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

[Loudmouth]

Galileo was a devout Catholic, . . .

So was Roberto Bellarmine:

"First, . . . to want to affirm that in reality the sun is at the center of the world and only turns on itself without moving from east to west, and the earth . . . revolves with great speed about the sun . . . is a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false."--Roberto Bellarmine, 1615

Creationism is foundational to Christian theism,

Just as Geocentrism is foundational to Christian theism, as discussed by Bellarmine.

As many times as I have debated atheists and agnostics I have yet to have one demand a definition for God. There is a simple reason for this, they already know about God, it's called natural revelation.

And yet each culture has a different description of gods and pantheons. Go figure.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

And that evidence is . . .?

 

[KWCrazy]

So was Roberto Bellarmine:

Bennarmine was not Jesus Christ. Geocentrism was believed by the SCIENTISTS of the day. It was not taught by Jesus or by the prophets. That someone ascribed his own thoughts as Scriptural without having the direct backing of the Scriptures does not make his belief a component of the faith. God at no time ever said that the sun revolved around the earth. The Bible DOES state that the sun stood still for a day, which is wnat it would have looked like to anyone on the planet at that time. I guess if anyone was on the other side, they had a looooooong night.

 

[Split Rock]

Bennarmine was not Jesus Christ. Geocentrism was believed by the SCIENTISTS of the day. It was not taught by Jesus or by the prophets. That someone ascribed his own thoughts as Scriptural without having the direct backing of the Scriptures does not make his belief a component of the faith. God at no time ever said that the sun revolved around the earth. The Bible DOES state that the sun stood still for a day, which is wnat it would have looked like to anyone on the planet at that time. I guess if anyone was on the other side, they had a looooooong night.

Was heliocentrism taught by Jesus and the prophets? Was a young earth taught by Jesus and the prophets?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Bennarmine was not Jesus Christ. Geocentrism was believed by the SCIENTISTS of the day. It was not taught by Jesus or by the prophets. That someone ascribed his own thoughts as Scriptural without having the direct backing of the Scriptures does not make his belief a component of the faith. God at no time ever said that the sun revolved around the earth. The Bible DOES state that the sun stood still for a day, which is wnat it would have looked like to anyone on the planet at that time. I guess if anyone was on the other side, they had a looooooong night.

We have been over this before. In context and by the words that are used both the Old and New Testaments describe a flat stationary Earth. In other words they not only teach geocentrism, they also teach a Flat Earth:

The Flat-Earth Bible.

 

[Loudmouth]

Bennarmine was not Jesus Christ.

Neither was the author of Genesis. Neither are you.

It was not taught by Jesus or by the prophets.

Neither was modern young earth creationism.

That someone ascribed his own thoughts as Scriptural without having the direct backing of the Scriptures does not make his belief a component of the faith.

Bellarmine did have the backing of scripture. It said so right in the quote. Did you not read it? The Bible says that the Earth does not move.

God at no time ever said that the sun revolved around the earth.

But it does say that the Earth does not move, and the cosmology of the Bible also includes a solid firmament into which the planets and stars are embedded.

So why do you reject Geocentrism?

 

[TheReasoner]

Bennarmine was not Jesus Christ. Geocentrism was believed by the SCIENTISTS of the day. It was not taught by Jesus or by the prophets. That someone ascribed his own thoughts as Scriptural without having the direct backing of the Scriptures does not make his belief a component of the faith. God at no time ever said that the sun revolved around the earth. The Bible DOES state that the sun stood still for a day, which is wnat it would have looked like to anyone on the planet at that time. I guess if anyone was on the other side, they had a looooooong night.

Plenty of good arguments from many people here. Let me add one more thing: Scientists back then tended to also be theologians.

Modern science is very different from science back then KWC. Societal structure, too.

 

[delaola]

Let me ask all then, where does Jesus support and/or teach evolution?

 

[Loudmouth]

Let me ask all then, where does Jesus support and/or teach evolution?

It is right before the verse where Jesus supports the scientific theory that matter is made up of atoms.

 

[CabVet]

Let me ask all then, where does Jesus support and/or teach evolution?

Nowhere.

Let me ask you this then, where does Jesus reject evolution?

 

[verysincere]

Let me ask all then, where does Jesus support and/or teach evolution?

Let me ask you then, where does Jesus support and/or teach the theory of gravity? The Theory of Photosynthesis? The Germ Theory of Disease?

Where did you get the idea that Jesus came to teach us about scientific theories? I thought he came to teach us the Gospel message of salvation and the fellowship of his sufferings?

And who told you that The Theory of Evolution was denied by the Bible in any way?

 

[Loudmouth]

Let me ask you then, where does Jesus support and/or teach the theory of gravity? The Theory of Photosynthesis? The Germ Theory of Disease?

Where did you get the idea that Jesus came to teach us about scientific theories? I thought he came to teach us the Gospel message of salvation and the fellowship of his sufferings?

And who told you that The Theory of Evolution was denied by the Bible in any way?

“The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go”--Galileo Galilei

 

[mark kennedy]

This is the god of Darwinism:

Or more correctly the goddess of natural selection, aka Diana

So was Roberto Bellarmine:

"First, . . . to want to affirm that in reality the sun is at the center of the world and only turns on itself without moving from east to west, and the earth . . . revolves with great speed about the sun . . . is a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false."--Roberto Bellarmine, 1615

He would never have cared had it not been for Galileo saying that Aristotelian mechanics had to be scraped. But of course you are not going to know anything about that because you just troll discussion boards, it's not like you have to be substantive or anything.

Just as Geocentrism is foundational to Christian theism, as discussed by Bellarmine.

Geocentrism has nothing to do with Christian theism, don't you get tired of being wrong about everything you say. The Catholic church has the largest number of observatories in the world, bet you didn't know that. They were only starting to use telescopes at the time, Galileo made a telescope that could magnify the heavens 35X. It was the second one ever made.

The issue was not how the earth revolves around the sun, the issue that brought him to the inquisition was who gets to interpret Scripture. Of course you wouldn't know that either, trolls are always misinformed.

And yet each culture has a different description of gods and pantheons. Go figure.

Greece had a large pantheon, in fact the only Pantheon was in Greece. Aristotle knew there was only one God as did Plato and Socrates. In fact all pagans and atheists do as well but they suppress the truth in unrighteousness, exchanging the glory of God for images made to look like creatures rather then the Creator. Darwinism is itself a classic pagan mythology and Charles Darwin was not the first in his family to be a mythographer, his grandfather was quite accomplished:

Organic life beneath the shoreless waves
Was born and nurs'd in ocean's pearly caves;
First forms minute, unseen by spheric glass,
Move on the mud, or pierce the watery mass;
These, as successive generations bloom,
New powers acquire and larger limbs assume;
Whence countless groups of vegetation spring,
And breathing realms of fin and feet and wing.

Erasmus Darwin. The Temple of Nature. 1802.​

Nothing ever changes on here, you guys still haven't got a clue what the whole controversy is over in the first place. Probably never will, that's what happens when you exchange the truth of God for a lie, your foolish heart is darkened.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Was heliocentrism taught by Jesus and the prophets? Was a young earth taught by Jesus and the prophets?

No, the opening verse of Genesis has no timeline, it could well be billions of years before creation week started. On the other hand the creation of life was ex nihilo, as indicated by the use of the word Bara:

Strong's Number H1254 (בָּרָא bara') - 1) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject).​

Used three times in the Creation narrative of the original creation of the heavens and the earth (Gen 1:1), land, sea and air creatures (1:21) and man (1:27). Creation is one essential doctrine attacked by Darwinism, the other is original sin. Theistic evolutionists have no answer for this, I'd like to see Steve or anyone of them try to dismiss this one as a perverse fantasy. He would get the rebuke he so richly deserves but he will hide behind trolls like you, the actual scientists on here always do.

Now you actually know something about the Genesis account of Creation week, not that it matters, you don't need to know what your talking about when all you are here to do is hurl insults. The fact of the matter is you are mocking things you know nothing about but I don't blame you anymore then I would a blind man who stumbles over something he can't see. Christians on the other hand that take up this kind of rhetoric have no excuse and they will answer for it. God takes how Christians treat other believers personally.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[KWCrazy]

Neither was modern young earth creationism.

Jesus was a YEC. He knew Adam and Eve, Noah and the gang, He witnessed the Great Flood, and He said that the Bible was the word of God.

The Bible says that the Earth does not move.

In relationship to what? In relationship to man's existence with earth it does not move, which is what the context was. Nobody asked whether the earth moved in relationship to the other stars in the universe. I can say that a 400 lb defensive tackle does not move, but he's still on a planet that's spinning away.<edit>

But it does say that the Earth does not move, and the cosmology of the Bible also includes a solid firmament into which the planets and stars are embedded.

The Bible is not a book on 21st century cosmology. Besides. Firmament means "The vault or expanse of the heavens; the sky." It doesn't mean a giant concrete dome.

 

[KWCrazy]

It is right before the verse where Jesus supports the scientific theory that matter is made up of atoms.

That's Romans 1:20.

 

[Loudmouth]

Jesus was a YEC. He knew Adam and Eve, Noah and the gang, He witnessed the Great Flood, and He said that the Bible was the word of God.

Evidence please.

In relationship to what? In relationship to man's existence with earth it does not move, which is what the context was.

The context was move, at all. Period. The Earth does move. It moves all over the place.

Nobody asked whether the earth moved in relationship to the other stars in the universe.

Actually, one person did and he was put under house arrest for the rest of his life. His name was Galileo.

The Bible is not a book on 21st century cosmology.

It is not a book on 21st century biology either.

 

[Loudmouth]

That's Romans 1:20.

I see no mention of atoms.

 

[mark kennedy]

A pathetic attempt at a tu quoque fallacy. When you can't win just pull people into the mud with you.

It's classic Darwinian evolution in no uncertain terms, in his grandfather's book on zoology. He credited the muse in the frontpiece putting her inside the cover page. Of course you are not required to have an actual argument as long as you insult creationists, I actually feel sorry for you.

That's not what the quote says. You will notice that it mentions the Bible, not Aristotle:

"First, . . . to want to affirm that in reality the sun is at the center of the world and only turns on itself without moving from east to west, and the earth . . . revolves with great speed about the sun . . . is a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false."--Roberto Bellarmine

I have seen the quote and read the record of the Inquisition of Galileo as well as the other historical accounts. It need not be in that quote, now your begging the question of proof on you hands and knees. I always know I have you guys when you are reduced to ad hominems. It used to take me a while but these days it's all you guys have. I'm going to miss the good ole evolution/creation controversy, it was a lot of fun but all good things must come to an end.

Not Aristotelian mechanics . . . rendering Holy Scripture false.

They were well aware of Galileo's astronomical observations and the model he was using, he even told it to Pope Urban personally. It only got to be a problem when the professors at Pisa couldn't refute him so they appealed to the Catholic theologians claiming that Simpiico in one of his books was actually the Pope. Wrong again but at least you are consistent.

It has as much to do with Christian theism as evolution does.

What could you possibly know about Christian theism? You are equivocating the Darwinian naturalistic assumptions with evolutionary biology, they are not the same thing at all. Biology is about living systems, not dead ancestors so don't go mixing up your natural history with the genuine article of natural science. It's like crack, once you are hooked on it you'll be a fallacy junkie if your not already.

And here we are at those same crossroads once again. We have those who ignore the facts of the reality around them and insist on a literal historical view and those, like Galileo, who see the facts of reality. Who are you going to be? Bellarmine or Galileo?

How about Moses or Darwin? I choose the Word of God because it stands up under evidential test whereas Darwinian universal common descent relies on transcendent naturalistic assumptions. You are required to assume that all causes are from natural law rather then God, that is the first assumption. If you refuse to make the first assumption then you are assumed to be ignorant, thus the ad hominems. Of course the actual scientists encourage you do that because they don't have an answer. Just like the Professors of Pisa they let others do their dirty work.

Pathetic.

Mythologies are not used in scientific research. Evolution is. Evolution works. Are you ready to discuss ERV's so I can show you that the theory really does work?

No, they are not used in the genuine article of science but they are used in Darwinian zoology. You made so many fundamental errors in our debate on ERVs it is strange that you would desperately cling to that failed homology argument. In fact, it's pathetic.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[super animator]

Moses did not write genesis, there is too many evidence by analyzing genesis that is against it.