Why Is Darwinism So Dangerous? (5)

[justlookinla]

Is biological reproduction a form of creationism because it creates a new human being? Yes or no?

No.

You mean the atheistic creationism of natural childbirth?

No,

That is how your Christian Bizzaro world vocabulary works, right?

No.

Is up really down in Christian Bizzaro world? What about wet, is it dry? Is black actually white? When you say that you have the truth, do you really mean a lie?

No.

Why should anyone trust a single word that you write when you are willing to twist words beyond recognition? Why should anyone participate in a religion that requires people to lie?

I can see you're upset with the revelation, the expose' that Darwinism is a creationist viewpoint. Truth is truth is truth.

 

[Loudmouth]

No.

Why not? Why isn't biological reproduction a form of creationism since it deals with the creation of a human being? Explain.

I can see you're upset with the revelation, the expose' that Darwinism is a creationist viewpoint. Truth is truth is truth.

Here is the truth.

cre·a·tion·ism noun \-shə-ˌni-zəm\
: the belief that God created all things out of nothing as described in the Bible and that therefore the theory of evolution is incorrect
Creationism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

 

[justlookinla]

Why not? Why isn't biological reproduction a form of creationism since it deals with the creation of a human being? Explain.

Creationism deals with new life forms being created which didn't exist before.

Here is the truth.

cre·a·tion·ism noun \-shə-ˌni-zəm\
: the belief that God created all things out of nothing as described in the Bible and that therefore the theory of evolution is incorrect
Creationism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

The theory of evolution is correct. Darwinist creationism isn't correct.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by justlookinla

Blame it on evolution. I had nothing to do with it.
​

Originally Posted by bhsmte

Personal psychology would be a better fit to place blame on.
​

Nope, it's the result of flatworm sex.

What the heck is it with the obsession with the flatworm?
They do have a rather interesting "courtship"..........

quote: "All flatworms are hermaphrodites. The loser doesn't become "female," it becomes the mother. It still has a penis. It's just a mum."

quote: "No they are both hermaphrodites. So I don't know what you would call their sexual preference but they are not gay. They just fight over who can be the man in mating."

Flatworms Penis Fencing!!! - YouTube


.

 

[Loudmouth]

Creationism deals with new life forms being created which didn't exist before.

A baby is a new life form, and they are created through biological reproduction.

That makes biological reproduction a form of creationism using your definition.

The theory of evolution is correct. Darwinist creationism isn't correct.

Darwinist creationism doesn't exist.

 

[justlookinla]

What the heck is it with the obsession with the flatworm?
They do have a rather interesting "courtship"..........

quote: "All flatworms are hermaphrodites. The loser doesn't become "female," it becomes the mother. It still has a penis. It's just a mum."

quote: "No they are both hermaphrodites. So I don't know what you would call their sexual preference but they are not gay. They just fight over who can be the man in mating."

Flatworms Penis Fencing!!! - YouTube


.

The flatworm is just one of our great great (x100?) grandfathers, according to some.

 

[Dizredux]

Flatworm sex can be a scientific term but "Icky Poo!" is not something we find in the literature.

Dizredux

 

[DerelictJunction]

Create a human by yourself and then we'll talk.

According to your use of "create" when talking about the development of the human species, my wife and I did create 4 humans.

Now, if you are saying that humans were created separately from other life forms by your God, then evidence would be required to get me to believe that over the process of evolution currently put forth by the scientific community.

 

[DerelictJunction]

I don't have evidence that God is incapable of creating anything.

Then why do you discount the scientific explanation for that creation? Do you think that God is incapable of preventing scientific investigation from seeing His "fingerprints" on the creation?

 

[justlookinla]

According to your use of "create" when talking about the development of the human species, my wife and I did create 4 humans.

How many have you created by yourself?

Now, if you are saying that humans were created separately from other life forms by your God, then evidence would be required to get me to believe that over the process of evolution currently put forth by the scientific community.

Ok.

 

[justlookinla]

Then why do you discount the scientific explanation for that creation? Do you think that God is incapable of preventing scientific investigation from seeing His "fingerprints" on the creation?

There is no scientific explanation for the creation of a human from a single life form from long long ago. I think that God's fingerprints are in creation, but that's just my faith based view.

 

[DerelictJunction]

There is no scientific explanation for the creation of a human from a single life form from long long ago.

That is a lie because you have been presented with the scientific explanation. You know it is a lie.

I think that God's fingerprints are in creation, but that's just my faith based view.

However, you can't present those "fingerprints" such that anyone can see them. Since you can't, why would you expect science to find them and make them part of any theory of theirs?

 

[justlookinla]

That is a lie because you have been presented with the scientific explanation. You know it is a lie. However, you can't present those "fingerprints" such that anyone can see them. Since you can't, why would you expect science to find them and make them part of any theory of theirs?

No, it's the truth. Lots of guesses and suppositions, could be's and might have beens, but no scientific proof that humanity was created from a single life form from long long ago.

Nobody even knows what the first life form was from which humanity was created many years after it's existence. Lots of guesses though, with the typical may be's, could be's and possibly's interspersed throughout the 'scientific' theories.

 

[PsychoSarah]

No, it's the truth. Lots of guesses and suppositions, could be's and might have beens, but no scientific proof that humanity was created from a single life form from long long ago.

Nobody even knows what the first life form was from which humanity was created many years after it's existence. Lots of guesses though, with the typical may be's, could be's and possibly's interspersed throughout the 'scientific' theories.

There is no scientific evidence or proof of any deity, seriously, your arguments would wreak your position far worse than ours.

 

[DerelictJunction]

No, it's the truth. Lots of guesses and suppositions, could be's and might have beens, but no scientific proof that humanity was created from a single life form from long long ago.

Nobody even knows what the first life form was from which humanity was created many years after it's existence. Lots of guesses though, with the typical may be's, could be's and possibly's interspersed throughout the 'scientific' theories.

Even if the scientific explanation was a bunch of guesses, which it is not, it is still the scientific explanation. You have been presented with it and you stated that a scientific explanation did not exist. Therefore, you flat out lied.

If you are saying the scientific explanation is wrong, then that is a different matter. Would you like to bring up particular areas where it is wrong and provide us with your explanation as to what is wrong with it and what scientists did incorrectly?

 

[justlookinla]

There is no scientific evidence or proof of any deity, seriously, your arguments would wreak your position far worse than ours.

Have I claimed there's scientific proof of any entity? I don't think so. There's no scientific proof for Darwinist creationism either.

 

[bhsmte]

Have I claimed there's scientific proof of any entity? I don't think so. There's no scientific proof for Darwinist creationism either.

We agree, there is no objective evidence for either of the things above, they are both made up in your own mind.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Have I claimed there's scientific proof of any entity? I don't think so. There's no scientific proof for Darwinist creationism either.

Mutations, shared DNA similarities between all life on earth, the fossil record, seriously all this and more is evidence for evolution. You can't just wave it away like it doesn't exist.

 

[justlookinla]

Even if the scientific explanation was a bunch of guesses, which it is not, it is still the scientific explanation./QUOTE]

No, it's a bunch of guesses, not based on observation and experimentation for a truthful conclusion. When one's position is peppered with could be's, maybe's and possibly's, that's a sure indication that the view is subjective.

You have been presented with it and you stated that a scientific explanation did not exist. Therefore, you flat out lied.

I've been presented with the claim that humanity is the result of only, entirely, completely, solely naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form (which isn't identified) from long long ago. I've not been presented with evidence for that creationist view.

If you are saying the scientific explanation is wrong, then that is a different matter. Would you like to bring up particular areas where it is wrong and provide us with your explanation as to what is wrong with it and what scientists did incorrectly?

I'm saying that the Darwinist creationist model of explaining the variety and complexity of life we see today isn't a scientific creationist view, but is instead a faith-based, inherently atheistic creationist view.

 

[justlookinla]

Mutations, shared DNA similarities between all life on earth, the fossil record, seriously all this and more is evidence for evolution. You can't just wave it away like it doesn't exist.

Not a single thing you've reference offers the slightest evidence that humanity is the result of only naturalistic forces acting on an (unknown) single life form from long long ago.