Why Is Darwinism So Dangerous? (5)

[justlookinla]

Darwin never said that and the TOE never said that, so............

That means you are talking about; justlookinlaism

The request is simple. Point out in Darwinist creationism where any creative force is allowed which created humanity other than natural processes.

 

[bhsmte]

The request is simple. Point out in Darwinist creationism where any creative force is allowed which created humanity other than natural processes.

How does science measure a "creative force"?

The TOE follows the evidence. You may not like the evidence, but there it is.

But, all you need to do is come up with the objective evidence and you can be a hero and alter the TOE.

Have at it.

 

[justlookinla]

How does science measure a "creative force"?

The TOE follows the evidence. You may not like the evidence, but there it is.

But, all you need to do is come up with the objective evidence and you can be a hero and alter the TOE.

Have at it.

There is no other creative force allowed than naturalistic forces in Darwinist creationism...that's the point. Now the fact that there is no scientific evidence for the Darwinist creationism view that all of life, including humanity, is the result solely, completely, totally, only by natural mechanisms acting on a single life form (or add as many as you wish) from many many years ago doesn't dissuade folks from claiming that Darwinist creationism is a proven theory. Truth is, there are lot of could be's, maybe's, possibly's and we don't knows in the Darwinist creationist view, hardly a testimony to the validity of the theory.

 

[bhsmte]

There is no other creative force allowed than naturalistic forces in Darwinist creationism...that's the point. Now the fact that there is no scientific evidence for the Darwinist creationism view that all of life, including humanity, is the result solely, completely, totally, only by natural mechanisms acting on a single life form (or add as many as you wish) from many many years ago doesn't dissuade folks from claiming that Darwinist creationism is a proven theory. Truth is, there are lot of could be's, maybe's, possibly's and we don't knows in the Darwinist creationist view, hardly a testimony to the validity of the theory.

I don't know about Darwinist creationism, never heard that until you came up with it, hence - justlookinlaism.

Darwin's work, led to the TOE, which has mountains of scientific evidence to support it. And correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe the TOE says; solely, completely, totally and only by natural forces. But hey, I understand, you need to put a few twists in there to feel better about justlookinlaism.

The TOE is built on the evidence and if you don't like the evidence, I'm sure the evidence won't hold that against you, so you can rest easy.

 

[theophilus777]

If you answer the question, you can reveal your thoughts, which is the whole purpose of asking a question, to get an answer.

Yours is a loaded question. Not going there. Mine is much simpler, and also addresses your questions in the process.

 

[theophilus777]

How does science measure a "creative force"?

The TOE follows the evidence. You may not like the evidence, but there it is.

But, all you need to do is come up with the objective evidence and you can be a hero and alter the TOE.

Have at it.

And yet you can not, or will not, address his question. This is known as painting yourself in a corner. You know he is right. Don't you just hate that?

 

[theophilus777]

I don't know about Darwinist creationism, never heard that until you came up with it

You just need to translate into ToE. You know that's what he means.

Darwin's work, led to the TOE, which has mountains of scientific evidence to support it. And correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe the TOE says; solely, completely, totally and only by natural forces.

Verbatim? No, of course not. The idea is contained there anyway. As you and Mr FSM have hit everybody here over the head with over and over. Yet now you want to deny it.

Funny that.

 

[Kylie]

That is misrepresenting things almost to the extent that justlooking has done. ToE is inherently atheistic. Many folks come here all bothered by "how can I accept Christianity now that I realize (some aspect of) ToE is true?"

Can't you say the same thing about the theory of gravity?

 

[Kylie]

The request is simple. Point out in Darwinist creationism where any creative force is allowed which created humanity other than natural processes.

How do you know that evolution isn't a process God set in motion?

After all, you could say that God set the planets in motion, but they obey the law of gravity so he has no need to constantly move them around the sun. Why not say that God created life but used evolution to produce the vast variety of different creatures and lifeforms we see today so he has no need to constantly be creating new ones?

After all, evolution acts only on what is already there, changing it a little or duplicating or removing occasionally. It never creates out of nothing.

 

[Loudmouth]

You aren't showing that humans are the result of only naturalistic forces acting upon a single life form from long long ago.

Those are your distortions of science. You evidence them. I am showing evidence that supports the theory that scientists use.

The photos you posted show similarities between humanoid fossils, but there's only conjecture (faith) that those humanoid fossils are the result of only naturalistic forces.

They are evidence that you continue to ignore. If humans evolved through the mechanisms of evolution, then we would expect a slow build up of mutations that have passed through selection. That is exactly what we see. We see hominids evolving over a 5 million years span.

That's no more than a commonality in the design.

Just like DNA at a crime scene is no more than God planting DNA.

Is it safe to say that you will not accept any fossil evidence? Is it the same for genetic evidence?

There is really no reason to move on if you are going to dismiss every piece of evidence as being planted there by a deity.

 

[Dizredux]

The request is simple. Point out in Darwinist creationism where any creative force is allowed which created humanity other than natural processes.

OK lets us propose that now creative forces are allowed into the TOE. How would present it so science can deal with it? How can we phase the supernatural into the research? Describe how you would deal with the twin nested hierarchies for example?

Dizredux

 

[bhsmte]

Yours is a loaded question. Not going there. Mine is much simpler, and also addresses your questions in the process.

Predictable.

 

[Loudmouth]

You just need to translate into ToE. You know that's what he means.

Justlookinlaism is his own invention. It isn't the scientific theory.

 

[Loudmouth]

The request is simple. Point out in Darwinist creationism where any creative force is allowed which created humanity other than natural processes.

Point to any observation that is being kept out of the scientific theory of evolution.

 

[Davian]

No, because that is not a valid contrast.

Who made you the arbiter of that criteria?

If I tell you how you think, and I am wrong, am I still wrong?

I note that you deleted what must be, according to you, a valid comparison. Explain how each of the thousands of supreme beings, spirits, and demons that you do not believe in affected your personal philosophy. You can source the list here:

Godchecker mythology encyclopedia - Your Guide To The Gods

If you're suggesting that "appeal to consequences" is a formal logical fallacy and therefore wrong outright, and therefore no action has consequences,

A strawman of a fallacy? Oncedeceived, is that you?

you should remove that discussion to the philosophy section.

If justlookinla wants to run this maze with his strawman in tow, let him. I don't run the maze, I just watch.

 

[theophilus777]

Can't you say the same thing about the theory of gravity?

Nope. Not only is there no contradiction there, but nobody is pretending they can explain it.

 

[theophilus777]

How do you know that evolution isn't a process God set in motion?

After all, you could say that God set the planets in motion, but they obey the law of gravity so he has no need to constantly move them around the sun.

Now you're being reasonable. Wouldn't that make this whole section go poof! and disappear?

Although you can also think of it as gravity being the hand of God, establishing everything, maintaining all things by the Word of His Power. A guy I think was pretty bright said that if you took all the physical laws of the Universe, you would have God.

God showed me that He constantly corrects stars, and gave me a sense of their vastness. Kinda humbling. Then He compared that to my reluctance to His correction. VERY humbling

Why not say that God created life but used evolution to produce the vast variety of different creatures and lifeforms we see today so he has no need to constantly be creating new ones?

Or even that that is His creativity, on display. The early pioneering scientists thought in these terms. I have no idea how things are done there, but in the States it was made a point that teachers could not say anything like this, quite a while ago. And now we have all this blowback. There's a connection ...

After all, evolution acts only on what is already there, changing it a little or duplicating or removing occasionally. It never creates out of nothing.

Taught correctly this would remove a great deal of the blowback. Instead, people see they don't have nearly all the answers they claim to, and hence the objections.

 

[theophilus777]

The request is simple. Point out in Darwinist creationism where any creative force is allowed which created humanity other than natural processes.

OK lets us propose that now creative forces are allowed into the TOE. How would present it so science can deal with it? How can we phase the supernatural into the research? Describe how you would deal with the twin nested hierarchies for example?

Dizredux

He's looking for a "no" answer. Why is nobody decent enough to say that?

Justlookin is correct, ToE allows for no such thing. But your side of the aisle needs to establish that.

 

[bhsmte]

Now you're being reasonable. Wouldn't that make this whole section go poof! and disappear?

Although you can also think of it as gravity being the hand of God, establishing everything, maintaining all things by the Word of His Power. A guy I think was pretty bright said that if you took all the physical laws of the Universe, you would have God.

God showed me that He constantly corrects stars, and gave me a sense of their vastness. Kinda humbling. Then He compared that to my reluctance to His correction. VERY humbling



Or even that that is His creativity, on display. The early pioneering scientists thought in these terms. I have no idea how things are done there, but in the States it was made a point that teachers could not say anything like this, quite a while ago. And now we have all this blowback. There's a connection ...



Taught correctly this would remove a great deal of the blowback. Instead, people see they don't have nearly all the answers they claim to, and hence the objections.

How does God show you that he constantly corrects stars?

 

[theophilus777]

Justlookinlaism is his own invention. It isn't the scientific theory.

What makes you think he's trying to present the scientific theory? That would be ... your role here.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, I'm trying to ascertain how AVism has age embedded into fossils, while arriving after the fall. Pass the popcorn