however He wished.



If any creationist viewpoint teaches that the creation of humanity does not include, nor requires, God as creator, the viewpoint is antichrist, satanic, Godless and must be challenged. As Christians, we are commanded to do that.

Thank you, I will take this comment as being willing to accept a THEISTIC evolutionary point of view.

 

[justlookinla]

How do you explain the appearance of, and patterns of, ERV's in primates?

Make a point and conclusion and I'll be more than happy to discuss whatever you're trying to say.

 

[justlookinla]

Thank you, I will take this comment as being willing to accept a THEISTIC evolutionary point of view.

No, I don't personally embrace creation of all life through theistic evolution, but if that's one's understanding of how God created humanity, I wouldn't actively argue against it. For me personally, the important thing is to recognize that we would not exist without God creating us in His likeness.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

No, I don't personally embrace creation of all life through theistic evolution, but if that's one's understanding of how God created humanity, I wouldn't actively argue against it. For me personally, the important thing is to recognize that we would not exist without God creating us in His likeness.

Oh, just being willing to accept the thinking of another Christian on the subject is good enough for me.