mark, that's another of your frankenstein definitions, where you grab things from different sources, stitch them together, and try to pass them off as a definition. It may work in your own mind, but not in the real world.
That's the point of a definition, there is a definite meaning with precise details, essential meanings, literal and common usage meanings. What is commonly referred in Modernism as dogma is really just essential doctrine defined by the standards (aka canon) of the Christian faith. Science also has standards by which natural phenomenon is measured, compared and evaluated.
A definition is the same for everyone, the whims and caprices of those who would bend definition to their will are neutralized. That's why I demand your definition from a commonly recognized source authority, that's why we debated this formally from Catholic authority. That way you don't get to rationalize the obvious away.
Let's De-frankenmark that for you:
Oh goodie, another convoluted clutch phrase.
Darwinism was a part of, 'the movement at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries that sought to adapt doctrine to the supposed requirements of modern thought'.
The purple part is something you made up and stitched in there. There is no dictionary that defines "Darwinism" that way.
That's a conclusion based on the definition of Modernism from the RCC. In order to realize the substantive basis for that connection you must have a standard by which the definition for Darwinism (AKA the
Modern Synthesis) and Modernism are compared. You conflate and confuse the definitions relentlessly in order to reject the obvious fact that Modernism and Darwinism adapt doctrine to 'the supposed requirements of modern thought'.
The green part is part of the description of modernism, not Darwinism, which applies to philosophy, as the full description itself says.
mark, maybe instead of frankenmark descriptions, you could use, you know, a dictionary?
I know what these words mean, you know what they mean, that's not the issue. I know what the Scriptures and the canons of Christian theism are and so do you, that's not the problem. The problem is Modernism, Darwinism and Theistic Evolution want you to chase answers around in circles like chasing ghosts in the fog. Nothing is ever defined, everything is shrouded in an endless barrage of fallacious diversions.
Out of context? Tell me how it is out of context? The whole document supports theistic evolution, and you can't point to any part that doesn't, and you know it. Go ahead, point to some unrelated part and then claim it says something it doesn't - I can't say I'll surprised, though.
Then quote it in context don't run me in circles by begging the question of proof. What happens when I answer the question, you ask it again and again. Nothing is defined, nothing is ever conclusive, there is not standard by which to make a determination. It's called begging the question of proof and is a staple of Theistic Evolution, second only to the inevitable ad hominem. You can't appeal to an actual standard, scientific or theological, because when you do there is a proof for an alternative to an a priori assumption of exclusively naturalistic causes. The presuppositions of Darwinian dogma cannot allow that so it's buried in fallacious diversions.
As far as "inflammatory", have you read any of your posts?
There is a standard for determining a valid criticism on Christian Forums, it's called evidence. I've always supported my criticisms of you and the worldly philosophy you defend so zealously. I'm not the one with an antithetical view, I don't have to attack the standards of science or the canons of Christian theism to make my point. I can measure against clearly established standards and canons and make the indictment stick. Don't blame me when your Achilles heal is the fallacious rhetoric you shamelessly promote.
OK, mark, now that you've copied, it, can I assume that you've read it? What part of it do you not understand?
First of all nothing substantive or coherent, it's a rhetorical circular questions punctuated with an inevitable ad hominem. It's a fallacious statement, an argument that never happened, because you have nothing substantive. You have nothing substantive because you have abandoned the standards of science and the canons of faith. Chase all the ghosts in the fog you like but don't try to bring me on one of your expeditions. I have actual standards and canons to appeal to.
Do you understand the part about "converging evidence"? How about "virtually certain"? How about "humanoid lineage"? Did you just happen to miss all those? When he says "humanOID", what you think is meant?
A text without a context is a pretext. 'Christian culture being attacked, men persuading themselves of what they do not wish to believe. Arguing that evolution, not fully proven, proves all things, such fictitious tenets repudiate all that is absolute and paved the way of the new erroneous philosophy.'
Did you read his conclusions or just cherry pick his descriptions from their natural context. This practice of quoting out of context is yet another flawed argument that cannot stand on it's merit, it must be sustained by the ubiquitous ad hominem. He further warns, ' errors, it is clear, have crept in among certain of Our sons who are deceived by imprudent zeal for souls or by false science'.
There you go again, falsely equating two different things, like you did with "modernism" and "Darwinism" above, except this time with "TE" and "Modernism". You can't stop with making out your own definitions, can you?
I don't need to make up definitions, I have standards by which they can be determined whether you want to admit it or not. Darwinism is defined by the Erasmus and Charles Darwin and Darwin's bulldog. Theistic evolution is nothing but Darwinism or evolutionists would be attacking them with the same zeal they do Creationism and Intelligent Design. Darwinians don't attack Theistic Evolution because it's the same thing.
Now if you think I'm wrong in concluding that you entitled to your opinion. If you think there are two different semantical terms being equivocated there is a simple remedy, define both and the difference will be obvious, the way I refuted the equivocations of evolution and Darwinism. All you really need to destroy an equivocation fallacy is the two definitions. I've never seen it fail. It definitively train wrecked your fallacious arguments.
Which, as you are hopefully starting to see, never says anything against the Pope's support for Theistic Evolution.
Which, as I know you are well aware, lead to the dire warnings against the dangers of Modernist philosophies like and especially, Theistic Evolution.
mark, it sounds nothing like that - oh, except in your own mind, where you have contructed this idea that the reality of UCA is somehow a conspiracy against Christianity.
I never called the a priori assumption of universal common ancestry by exclusively naturalistic means, a conspiracy, I called it Darwinism. It's one long argument against Creation and Theistic Evolution is the same thing with a theistic label.
All truth is God's word, and so God can't be conspiring against himself.
All truth is not God's Word, that's blasphemy. To equivocate God with naturalistic reasoning is no different then redefining God as '
being itself', an semantic equivocation from dialectical humanism known as Liberal Theology. Yet another Modernist philosophy predicated on semantical bait and switch rhetoric.
Of course not, because UCA is a conclusion, not an assumption. That's been pointed out to you many times, and by others as well.
It's a universal, a priori assumption. That's why it's called universal in the first place.
Modernism as you yourself defined it:
modernism —
n modern tendencies, characteristics, thoughts, etc, or the support of thesesomething typical of contemporary life or thought See
International Style a 20th-century divergence in the arts from previous traditions, esp in architecture (
capital )
RC Church the movement at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries that sought to adapt doctrine to the supposed requirements of modern thought
Of course - showing that we are talking about philosphical naturalism, which I and others have condemned many times. I'm not sure why you still don't see that, when it is clear from the definition.
Calling Darwinism something else doesn't change what it is. Your begging the question of proof again. You have argued using this semantical shell game and you've been refuted every single time. Not because I'm such a great debater but because your arguments are hopelessly fallacious.
And when you previously on this same thread accused me of that, I kindly asked for you to point out where I made an ad hominem attack, so that I could apologize, and you admitted that I did not do so on this thread. Can you point out a place now, or is this more of you empty insults?
I already have, every time you have resorted to them in this thread and in this post. I clearly identify the ad hominems and asking circular questions doesn't absolve you from the fact that fallacious arguments are arguments that never happened. Like begging the question of proof, if it's a fallacious rhetorical device like the one you just used it's just dismissed.
More empty insults. This section is especially funny since you have been avoiding the actual dictionary defintions again and again on this thread, and making up your own definitions.
Your arguments fell faster then any of the Theistic Evolutionist arguments I had to deal with on here. The reason is that you locked yourself into a standard, RCC doctrine and dogma. That's something no self respecting Theistic Evolutionist would ever do, just like they never admit or acknowledge definitions or standards of evidence. Because if they do the inverse logic is intuitively obvious, a null hypothesis emerges and Creation as history becomes a valid alternative to atheistic materialism. That's something the directors and producers of the Darwinian theater of the mind would never allow.
Never the less a gentlemanly response Papias, my compliments on your civility. If you can make some progress on substantive standards and definitions you might relieve your burden from fallacious rhetoric but one step at a time.
Grace and peace,
Mark
