FSG wrote:looks like mark is equivocating again, with the same two defintions of "creationist" .
Creation is defined not by me but the use of 'bara' (Gen. 1:1, 1:21, 1:27) in the Genesis account and the requisite New Testament witness. Especially with regards to the creation of life. The creation of Adam is not a question and it's mutually exclusive with your equivocation of evolution and your naturalistic assumptions.
"Creationist" is most commonly understood to mean "one who denies common descent", but it can also mean "one who believes God did the creating". That's the key to mark's equivocation.
No, 'Creationist' means the doctrine that God 'created' ex nihilo:
Biblical scholars and theologians within the Judaeo-Christian tradition such as Augustine (354-430), John Calvin (15091564), John Wesley (17031791) and Matthew Henry (16621714)[14] cite Genesis 1:1 in support of the idea of Divine creation out of nothing.(
Ex nihilo)
Which is the precise meaning of 'bara' which is out of nothing, that is, without precursors.
From that, let's un-equivocate mark's post:
Let's un-equivocate that, shall we:
Which isn't a word, 'equivocation' is a logical fallacy:
Equivocation ("to call by the same name") is classified as an informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words (words with multiple meanings).(
Equivocation)
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'. 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 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'.
This is the term from the Scriptures I use as the basis for 'Creation' with no alternate definition implied or suggested (
Strong's Number H1254 בָּרָא bara').
Under definition #1, mark's statement is FALSE:
if you are not a common descent denier your not a Christian.
.
Nonsense, I have said repeatedly that you must be a creationist in order to be a Christian. It is not a denial of 'common descent' it's a positive affirmation of essential Christian theism based on the Nicene Creed:
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made. (Nicene Creed)
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'.
That is why I phrased the poll question the way I did. If the universe (Gen. 1:1) life (Gen. 1:21), and man (Gen. 1:27) were created by some naturalistic process then it's a secondary means of creation. This makes no sense when the Scriptures make it clear that these acts of creation were without precursors.
Papias knows this, he is deliberately misleading you.
Under definition #2, mark's statement is TRUE:
if you are not a a person who believes God created, even through evolution your not a Christian.
Evolution defined as what?
That kind of a statement - "if you are not a creationist your not a Christian." implies the statement in red, while using the statement in green as a fall back for when someone points out that his statement violates the rules.
Papias
My definitions are on the table...again. When forced to Papias will come up with a definition for evolution that simply means the change of alleles in populations over time. The naturalistic assumptions he is passing off as scientific are nothing more then a philosophical propositional truth that must remain self existing and self evident, aka a priori. In other words, it must be made before the empirical evidence is examined which is an an, 'a posteriori' process.
What is actually at the heart of this whole controversy is epistemology (theories of knowledge). That's why the subject matter is continually getting muddied and mired in these insatiable fallacious arguments. The atheistic materialist thinks Christians are stupid and would never be able to sort out the subtleties. They recruit Theistic Evolutionists using fallacious arguments the TE uses to attack essential Christian theism unknowingly.
Creation and Darwinism is mutually exclusive, any evolutionist can tell you that but won't. They much prefer to call it evolution but they never tell you, they have added their naturalistic assumptions as a transcendent or universal propositional truth without telling you.
It's called 'equivocation' and Papias knows this.
Have a nice day
Mark
