Why do creationists insist that the theory of evolution is inherently atheistic?

[Tomk80]

It sounds to me like you're talking about atheists because every atheist is, in his heart, a liar. He lies to himself and tries to convince himself that God doesn't exist despite all evidence to the contrary because he wasn't WANT God to exist. It gets in the way of a materialistic, self-centered lifestyle.

Nice set of prejudices you have there. Did they come in a package, or did you work on acquiring each of them seperately?

 

[AV1611VET]

...says the man who finds it necessary to claim that the water from Noah's flood went to Neptune.

Where do you think it went?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Where do you think it went?

I live in the real world. You should try it. It's not as scary as you think it is.

 

[verysincere]

As for competitiveness, the US was more competitive 50 years ago, and 50 years ago we still allowed prayer in school.

And 50+ years ago public lynchings of people who happened to be the wrong color were still justified by many of those same people in the U.S. (I well recall those days.) And many of the those same "godly" people who promoted prayer in schools deprived many others (who also prayed to God) of their civil rights and viciously attacked those who peacefully marched for voting rights. Yes, the same day my school principal led us in prayer, "god-fearing people" were killing those who they considered inferior.

So what is your point, KW? Or are you still confused about the difference between correlation and causation?

Atheists lie about abiogenesis. It doesn't happen, can't happen, has never happened, and is not possible. Yet they insist on pretending that it's a scientific theory while it's nothing of the kind. They believe it happens because it MUST happen.

And yet abiogenesis is clearly described in Genesis 2:7. (HADAM, the human one, who was biological life was formed from non-biologically-living ingredients ("the dust of the ground".) That's abiogenesis. So both the evidence from the Bible and the evidence from creation tell us that you are wrong, KW. Abiogenesis was God's intention.

Try again, KW.

 

[Tomk80]

I live in the real world. You should try it. It's not as scary as you think it is.

And if I thought God isn't bound by natural laws, why couldn't he just let the water disappear? Apparently he can vanish all evidence of his miracles in other cases, so why not in this one?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

God can clean up after Himself.

If you went hiking in the mountains and fell and broke your arm, and God showed up and healed it; I guarantee you, you'll never be able to convince your friends that you had a broken arm.

In fact, an MRI would show otherwise.

QV John 9.

Yes, you said that before. So you genuinely think your God selectively chooses people to help but keeps it quiet so everyone else doesn't wonder why they were left out, yes?

Hint: the critical bit here is 'choosing'.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I'm wondering why you brought Last Thursdayism into the conversation.

I didn't, you did. Let me remind you:

Anything God does, they say He did it because He is a deceiver ... the exact same word used against Jesus.

Matthew 27:63 Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.

Same terminology because of same source.

The only time I've ever heard people say the God you describe is a deceiver is when you claim He embedded history into the universe. So, your above quote from the Bible must presumably be an appropriate comparison about Jesus, yes?

 

[TheReasoner]

And if I thought God isn't bound by natural laws, why couldn't he just let the water disappear? Apparently he can vanish all evidence of his miracles in other cases, so why not in this one?

Sure. I suppose he could. It'd mean he's one gigantic troll though. And not the christian god, as deceit would be way out of character for him.

This is the creationist way of thinking: Their a-priori conclusions are right. Period. If anything doesn't fit them, no matter how solid, then they are still right. The evidence becomes "evidence". It becomes a scientific conspiracy. An atheist conspiracy. Both. Some toss in satanism into those accusations. Quite a few decide that hey, it does not matter in any event, god just made the universe appear as though the infallible creationists have made a mistake. To test their faith, see? Or perhaps it was satan - the deceiver - who made the universe appear different. One thing is certain though. A creationist can never be wrong. That would be a contradiction in terms...

 

[OllieFranz]

So do we.

That's right ... it does.

I submit: your willingness to put "ultra" before "literalist" is confusing you.

Hey! The only I added the "ultra" was to let any literalist save face on the off chance that the Holy Spirit finally broke through his arrogance and helped him to realize the truth.

None of the above.

Then how else do you reconcile God's Revelation in the Bible to His revelation in Nature? Your interpretation of Genesis directly contradicts the evidence of the Earth. That's why you have to say "God cleaned up after Himself" and He moved the water to Neptune" and other such nonsense. It means that you are calling Paul a liar when he says thatall of Nature testifies of God.

If you have to coin the phrase "ultra-literalist" to make your point, I submit you are only convincing yourself.

As I said above, I added the "ultra" for your (collective "you," not individual "you") benefit, so you could save face.

I normally say that I use a "naturalistic" approach to my study of the Scriptures. My first assumption is that a passage I'm about to read is a straight (literal) narrative, but I let the sense and tone of the piece tell me how to understand it the way the original listeners understood it (at least to the best of my ability). For example, hypocatastatic phrasing and repeated codas means that Genesis 1 is a poem, not a science paper or history text. Normally I contrast my approach to that of a literalist, who needs a comparison to be a simile, and interprets metaphors and hypocatastases to be literal descriptions, even in cases where if the phrase were encountered anywhere but in the Bible, no one would be so literal-minded, and needs poetry to clearly be labeled (like many of the psalms are).

 

[AV1611VET]

I live in the real world. You should try it. It's not as scary as you think it is.

That's nice.

Where do you think it went?

 

[Frenchfrye]

And if I thought God isn't bound by natural laws, why couldn't he just let the water disappear? Apparently he can vanish all evidence of his miracles in other cases, so why not in this one?

maybe mr smart man is because water is essential to life????

 

[Mr Strawberry]

That's nice.

Where do you think it went?

In the real world there was no 'it' that went anywhere.

 

[AV1611VET]

... you claim He embedded history into the universe.

Link, please?

 

[TheReasoner]

That's nice.

Where do you think it went?

You know AV, most people realize there was no global flood. After all, nothing supports that notion. It would have killed off vast amounds of marine life we have today - whales for example. And as whales are mammals, they'd be on the ark I suppose? Also, why are there animal groups separated on different continents that would never have gone to the middle east at all, and have left no trace of their passage if they ever did. Were they teleported back and forth, then?
Also it would have left traces. Water does not inundate landmasses without any trace. What's more, there is not enough water on earth. And suggesting it went to Neptune... Whaaaat?
Occham's razor, AV. You're wrong on this question.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Link, please?

Yeah, right, because that is obviously something you have never claimed. You haven't spent years claiming that and arguing that position in endless threads. Not you, obviously.

 

[Frenchfrye]

You know AV, most people realize there was no global flood.

except true believers of the bible

 

[AV1611VET]

In the real world there was no 'it' that went anywhere.

Then I'll take this remark ...

...says the man who finds it necessary to claim that the water from Noah's flood went to Neptune.

... with a grain of salt.

At least I give an explanation other than "it didn't happen."

If you don't believe it happened at all, then any explanation is absurd, isn't it?

 

[TheReasoner]

except true believers of the bible

I'll take that as a joke.

 

[Split Rock]

Such a shame, Steve has so much knowledge of physics and genetic statistics but resorts to fallacious ad hominems that are relevant to neither science nor religion. What perverse fantasy? More importantly, when do you ever give God credit for creating anything, or even designing it for that matter.

What "ad hominems" are you refering to? I didn't see any in his post. You on the other hand, continue to accuse other Christians here of not being Christian. Who's the one throwing around ad hominems??

I have yet to see any theistic evolutionist that could do a sound exposition of any text in Scripture. Devoid of theological insight they ridicule anyone who would take the Genesis account as an historical narrative, never mind the fact that, that's exactly what it is.

Why, because you insist it is? There were no "historical narratives" in ancient times. You can insist over and over that GEN was, but all you are doing is ripping the text out of its original context. Of course, neither you nor the other creationists posting in this thread care about the original context... do you?

Yet you mock Creation preferring a philosophy that assumes, a priori, that everything has exclusively naturalistic causes all the way back and including the Big Bang. What exactly do you think God created because what you are saying is diametrically opposed to the Nicene Creed:

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

They believe that God created the UNIVERSE. You know... EVERYTHING.

You must be a Creationist in order to be a Christian. You insist on arguing against Creationism and then claim to believe God created all things. What did God create because not a single theistic evolutionist will a single act of God creating anything, God doesn't even get credit for intelligently designing the universe, let alone creating it.

Hello!! God created the UNIVERSE, Mark! That is what they believe.

The are militant Darwinian giving lip service to Christian theism while attacking essential doctrine. You must be a Creationist in order to be a Christian, in order to be a Creationist you must believe that God created something. Kind of hard to fathom how constantly putting out fallacious ad hominems aimed at believers is an expression of faith.

see above!

I know what theistic evolutionists believe and I know exactly what they believe. I know it for what it is, it's one long argument against Creationism with no discernible difference from the Darwinian a priori assumption of universal common descent.

There is no a propri assumption, just as people who disagree with you are not necessarily throwing around ad hominems. You come here every so often and repeat the same fantasy lines over and over, Mark. You never learn anything.

While I don't have a problem with a Christian who is convinced by the evidence in universal common descent the incessant fallacious ad hominems tell me one thing conclusively. They lack the convictions of their beliefs. Not as Christians but as evolutionists.

Once again, disagreeing with you does not constitute "ad hominems." You abuse the term "ad hominem" like Bush abused "freedom."

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Then I'll take this remark ...

... with a grain of salt.

At least I give an explanation other than "it didn't happen."

If you don't believe it happened at all, then any explanation is absurd, isn't it?

No, of course not. You are now saying that as there is no evidence that something happened that any explanation of why there is no evidence would be considered absurd. That argument is as bad as your explanation. Do you really never see what's wrong with the things you say before you say them?