Subduction Zone
Regular Member
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.
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.
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.
In that case, its nothing to me. I'm only concerned about the teaching of the scientific theory of evolution.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.
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.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.
I'm glad you finally agree that that's not what science says.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7828044/#post65828586
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.
Nothing suggests the soul wasn't already there either
The pseudo-scientific atheistic creationist viewpoint claims this.
The pseudo-scientific atheistic creationist viewpoint claims this.
The sequence of events suggests the soul wasn't there. Adam did not exist until God created him.
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.
Your made up viewpoint might say it, but no one cares because no one actually has that view
The sequence of events suggests the soul wasn't there. Adam did not exist until God created him.
I don't believe that the soul was given by the life-giving breath. The soul was given after the life-giving breath.
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.
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,Unfortunately, you fail on two counts.
a. to dispute; challenge.
b. to cast doubt upon; question: This report calls into question all previous research on the subject.
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?
No, God 'built' a man with no soul until He imputed the soul into His creation.
You've given nothing.
Why should only one faith-based creationist viewpoint be taught in schools in the guise of science?
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.
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?