Why Is Darwinism So Dangerous? (5)

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, science uses only naturalistic mechanisms and explanations, but the faith-based atheistic creationist viewpoint isn't based on science, it's based on pseudo-science. Science doesn't teach that all complex and varied life we observe today is solely, completely, totally, only naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago, that particular creationist philosophy is the brainchild of atheistic creationists who invoke a plethora of guesses and suppositions, dress it up in a cheap suit of pseudo-science, and claim their faith-based belief system is science.

Not only are you being dishonest here, but you are also stealing lines.

You broke two commandments in one post. Very very good. And you threw in a strawman argument to boot.

 

[Split Rock]

Yes, science uses only naturalistic mechanisms and explanations, but the faith-based atheistic creationist viewpoint isn't based on science, it's based on pseudo-science.

In that case, its nothing to me. I'm only concerned about the teaching of the scientific theory of evolution.

Science doesn't teach that all complex and varied life we observe today is solely, completely, totally, only naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago, that particular creationist philosophy is the brainchild of atheistic creationists who invoke a plethora of guesses and suppositions, dress it up in a cheap suit of pseudo-science, and claim their faith-based belief system is science.

So, who is teaching this "atheist creationism" that you keep going on about, and where is it being taught? I've never seen it myself.

 

[justlookinla]

I'm glad you finally agree that that's not what science says.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7828044/#post65828586

The pseudo-scientific atheistic creationist viewpoint claims this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
​

The order is...1) God formed man of the dust of the ground. 2) Man was given life. 3) Man became a living soul.

The soulish part was given after the formation and life giving Spirit of God. There is nothing in scripture to suggest Adam was a soulish being before then.

So do you believe this nonsense?

 

[justlookinla]

Nothing suggests the soul wasn't already there either

The sequence of events suggests the soul wasn't there. Adam did not exist until God created him.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The pseudo-scientific atheistic creationist viewpoint claims this.

Your made up viewpoint might say it, but no one cares because no one actually has that view

 

[Split Rock]

The pseudo-scientific atheistic creationist viewpoint claims this.

So.... who exactly is claiming this here? Where is it being taught?

 

[PsychoSarah]

The sequence of events suggests the soul wasn't there. Adam did not exist until God created him.

The soul still might have been there before life was breathed in. It says life was breathed in so Adam became a living soul, the soul was given life, not existence.

 

[justlookinla]

The order could just as well be...1) God formed man of the dust of the ground, including his soul. 2) Man was given life as was his soul. 3) Man became a living soul.
There is nothing in scripture to suggest Adam was an non-soulish being before life was breathed in. You are adding to scripture.
Both possibilities are equally likely but the addition of the soul by life-giving breath is not specifically mentioned.

I don't believe that the soul was given by the life-giving breath. The soul was given after the life-giving breath.

 

[Split Rock]

Your made up viewpoint might say it, but no one cares because no one actually has that view

Yeah, I've been trying to figure that out myself.

 

[bhsmte]

So.... who exactly is claiming this here? Where is it being taught?

In his fairy tale world of; justlookinlaville, where justlookinlaism reigns supreme.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The sequence of events suggests the soul wasn't there. Adam did not exist until God created him.

Adam is a myth. When do you think that Adam existed? Give a reasonable time range. And was he the only man at the time the way that the Bible says, since Eve came later.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I don't believe that the soul was given by the life-giving breath. The soul was given after the life-giving breath.

In what scripture? And also, if you don't think the soul was given at that point, why do you quote it as if you do?

 

[Naturalism]

You're not going to give an example of any creative mechanism, other than only, solely, completely a naturalistic mechanism, which was taught in school, are you? That's because that's the only thing taught in schools.

As opposed to what creative forces, magic?

Science is in principle demonstrating natural causes for natural effects. What other sort of causes are there and what is the evidence for them?

 

[justlookinla]

1. The evolutionist view is not creationist by any definition that you can link to besides your post on this forum.
Perhaps you mean that you are calling into question the evolutionist view.

call in / into question,
a. to dispute; challenge.
b. to cast doubt upon; question: This report calls into question all previous research on the subject.​

Unfortunately, you fail on two counts.
1. You haven't addressed the evolutionist view.
2. You haven't provided anything in the way of evidence that could call into question the point of view you have addressed nor the evolutionist point of view.

Still waiting for that criticism. Did you plan on getting around to it sometime this month?

I've questioned the atheistic creationist point of view, asking for evidence for the view, for proof of the view that all of life, in it's incomprehensible complexity and variety, is totally, completely, solely the result of natural mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

What happens frequently is an attempt to change the issue from proving the creationist view to one of common descent. The focus will continue to be on identifying, and offering evidence, for the viewpoint that humanity is a creation of entirely naturalistic processes acting on a single life form of long long ago.

 

[Naturalism]

No, God 'built' a man with no soul until He imputed the soul into His creation.

What is a 'soul'? What are its properties? How to quantify it? How could even possibly assert its existence without first defining what it is and is not. How could we test for its existence for instance?

 

[Loudmouth]

You've given nothing.

You are breaking the 9th commandment once again.

justlookinla: Use the same definition you use when you ask creationists for evidence. We'll see if that suffices.

Loudmouth: Ok then. I would ask first for some observable mechanisms.

Evolution has those mechanisms. It has the observed mechanisms of mutation, selection, and speciation.

So there is your evidence.

 

[Naturalism]

Why should only one faith-based creationist viewpoint be taught in schools in the guise of science?

What is faith-based about a empirical science like biology?

 

[Loudmouth]

I've questioned the atheistic creationist

Creationist requires a deity.

Try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've questioned the atheistic creationist point of view, asking for evidence for the view, for proof of the view that all of life, in it's incomprehensible complexity and variety, is totally, completely, solely the result of natural mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

What happens frequently is an attempt to change the issue from proving the creationist view to one of common descent. The focus will continue to be on identifying, and offering evidence, for the viewpoint that humanity is a creation of entirely naturalistic processes acting on a single life form of long long ago.

You are not going to get the answers you want if you keep using strawman arguments.

Perhaps if you were honest for once and gave us your personal beliefs and did not mischaracterize evolution you could learn something.