Why Is Darwinism So Dangerous? (5)

[Split Rock]

Is that justa's unique definition of is it, or really an actual group of people that describes their belief? I've never heard of atheistic creationist community before. It sounds like an oxymoron.

The term is an invention of justa. In order to try and "have their cake and eat it too," creationists must undergo strenuous mental gymnastics and brain-twisting. Just wants his creationism to have parity with evolution, therefore he is using a variant on "evolution is a religious belief, just like creationism." In this case, he has invented "atheistic creationism." Presumably, this is a faith-based belief in man's origin that doesn't include any deity. I have tried to get him to explain how one does science by including a deity, or to understand that science is naturalistic by necessity, but to no avail. He is being purposely obtuse.

 

[RickG]

I may sound like a conspiracy theorist here but...

I'm starting to think these trolls are just trying to get normal thinking people to call them idiots and other names so they can report them to the point of suspension or banning.

Is that plausible, or am I overestimating their guile?

My exact thoughts.

 

[DerelictJunction]

I may sound like a conspiracy theorist here but...

I'm starting to think these trolls are just trying to get normal thinking people to call them idiots and other names so they can report them to the point of suspension or banning.

Is that plausible, or am I overestimating their guile?

That would make them devious and underhanded. I don't recall that those are listed in fruits of the Spirit.
I am not well versed in reading the Bible using the Holy Spirit, but I didn't see those traits mentioned as laudatory in any of Jesus' sermons either.

 

[Split Rock]

I may sound like a conspiracy theorist here but...

I'm starting to think these trolls are just trying to get normal thinking people to call them idiots and other names so they can report them to the point of suspension or banning.

Is that plausible, or am I overestimating their guile?

You probably are. It is just another variant of , "Evolution is a religion!!... nah-nah, I can't hear you!!"

 

[Subduction Zone]

And here we see the insidiousness of Darwinism. Even when out-of-place fossils are found, you just adjust the theory to fit. Even if we found your Precambrian Bunny, you'd just explain it away.

Once again, there is nothing in the theory of evolution that says genus or families must die. All your source did was to list some "living fossils". It did not list any out of place fossils.


By the way, what does everyone think of the new signature?

 

[lasthero]

Also, is it just my imagination, or does he keep changing the term to become more and more inflammatory?

Before, it was 'Darwinist creationism'. Before that, it was 'Darwinist evolution', I think.

 

[bhsmte]

I already answered this.

When God was cleaning up the mess from the Flood, He had to put the bodies somewhere.
Since He is a very orderly being, He decided to group the dead bodies in sedimentary layers in the ground. Well, He had to move those layers anyway to get rid of the Flood mess.
So, He put animals that were similar in the same layers so that it looked like a rainbow of sorts. You know, a spectrum of continuity from one layer to another. God is fond of rainbows.

Easy peasy

Hilarious!

 

[bhsmte]

I may sound like a conspiracy theorist here but...

I'm starting to think these trolls are just trying to get normal thinking people to call them idiots and other names so they can report them to the point of suspension or banning.

Is that plausible, or am I overestimating their guile?

In this case, I would think it is simply a case of a troll enjoying watching people get riled up.

 

[bhsmte]

Also, is it just my imagination, or does he keep changing the term to become more and more inflammatory?

Before, it was 'Darwinist creationism'. Before that, it was 'Darwinist evolution', I think.

Hence, the motivation to obtain a desired reaction.

 

[justlookinla]

Wrong he gave you something. You did not understand it.

Let's go simpler. The theory of evolution makes predictions about the fossil record. Every fossil found to date follows those predictions. The theory of evolution says that as the strata gets older we will find life that was the forerunner of today's life. We can trace lineages up and down the fossil record. Fossils will not be found that are out of place. In other words we will not find a bunny rabbit before fishes.

What does your belief predict in regard to the fossil record? And remember the definition of scientific evidence:

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

Still....nothing. This imaginary 'mountain of evidence' keeps getting taller and taller.

 

[justlookinla]

Science utilizes only naturalistic mechanisms and explanations, which according to you, represents an atheistic faith-based belief. So, according to you, science should not be taught at all. Is this correct?

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.

 

[justlookinla]

What in the sand hill is "atheistic creationist community"?

Those are the followers of the faith-based creationist viewpoint that you and I, all of humanity, all of life in it's complexity and variety is totally, completely, solely, naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

I have addressed that previously as well providing the evolution of the oceans and atmosphere, which again you keep ignoring.

You keep ignoring the issue. The issue is about the impetus which created you and me from a single life form of long long ago.

Bottom line, do you intend to discuss anything or do you just want to be looked upon as a troll. Everything I have presented specifically addresses your question.

Bottom line, not a single shred of evidence, no proof, is offered by anyone, including you, for the creationist viewpoint that all of life we observe today was created only, completely, solely, by naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

 

[PsychoSarah]

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.
​

1Co_15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
​

Became a living soul, this implies Adam already had a soul but wasn't alive until god breathed life into him.

 

[justlookinla]

Also, is it just my imagination, or does he keep changing the term to become more and more inflammatory?

Before, it was 'Darwinist creationism'. Before that, it was 'Darwinist evolution', I think.

Nothing about it should be considered inflammatory, unless it angers you that your creationist view is being questioned.

 

[justlookinla]

Became a living soul, this implies Adam already had a soul but wasn't alive until god breathed life into him.

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.

 

[Delphiki]

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

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

 

[PsychoSarah]

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

 

[DerelictJunction]

Nothing about it should be considered inflammatory, unless it angers you that your creationist view is being questioned.

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?

 

[DerelictJunction]

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.

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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Still....nothing. This imaginary 'mountain of evidence' keeps getting taller and taller.

What do you mean nothing? Sorry, but now that I have the definition, from your favorite source, of scientific evidence in my signature you can no longer honestly deny that we have evidence.

Every fossils ever found fits the evolutionary paradigm. Creationists don't have an explanation for the observed fossil strata that has not been debunked. That means they have no evidence at all. In other words each fossil is a point of evidence for the theory of evolution and the theory of evolution only.