justlookinla
Regular Member
The request is simple. Point out in Darwinist creationism where any creative force is allowed which created humanity other than natural processes.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
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.
If you answer the question, you can reveal your thoughts, which is the whole purpose of asking a question, to get an answer.
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.
I don't know about Darwinist creationism, never heard that until you came up with it
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.
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?"
The request is simple. Point out in Darwinist creationism where any creative force is allowed which created humanity other than natural processes.
You aren't showing that humans are the result of only naturalistic forces acting upon a single life form from long long ago.
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.
That's no more than a commonality in the design.
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?The request is simple. Point out in Darwinist creationism where any creative force is allowed which created humanity other than natural processes.
You just need to translate into ToE. You know that's what he means.
The request is simple. Point out in Darwinist creationism where any creative force is allowed which created humanity other than natural processes.
Who made you the arbiter of that criteria?No, because that is not a valid contrast.
A strawman of a fallacy? Oncedeceived, is that you?If you're suggesting that "appeal to consequences" is a formal logical fallacy and therefore wrong outright, and therefore no action has consequences,
If justlookinla wants to run this maze with his strawman in tow, let him. I don't run the maze, I just watch.you should remove that discussion to the philosophy section.
Can't you say the same thing about the theory of gravity?
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.
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
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.
Justlookinlaism is his own invention. It isn't the scientific theory.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?