Why Is Darwinism So Dangerous? (5)

[DerelictJunction]

Correct, but Darwin did make a statement in a letter about life originating in a warm pond somewhere and his theory was based upon the belief that life came from non-life. In fact, Scientists are still trying to prove that today. So to say that life could have indeed been started by chemical's and the right conditions is making a veiled claim to no God needed as well as the diversity of life being a result of natural mechanisms and nothing more. Now the theory doesn't include Abiogenesis, but in many text books it is spoken of as a given rather than something totally without evidence.

Irrelevant. Just's discussion has been limited to his chosen definition of Darwinism which involves the development of all life, including humans, from a single life form using only natural processes. How that first single life form came to be is not part of "Darwinism" and not part of this discussion. For the purpose of this discussion, I will even concede to you the possibility that the first life form was magically put there by the Christian God.

Most other theories don't make assertions about the way life began without the aid of God. Which like I said the Theory doesn't "include" Abiogenesis but it implies it by being put in Science books and other materials, and that scientists still are trying to find evidence for it.

Also irrelevant. Just's complaint is that the theory, as taught in schools, does not mention anything in the creation of humans other than natural processes. He then stated that it is atheistic and demeans the worth of humanity.
Other theories don't mention anything other than natural processes in the creation of atoms, stars, moon, Earth, mountains, oceans, diseases, or anything else. We don't know Just's feelings about the level of atheistic tendency for those theories because he refuses to discuss it. I am of the opinion that this refusal is due to the fact that it would either undermine his assertions or require him to admit that all science is "atheistic".

No but what purpose could it have for any species, us included? We are no more important to evolution than bacteria in our intestines.

Why does the method by which we were created determine whether there is a specific purpose for us? God could have blown His nose onto the ground and called it Adam. Then He could have defined our purpose and it would be just as valid as is would be if He "form him out of the dust of the ground." If you believe He has a purpose for you and for humanity then believe it regardless of the mechanism by which He created you. Remember, He could make the rocks of the ground into sons of Abraham.

No. I don't think that was implied by Just.

He didn't mean to imply that and steadfastly refused to discuss the implications of his statements when applied to other scientific theories.

Well, that depends. Are you talking about what evolution has provided us? How does it provide us with worth any more than any other life form and what purpose or goal can it give? The fact that we do have meaning, purpose and intelligence does not fit with ToE, it fits with being created with intelligence from intelligence, with meaning and purpose.

The method of manufacture does not determine the purpose of an automobile, a computer, or a roller coaster ride. Why should it determine your purpose?
That kind of thinking leads to the ostracizing of children conceived out of wedlock, or from rape or from mixed race marriages.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I've been waiting for your response but haven't seen it?

I will respond to it then. Sorry.

 

[Loudmouth]

How did you determine that?

By following the evidence. It's called science. You should look into it.

If we are just chemical reactions in our brains, how do we know that we have meaning or purpose at all?

Because we do create meaning and purpose in our lives. How do we know that clouds can produce rain. Because we freaking watch them produce rain. We also watch humans create meaning and purpose in their lives.

These aren't difficult concepts to understand.

What makes you think you do?

BECAUSE I DO IT!!! I create meaning and purpose in my life. That is how I know I can do it.

Right. And it makes sense that non-intelligence can result in intelligence....

Obviously, since we can observe it happening.

No it isn't. You have no evidence that non-life became life.

I have evidence that the Earth was without life, and then it had life. That is abiogenesis.

You have no evidence that non-intelligence can give rise to intelligence.

Yes, I do. I have the evidence that humans evolved, and are intelligent.

You have no reason to believe that a meaningless process can give you meaning.

I have every reason, since I am the product of evolution and my life does have meaning.

You have no evidence that a purposeless process can provide purpose to the species it produced. Where is that evidence?

The evidence is in the morphology of other species, in the fossil record, and in our genomes. You know, all the stuff you ignore.

 

[Oncedeceived]

By following the evidence. It's called science. You should look into it.



Because we do create meaning and purpose in our lives. How do we know that clouds can produce rain. Because we freaking watch them produce rain. We also watch humans create meaning and purpose in their lives.

These aren't difficult concepts to understand.



BECAUSE I DO IT!!! I create meaning and purpose in my life. That is how I know I can do it.



Obviously, since we can observe it happening.



I have evidence that the Earth was without life, and then it had life. That is abiogenesis.



Yes, I do. I have the evidence that humans evolved, and are intelligent.



I have every reason, since I am the product of evolution and my life does have meaning.



The evidence is in the morphology of other species, in the fossil record, and in our genomes. You know, all the stuff you ignore.

Each and every one of these you are begging the question.

 

[justlookinla]

There have been a multitude of topics actually. What has been answered exactly?

There's been no answer. A response here and there, peppered with the usual mockery, but no answers.

 

[justlookinla]

Irrelevant. Just's discussion has been limited to his chosen definition of Darwinism which involves the development of all life, including humans, from a single life form using only natural processes. How that first single life form came to be is not part of "Darwinism" and not part of this discussion. For the purpose of this discussion, I will even concede to you the possibility that the first life form was magically put there by the Christian God.

Since my position was incorrectly presented, let me interject and set the record straight.

It's not my chosen definition of Darwinist creationism, it's precisely what Darwinist creationism teaches. I've given the definition of Darwinism probably a hundred times now and I've yet to have anyone to point out error in it. Once again, from Wikipedia....

"Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. "​

That's an inherently atheistic view of how humanity was created.

Also irrelevant. Just's complaint is that the theory, as taught in schools, does not mention anything in the creation of humans other than natural processes. He then stated that it is atheistic and demeans the worth of humanity.

It is atheistic. Darwinist creationism, i.e., the explanation of how humanity was created is only, solely, totally, completely by naturalistic mechanisms. Nothing else is allowed. Everything else is discarded. Other views are dismissed. One and only one creationist view is permitted, the inherently atheistic Darwinist creationist view.

Other theories don't mention anything other than natural processes in the creation of atoms, stars, moon, Earth, mountains, oceans, diseases, or anything else. We don't know Just's feelings about the level of atheistic tendency for those theories because he refuses to discuss it. I am of the opinion that this refusal is due to the fact that it would either undermine his assertions or require him to admit that all science is "atheistic".

The question is concerning how the complex and variety of life we observe today was created. It was either theistic in some form or it was atheistic. Darwinist creationism demands that only one creationist view is allowed.

 

[Oncedeceived]

There's been no answer. A response here and there, peppered with the usual mockery, but no answers.

 

[Loudmouth]

I've given the definition of Darwinism probably a hundred times now and I've yet to have anyone to point out error in it.

And then you add yor own words to it, and try to pretend that it is the same. Sorry, not playing that game.

"Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. "​

That's an inherently atheistic view of how humanity was created.

How is it any more atheistic than this theory?

The germ theory of disease states that some diseases are caused by microorganisms. These small organisms, too small to see without magnification, invade humans, animals, and other living hosts. Their growth and reproduction within their hosts can cause a disease.
Germ theory of disease - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

Darwinist creationism, i.e., the explanation of how humanity was created is only, solely, totally, completely by naturalistic mechanisms. Nothing else is allowed. Everything else is discarded. Other views are dismissed. One and only one creationist view is permitted, the inherently atheistic Darwinist creationist view.

Your description is different from the actual definition given above, as predicted. You change the definition.

The question is concerning how the complex and variety of life we observe today was created. It was either theistic in some form or it was atheistic. Darwinist creationism demands that only one creationist view is allowed.

Apply the same logic to cloud formation or weather patterns, and see if it makes any sense. Is meteorology an atheistic pursuit?

 

[Loudmouth]

There's been no answer. A response here and there, peppered with the usual mockery, but no answers.

Mockery is a perfect description of your use of the term "Darwinist creationism". It is only meant to mock.

 

[justlookinla]

And then you add yor own words to it, and try to pretend that it is the same. Sorry, not playing that game.



How is it any more atheistic than this theory?

The germ theory of disease states that some diseases are caused by microorganisms. These small organisms, too small to see without magnification, invade humans, animals, and other living hosts. Their growth and reproduction within their hosts can cause a disease.
Germ theory of disease - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

Your description is different from the actual definition given above, as predicted. You change the definition.

No, I take the definition and draw certain conclusions from it.

Apply the same logic to cloud formation or weather patterns, and see if it makes any sense. Is meteorology an atheistic pursuit?

This is about the creation of humanity by some process or power.

 

[justlookinla]

Mockery is a perfect description of your use of the term "Darwinist creationism". It is only meant to mock.

No, not true at all. It's simply a recognition of one of the creationist viewpoints.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, not true at all.

Yes, it is true. It is obvious to everyone. You only have mockery, and have no interest in discussing actual science, or even participate in normal adult conversations.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, I take the definition and draw certain conclusions from it.

Stop pretending that your conclusions are part of the definition.

This is about the creation of humanity by some process or power.

Creationism refers to creation by a deity, not natural processes. Please learn to use the word correctly.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

I've been waiting for your response but haven't seen it?

I didn't see a reply in either the fourth or the current iteration of this thread. Could you please link me to your response?

Also, this: "The fact that we do have meaning, purpose and intelligence does not fit with ToE"... is obviously begging the question. What evidence do you have that we do indeed have any meaning or purpose beyond feeling that this is so?

 

[justlookinla]

Stop pretending that your conclusions are part of the definition.



Creationism refers to creation by a deity, not natural processes. Please learn to use the word correctly.

Creationism refers to the creation of humanity, and all life forms by whatever means created them.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, it is true. It is obvious to everyone. You only have mockery, and have no interest in discussing actual science, or even participate in normal adult conversations.

Really? You can't even read a paper presented to you and yet you demand others to read your links and what you present and you never provide the information in your own words.

 

[Loudmouth]

Really? You can't even read a paper presented to you and yet you demand others to read your links and what you present and you never provide the information in your own words.

It is not my job to do your research. Present the information from any paper you like, I will read it, and I will discuss it with you. All I require is that you read it, too, which I know that you will not do.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I didn't see a reply in either the fourth or the current iteration of this thread. Could you please link me to your response?

Also, this: "The fact that we do have meaning, purpose and intelligence does not fit with ToE"... is obviously begging the question. What evidence do you have that we do indeed have any meaning or purpose beyond feeling that this is so?

Right I said I didn't see that it was your response when I saw the link. Sorry.

In a worldview that comes from a non-intelligent process without meaning or purpose there is no reason to believe that intelligence, meaning or purpose arise in that process. It is not cohesive with that worldview. To have that worldview, one must have an explanation for that to be a reality.

In the Christian worldview, it is cohesive for our intelligence to be from intelligence, to have meaning and purpose when that is what we come from.

 

[Loudmouth]

In a worldview that comes from a non-intelligent process without meaning or purpose there is no reason to believe that intelligence, meaning or purpose arise in that process.

There is every reason to believe it when we observe that it is the case.

 

[bhsmte]

It is not my job to do your research. Present the information from any paper you like, I will read it, and I will discuss it with you. All I require is that you read it, too, which I know that you will not do.

Why not? Someone else makes a claim about something they link and they want you to figure it out.