...Do you even believe in Evolution in the first palce?

[AV1611VET]

The question is not what the bible say...

In view of the fact that I'm the one that asked the question, I would say you are wrong.

If someone reads Genesis 1 and concludes it says whales came after land animals, then I contend they have a reading comprehension problem.

One of my more important points I like to stress is that ... although you may not agree with what the Bible says in Genesis 1, you can't deny Genesis 1 says it.

 

[AV1611VET]

In this case, it is about making Creation-ism and "evolution-ism" appear as though they share the same stage.

They do share the same stage: belief in.

But if you interpret it as: religious belief in, then I say you had better be doing it with respect to the context ... not in spite of it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

They do share the same stage: belief in.

But if you interpret it as: religious belief in, then I say you had better be doing it with respect to the context ... not in spite of it.

They don't share the same stage. Evolution is a theory of biology. Creationism is a religious belief. They may deal with the same subject matter (e.g. the diversity of life on this planet), but that is where the similarity ends and they part ways completely.

That's why the term "evolutionism", as applied to a theory of biology, doesn't make sense unless one wishes to imply that there is some equivalence between it and that other ism - Creationism.

 

[In situ]

So whales created before land animals wouldn't be a miracle?

Would a toaster flying in orbit around Jupiter be a miracle?

 

[AV1611VET]

They don't share the same stage. Evolution is a theory of biology. Creationism is a religious belief. They may deal with the same subject matter (e.g. the diversity of life on this planet), but that is where the similarity ends and they part ways completely.

That's why the term "evolutionism", as applied to a theory of biology, doesn't make sense unless one wishes to imply that there is some equivalence between it and that other ism - Creationism.

Is atheism the religious belief that God doesn't exist?

 

[AV1611VET]

Would a toaster flying in orbit around Jupiter be a miracle?

If you don't want to address my point, you're certainly entitled to remain silent.

 

[In situ]

It's only a miracle if you believed it happened.

I don't see why whales before land animals would make it a miracle. It would disprove evolution of whales as we understand it now, but being a miracle... not so sure how you actually reason here. Do you refer to a subjective belief?

 

[In situ]

If you don't want to address my point, you're certainly entitled to remain silent.

I am addressing your point. However your reply indicates you do not understand the point which I tried to make. Why do you think my comment is not addressing the issue?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Is atheism the religious belief that God doesn't exist?

How is atheism germane to the point? We were talking about the term "evolutionism" and what it implies, not about atheism.

 

[In situ]

I always looked at evolutionism as "a belief in evolution" -- not, "a religious belief in evolution"; but then I would assume the context of the conversation would determine which of the two applies.

Are you saying that 'evolutionist' are people who take the theory for granted with no further questioning and does that mean evolutionary biologist, and people with similar knowledge, are not evolutionist in your terminology?

 

[Strathos]

it seems evolutionism was accepted even before communism - twinc

The Communist Manifesto: Published February 21st, 1848

On the Origin of Species: Published November 24th, 1859

Try again

 

[Strathos]

I don't see why whales before land animals would make it a miracle. It would disprove evolution of whales as we understand it now, but being a miracle... not so sure how you actually reason here. Do you refer to a subjective belief?

This is actually an interesting point. A miracle, by definition, is an event which ignores and is not subject to the laws of physics.

So is AV suggesting that if a fossil of a whale was found from the period before land animals existed, it would be a miracle?

If so, that would mean that the evolution of land animals to whales would still be completely valid and unchallenged, as a miracle is an exception to the rule that does not disprove the rule.

So by saying this it actually seems like he's suggesting that all of the scientific evidence for evolution is valid and correct, and any possible exceptions are miracles, which don't have anything to do with the normal operation of the universe.

 

[Joshua0035]

A miracle, by definition, is an event which ignores and is not subject to the laws of physics.

Actually just the opposite. A miracle is where the law has been violated and God restores His creation back to His purpose and intention. To have a miracle first something needs to be broken and something needs to be fixed and restored.

 

[In situ]

The problems are that

1) It denigrates religions
​

Oh, please ...

I seam to me you may have miss the point he tries to make here. The word is, as a matter of fact, used in such way that it implies evolutionism to be a religion and with that it imply it is bad practice. But this also implies all religions are bad practice and that is why "It denigrates religions". So why you go "Oh, please" when this is pointed out is a bit puzzling to me.

Secondly, in communication we always have a sender and receiver, and what the sender intend to say is not what the receiver always understand it to be because sometimes a message is ambiguous. Therefor, if we want to have less misunderstandings, we should strive to be less ambiguous, and more careful, in our choice of words simply because words can have very different meanings depending on who hears, or read, them.

You said yourself you are using a meaning of the word that is not common understood to be the meaning of it and if you wish people not to misunderstand you it is suggested you do not use that word in the way you do.

It is a friendly recommendation, and not to be taken as an expression of paranoia.

 

[Strathos]

When God performs a miracle it can be anything, meaning it doesn't have to follow the laws of physics. So if something is classified as a miracle, then it's not a challenge to any scientific theories, since science doesn't apply to it. The science in question is still correct in all non-miraculous circumstances.

For example look at Joshua 10:13

The sun and moon stand still in the sky for an entire day. Obviously this can't happen according to the theories of gravity, momentum, and celestial mechanics. But those laws didn't apply during that period, because God suspended them. But in normal circumstances (i.e. all other times) they still apply and work.

 

[In situ]

my more important [my underline] points I like to stress is that ... although you may not agree with what the Bible says in Genesis 1, you can't deny Genesis 1 says it.

And the point with this exercise is?

 

[stevenfrancis]

I mean, all over this forum there is the recurrent theme of evolution, and I know a couple of people who don't believe in evolution to begin with.

So I'm feeling at odds.

I mean, are there any non-evolutionists on this forum or are you all like-minded in the evolutionist thing?

If I say there is someone who is Creationist, does that belong over in another board or something?

I'm a creationist, but I'm not a young earth believer. I'm in these forums. I'm sure there are others. I guess you'd put me in the "intelligent design" category.

 

[In situ]

If so, that would mean that the evolution of land animals to whales would still be completely valid and unchallenged, as a miracle is an exception to the rule that does not disprove the rule.

Interesting point. I did not reflected about in that way. But I agree. If it is a miracle, then yes the theory of evolution stand as it is. But if it isn't it a miracle then it would falsify the explanation of of whale evolution.

So by saying this it actually seems like he's suggesting that all of the scientific evidence for evolution is valid and correct, and any possible exceptions are miracles, which don't have anything to do with the normal operation of the universe.

I agree... but anything that interacts with the universe is part of it operation, weather it is normal or not. A miracle is per definition something that cannot happen. Therefore, if it happens it is not a miracle any more and that is why miracles are impossible, as I understand miracles.

 

[In situ]

A miracle is where the law has been violated

It cannot be, because there is no guarantee that a law cannot be broken, due to the falsification requirement. This implies it can happen that the laws are broken. However, a miracle is something that cannot happen. Therefore your definition of a miracle is incorrect.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Hmmm ... you're entitled to your assessment.

I don't think most share your sentiment, though.

And for those who don't, they certainly aren't 'babbling.'

I always looked at evolutionism as "a belief in evolution" -- not, "a religious belief in evolution"; but then I would assume the context of the conversation would determine which of the two applies.

Well I guess you could pretty much assign any meaning you like to it. It won't make it any more real.

The point I'm trying to make here, is that you shouldn't just go around telling people they are 'babbling' when they use a neologism.

I evolutionism that is the case but carpentryism this if we just holdenism words and give them any cloudism we like communication becomes a bit elephantism.

It's not beyond me to coin a word on the spot during a conversation, if I feel it will facilitate the flow of ideas.

"Embedded Age Creation" is one of my inventions.

I know of no other person who calls it that; and until I come up with something more descriptive, I generally go with that.

I don't know what's wrong with using omphalism if that's what you mean. Why use three words when one already exists.

Making up new words is how we communicate effectively.

What would you call a cell phone today, using 18th century expressions?

At least cell phones exist right?