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

[OllieFranz]

You can't support two mutually exclusive belief systems unless you don;t really understand either one.

Irony of ironies.

 

[AV1611VET]

Moreover, when they call the flood a myth they are calling Jesus a liar, because He specifially mentioned Noah and the flood.

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.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

The laws of physics don't apply to God. If He wanted to reverse the rotation of the earth today, no force that exists could preclude it.

...and yet there has never been the slightest evidence that He has ever intervened anywhere ever, which seems strange.

Also, assuming the existence of a supreme being/creator, He seems to have found it necessary to create the laws of physics in the first place - one assumes for a very good reason, so how do you know that they aren't a precondition of Him being able to create the universe at all and thus unalterable? How do you know? You don't.

 

[TheReasoner]

Mark, AV, KW - why do you think your views and opinions trump evidence?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

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.

Oh, that quote is all about 13.7 billion years of embedded history in the universe is it?

 

[OllieFranz]

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

We say that God does not lie and does not trick us. The Bible tells us that the natural world testifies to God's truth. The evidence of the natural world does not agree with the ultra-literalist interpretation of Genesis. That leaves three possibilities. God lied in the Bible, God decieves us in nature, or {gasp!} the ultra-literalist interpretation of Genesis (which is no older than the mid-nineteenth century) is wrong. Which is it?

 

[AV1611VET]

...and yet there has never been the slightest evidence that He has ever intervened anywhere ever, which seems strange.

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.

 

[AV1611VET]

Mark, AV, KW - why do you think your views and opinions trump evidence?

Because God says, "I did this & that," and evidence says ... or rather, is interpreted, otherwise.

 

[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.

So you think he selectively chooses people to help and keeps it quiet so that everyone else doesn't find out and start wondering why they were ignored?

 

[verysincere]

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.

And yet hundreds of theistic evolutionists scholars serve on Evangelical faculties throughout the U.S. I was one of them until retirement.

But yet again you descend into straw-man arguments about them "ridiculing anyone who...." In my experience at both extremely conservative and more moderate Christian universities and Bible colleges, the ridicule and nasty dialogue tended to come from the KJV-Only and far-right fundamentalist crowd.

I know what theistic evolutionists believe and I know exactly what they believe.

Every one of your posts demonstrates that you haven't a clue what TE's believe. Dunning-Kruger again and again.

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.

Do your own incessant fallacious ad hominems tell you anything conclusively?

They lack the convictions of their beliefs. Not as Christians but as evolutionists.

Nice flourish. Cheap ad hominem yet again. Disappointing.

You also play the old equivocation fallacies over the simple fact that there are TWO common definitions for CREATIONIST:

1) Academic definition: "one who believes that God created everything"

2) General definition common with the general public on most forums: "one who believes in young earth creationism including six 24-hour days of creation, a GLOBAL Noahic flood, and special creation of each "kind" of living organism in essentially its final form. Most also believe in embedded age/appearance-of-age and therefore dismiss everything in science which points to a universe over 6,000+ years old."

And I think you understand these two definitions, Mark. That is why you criticize theistic evolutionists as if they are denying #1 (in order to feign maximize outrage and imply heresy) when you KNOW that they are in fact denying the young earth creationist ideas of #2. Tell me I'm wrong, Mark. (You know that you can't.)

SFS clearly has you pegged accurately and that is why you went ballistic over his dead-on post.

Nobody is fooled, Mark.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh, that quote is all about 13.7 billion years of embedded history in the universe is it?

Are you Omphalos or Last Thursday?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Because God says, "I did this & that," and evidence says ... or rather, is interpreted, otherwise.

Strange that His creation has nothing to do with what some people a few thousand years ago claim He said to them. Odd that. Really odd.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Are you Omphalos or Last Thursday?

We are talking about your Bible quote referring to Jesus. Is the above question relevant to that?

 

[KWCrazy]

Well, they lie, they smear, they mock. And they expect to get their wild concoctions pushed through as curriculum, meaning they are harming their home country's competitiveness.

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. As for curriculum, I don't want religion taught by atheists, so it shouldn't be taught in schools. While there are many wonderful, caring Christian teachers, they are getting pushed aside by the liberal dregs who are more interested in indoctination than education. As for competitiveness, the US was more competitive 50 years ago, and 50 years ago we still allowed prayer in school. So there goes another lie.

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. The alternative it to acknowledge that there is a greater power who could have created it. When pressed on the mater they say, "Abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution." Maybe not, but it's intergral to atheisim and required if there is no God.

Atheists look at the universe around them and conclude, "all of this came from nothing by random mutations and copy errors." They have no idea how utterly foolish and stupid they sound.

Not all YEC are good at debate, and many don't wish to swaste their rime with those shose skulls are so thick the light of reaon can never permeate it. Personally, I don't waste much time debating those I find profoundly ignorant and lacking the basic understanding of truth. I refer discussing issues with people who at least acknowledge that God is real, even if they don't interpret His word the others do. Most of the time that's due to a lack of time studying it. If it were otherwise, they could cite verses to buoy their positions, which they usually cannot.

 

[AV1611VET]

We say that God does not lie and does not trick us.

So do we.

The Bible tells us that the natural world testifies to God's truth.

That's right ... it does.

The evidence of the natural world does not agree with the ultra-literalist interpretation of Genesis.

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

That leaves three possibilities. God lied in the Bible, God decieves us in nature, or {gasp!} the ultra-literalist interpretation of Genesis (which is no older than the mid-nineteenth century) is wrong. Which is it?

None of the above.

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

 

[AV1611VET]

So you think he selectively chooses people to help and keeps it quiet so that everyone else doesn't find out and start wondering why they were ignored?

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.

 

[KWCrazy]

Mark, AV, KW - why do you think your views and opinions trump evidence?

After reading 4,000 years of history where God did things that violated the laws of science, after talking with peolpe who had experienced things that were either statistically impossible or violated the laws of science, and after having experienced things that science precludes, I'm smart enough to know that God, not science, is the ultimate law of the universe. YOu have to study both to understand both. If you know nothing about God, you surely know nothing about His creation.

 

[verysincere]

Originally Posted by KWCrazy
You can't support two mutually exclusive belief systems unless you don;t really understand either one.

Irony of ironies.

Yes. That one is worth saving.

 

[AV1611VET]

We are talking about your Bible quote referring to Jesus. Is the above question relevant to that?

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

 

[Mr Strawberry]

So do we.

That's right ... it does.

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

None of the above.

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

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