Fascinated With God
Traditional Apostolic Methodist
- Aug 30, 2012
- 1,432
- 75
- 56
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Green
That makes absolutely no sense. How is 'common descent' any different from 'universal common descent'? Anyway, I don't believe in common descent so splitting hairs over something I don't believe in won't convince me of anything.Which is what Papias and the other evolutionists do with two definitions of evolution. The scientific meaning of 'evolution' is the, 'change of alleles (traits) in populations over time'. What Papias is doing here is calling a Creationist a, 'common descent denier' which is a fraudulent misrepresentation of what it is. Evolution is it is being used here is the 'a priori (without prior) of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means'. I have told him that repeatedly but he purposely equivocates, 'common descent' with 'universal common descent'.
As to 'exclusively naturalistic means', you are simply making false accusations about what we believe. That is very unbecoming and uncivilized. I believe in divine selection as well as natural selection, social selection (also called social Darwinism), and sexual selection. That is why I asked you about the Chosen Race. That is clearly a case of divine selection in action. One population expanded while others were wiped out or dramatically reduced, all by the hand of God.
I am not denying there are lots of atheists in biology, but Darwin was not an atheist and there is nothing inherently atheistic about evolution, as you falsely imply. Atheists can put an atheistic spin on evolution, just as Christians can put a theistic spin on evolution, which in my view is far more accurate than the atheistic take.It's called Darwinism and it's a formal and categorical rejection of 'special creation':in the Introduction to his "Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertébres.' In these works he upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin)
The supposed equivocation you tried to fabricate made no sense what-so-ever. Whether or not the word universal is in the term makes absolutely no difference that I can see.The equivocation fallacy here is the one Papias and all evolutionists, theistic or otherwise, use to conflate and confuse the observer. It is the, 'misleading use of a term with more than one meaning', that is the fallacy or flaw in the argument, rightfully branded 'equivocation'.
<edit>
Repeating a false accusation over and over doesn't make it any less false. You are simply trying to fabricate your own definition that evolution must be associated with atheism. It is completely without substance.Papias purposely misleads with one vital omission, what is denied is 'universal common descent' and a secondary element to Darwinism which is, 'by exclusively naturalistic means'.
To be deliberately obscure, yes we know.That is why I phrased the poll question the way I did.
Papias is neither leading nor misleading me. We have our own opinions which happen to coincide to some extent.Papias knows this, he is deliberately misleading you.
That is what this argument really is, you are just trying to quibble over what the definition of 'is' is.Evolution defined as what?
Your strawman definitions which are nothing more than false accusations. You seem to know what we think better than we do. It is one thing to say that you disagree with a statement someone makes, it is quite something else to say that we don't even know what we actually believe and you are going to tell us what it is that we actually believe. <edit>My definitions are on the table...again.
.
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0