Evolution and Heaven?

[mark kennedy]

Please define ‘Darwinism’ and how it goes back all the way to the Big Bang. The closest thing to ‘Darwinism’ I know of is the Neo-Darwinian modern synthesis, aka the theory of evolution in biology (and by the way, there’s THAT definition for you, evolution = the neo-darwinian modern synthesis in current biology), and that stops WAY short of the Big Bang. Perhaps you mean physics? That goes back to the Big Bang. And what ‘naturalistic assumptions’ are being made? Kindly define them.

Why not use Darwin's definition?

all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)​

What assumptions are made? Kindly list them.

The a priori assumption of universal common decent by exclusively naturalistic means. In Darwinian evolution it is never permissible to infer a Creator of Designer for anything, ever.

And the first part of that quote is:
“He [Lamarck] first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all...”

And, of course, the very next sentence lays absolute WASTE to your claim of it being naturalistic ASSUMPTIONS:

Hrm. CONCLUSION. Something rather like the opposite of an assumption. Of course, I’ve said this before, but you keep throwing that same quote out there over and over again, but...

Nonsense, Darwin is specifically identifying the preference of natural law over special creation. The book itself is one long argument against special creation and Darwin was emphatic about this. Darwinism rejects miracles categorically and the evolutionists on here seem unwilling to discuss miracles, I suspect a connection.

So, it is your view that natural laws themselves are not miraculous interposition? It is your view that God is ABSENT in the running of natural laws? It is your view that God is ONLY ACTIVE in miracles that run counter to the natural laws of the universe?

If there are laws at work then they would be the Mendelian laws of inheritance, those are the only scientific laws connected to evolutionary biology that I'm aware of. God need not micromanage every aspect of the ongoing creation, there is a distinction made between providence and interposition if your not in the habit of conflating and equivocating disimular things.

Really? How is that logical? And how is that measurable? And how do you conclude that a miracle has happened in the past measurably? And how do you measure whose god did that miracle? How do you tell if it was Thor, Zeus, Shiva, Honored Grandfather’s Spirit, Ra, Jesus, Mother Earth, or whomever? How can you throw out all the miracles done in one holy book, say, the Bhagavad Ghita, but keep all the others in a different holy book, say, the Bible, based only on someone’s personal belief? Obviously, the holder of the other belief will believe oppositely. And to an unbiased observer, how can one tell which one is right?

And why are various countries that are NOT the USA not proclaiming all these things found by science? I mean, England has an official Christian religion. So does Vatican City. Turkey or any of the Muslim states would happily proclaim intersubjective scientific evidence for past miracles, even if they credited them to following the Koran instead of the Bible, and then THAT huge debate would follow.

Knock it off, I'm not impressed with satirical skepticism. When Jesus was raised from the dead that was a miracle right? How about when Jesus came into the world, definitely a miracle right? Did this happen in time and space and more importantly how is a miracle distinctly different from the pagan mythologies you mentioned above.

I expect you to address the specific miracles of the resurrection and the incarnation or you are going to see them again every time I respond to one of your posts. You don't get to do that, you don't get to categorically ignore miracles.

I won't bother with the rest until I get clarification on the real issue involved.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[metherion]

Why not use Darwin's definition?
all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)

Except, as I pointed out, that is not an assumption, that is a CONCLUSION. And calling it a naturalistic assumption means that the results of natural law are naturalistic. Therefore, natural laws EXCLUDE GOD. That is Deism, not Christianity. Remember, all creation proclaims the glory of God and is the work of His hands, including all the natural laws.

The a priori assumption of universal common decent by exclusively naturalistic means. In Darwinian evolution it is never permissible to infer a Creator of Designer for anything, ever.

Point me out a field of science not dealing with computers or directly man made things where inferring a creator or a designer IS allowed. Hint: There isn’t one. I mean, astrophysics doesn’t allow for stars to be created nor designed, but do you ever rail against that?

Also, point me out the field of science that includes miracles as acceptable explanations. Any field at all. Go on, find me a field of science that DOESN”T USE methodological naturalism. Also, go find me a field of science that IS BY DEFINITION metaphysically naturalistic. Go ahead, find them for me. I’ll wait.

Meanwhile, astrophysics and gravity are feeling left out that you never talk about how accretion of stars is ALSO naturalistic because it says God didn’t divinely create the stars.

The whole POINT of science is to include only what is interobjective, and faith-based belief that something was created based upon a holy book is NOT interobjective.

Nonsense, Darwin is specifically identifying the preference of natural law over special creation.

Yes, he’s identifying it as a CONCLUSION OF LAMARCK. Not an assumption, and certainly not one that completely removes God in all His forms and activities from ever having had anything to do in nature EVER.

The book itself is one long argument against special creation and Darwin was emphatic about this. Darwinism rejects miracles categorically and the evolutionists on here seem unwilling to discuss miracles, I suspect a connection.

No, Origin of Species is NOT one long argument against a Creator. It discusses observed evidence and ideas on the way species arise. But you seem unwilling to realize that and just toss out ‘naturalistic assumptions’ right and left.

If there are laws at work then they would be the Mendelian laws of inheritance, those are the only scientific laws connected to evolutionary biology that I'm aware of. God need not micromanage every aspect of the ongoing creation, there is a distinction made between providence and interposition if your not in the habit of conflating and equivocating disimular things.

Nope. How about chemistry? Biochemistry is important in biology. How about thermodynamics? Entropy and free energy and all deal a lot with how and why biological systems work. But still, you just claimed that saying things run by natural laws is a naturalistic assumption, so YOU are the one who is saying God is not involved in natural laws. So YOU would be the one saying Mendelian laws on inheritance EXCLUDE GOD. And it’s funny that you say God need not micromanage every aspect of creation, when creationism tends to focus on God micromanaging every single thing. And you know what? If God created, set in place, and sustains all the natural laws that HE made and that HE set in place, then He is managing everything, regardless. And if He weren’t constantly overseeing and upholding anything, it wouldn’t exist.

Providence can be a form of interposition, and providence is NO LESS God being at work than interposition is, yet you repeatedly say providence is naturalistic.

By the way, where should we be injecting miracles into science now? Where is the place for God in the chemistry lab? In the physics lab? In the medical pharmacies? Where do we shoehorn in OH WHAT THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE SHOWS IS WRONG AND IS FULL OF ANTI GOD ASSUMPTIONS WE SHOULD SAY GOD DID THIS A DIFFERENT WAY THAN ALL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE SAYS BECAUSE IT WAS A MIRACLE. Sure, you may see that as satire, or whatever, but in actuality it is exactly what you are saying would lead to. If a miracle whose only evidence is faith of some people in a specific holy book gets to change entire fields of science, where does it end? If Young Earth Creationists get to change biology, why don’t Scientologists get to change psychology? Why don’t Pastafarians get to change physics? Why don’t Christian Scientists get to change medicine? Why don’t Muslims get to change geology? After all, those fields of science are only kept safe by the ‘naturalistic assumptions’ of actually requiring physical evidence.

And they’re only naturalistic assumptions if you believe:
The actions of natural laws exclude God, i.e. God is not involved in the laws He set up that run the universe, or

Actually requiring physical evidence for things is anti-God and claims should be able to be made sans physical evidence (merely on faith).

And then HOW DO YOU DETERMINE WHOSE FAITH BASED CLAIMS ARE SCIENTIFIC AND WHOSE ARE NOT WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE BEING AVAILABLE TO DIFFERENTIATE THEM?

Knock it off, I'm not impressed with satirical skepticism.

The thing is, it ISN”T satirical skepticism. It’s truth. You complain that science is naturalistic, that science excludes a creator, that science this, that Darwinism that. Yet, it is that way for EXACTLY why I said. You think God is creator because you have faith, not because of science. I think God is creator because I have faith, not because of science. But science has to be interobective, and faith IS NOT, and beliefs that cannot be proved as facts have no place there.

When Jesus was raised from the dead that was a miracle right? How about when Jesus came into the world, definitely a miracle right?

Yes. And I believe them because of FAITH IN THE BIBLE AND IN GOD, not because of scientific interobjectivity.

Did this happen in time and space

Yes...

and more importantly how is a miracle distinctly different from the pagan mythologies you mentioned above.

It’s distinct because the two of us have FAITH IN OUR GOD that it happened.

But they haven’t left physical interobjective scientific evidence, their proof is left up to faith, and they are in holy books/holy stories. That’s how they are similar.

A Muslim would not believe in the Incarnation, but would believe in the angelic revelation to Mohammed, which would be a miracle, because (s)he has FAITH IN THE KORAN. We believe it didn’t happen, because we’re not Muslim. However, there is no physical interobjective evidence either way, just like there is a similar lack of evidence for the Resurrection.

I expect you to address the specific miracles of the resurrection and the incarnation or you are going to see them again every time I respond to one of your posts. You don't get to do that, you don't get to categorically ignore miracles.

So what am I supposed to say about them? I believe that they happened. I believe that because of my faith in God. I KNOW they left behind no physical interobjective evidence. There is also no physical interobjective evidence to show them wrong, so there is no faith/whatever conflict with them. I do NOT believe they happened because of science. I have no expectation that science will ever declare they happened. What more do you want? I don’t think anything that I said has ever really been in doubt.

Metherion

 

[metherion]

Why not use Darwin's definition?
all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)

Except, as I pointed out, that is not an assumption, that is a CONCLUSION. And calling it a naturalistic assumption means that the results of natural law are naturalistic. Therefore, natural laws EXCLUDE GOD. That is Deism, not Christianity. Remember, all creation proclaims the glory of God and is the work of His hands, including all the natural laws.

The a priori assumption of universal common decent by exclusively naturalistic means. In Darwinian evolution it is never permissible to infer a Creator of Designer for anything, ever.

Point me out a field of science not dealing with computers or directly man made things where inferring a creator or a designer IS allowed. Hint: There isn’t one. I mean, astrophysics doesn’t allow for stars to be created nor designed, but do you ever rail against that?

Also, point me out the field of science that includes miracles as acceptable explanations. Any field at all. Go on, find me a field of science that DOESN”T USE methodological naturalism. Also, go find me a field of science that IS BY DEFINITION metaphysically naturalistic. Go ahead, find them for me. I’ll wait.

Meanwhile, astrophysics and gravity are feeling left out that you never talk about how accretion of stars is ALSO naturalistic because it says God didn’t divinely create the stars.

The whole POINT of science is to include only what is interobjective, and faith-based belief that something was created based upon a holy book is NOT interobjective.

Nonsense, Darwin is specifically identifying the preference of natural law over special creation.

Yes, he’s identifying it as a CONCLUSION OF LAMARCK. Not an assumption, and certainly not one that completely removes God in all His forms and activities from ever having had anything to do in nature EVER.

The book itself is one long argument against special creation and Darwin was emphatic about this. Darwinism rejects miracles categorically and the evolutionists on here seem unwilling to discuss miracles, I suspect a connection.

No, Origin of Species is NOT one long argument against a Creator. It discusses observed evidence and ideas on the way species arise. But you seem unwilling to realize that and just toss out ‘naturalistic assumptions’ right and left.

If there are laws at work then they would be the Mendelian laws of inheritance, those are the only scientific laws connected to evolutionary biology that I'm aware of. God need not micromanage every aspect of the ongoing creation, there is a distinction made between providence and interposition if your not in the habit of conflating and equivocating disimular things.

Nope. How about chemistry? Biochemistry is important in biology. How about thermodynamics? Entropy and free energy and all deal a lot with how and why biological systems work. But still, you just claimed that saying things run by natural laws is a naturalistic assumption, so YOU are the one who is saying God is not involved in natural laws. So YOU would be the one saying Mendelian laws on inheritance EXCLUDE GOD. And it’s funny that you say God need not micromanage every aspect of creation, when creationism tends to focus on God micromanaging every single thing. And you know what? If God created, set in place, and sustains all the natural laws that HE made and that HE set in place, then He is managing everything, regardless. And if He weren’t constantly overseeing and upholding anything, it wouldn’t exist.

Providence can be a form of interposition, and providence is NO LESS God being at work than interposition is, yet you repeatedly say providence is naturalistic.

By the way, where should we be injecting miracles into science now? Where is the place for God in the chemistry lab? In the physics lab? In the medical pharmacies? Where do we shoehorn in OH WHAT THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE SHOWS IS WRONG AND IS FULL OF ANTI GOD ASSUMPTIONS WE SHOULD SAY GOD DID THIS A DIFFERENT WAY THAN ALL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE SAYS BECAUSE IT WAS A MIRACLE. Sure, you may see that as satire, or whatever, but in actuality it is exactly what you are saying would lead to. If a miracle whose only evidence is faith of some people in a specific holy book gets to change entire fields of science, where does it end? If Young Earth Creationists get to change biology, why don’t Scientologists get to change psychology? Why don’t Pastafarians get to change physics? Why don’t Christian Scientists get to change medicine? Why don’t Muslims get to change geology? After all, those fields of science are only kept safe by the ‘naturalistic assumptions’ of actually requiring physical evidence.

And they’re only naturalistic assumptions if you believe:
The actions of natural laws exclude God, i.e. God is not involved in the laws He set up that run the universe, or

Actually requiring physical evidence for things is anti-God and claims should be able to be made sans physical evidence (merely on faith).

And then HOW DO YOU DETERMINE WHOSE FAITH BASED CLAIMS ARE SCIENTIFIC AND WHOSE ARE NOT WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE BEING AVAILABLE TO DIFFERENTIATE THEM?

Knock it off, I'm not impressed with satirical skepticism.

The thing is, it ISN”T satirical skepticism. It’s truth. You complain that science is naturalistic, that science excludes a creator, that science this, that Darwinism that. Yet, it is that way for EXACTLY why I said. You think God is creator because you have faith, not because of science. I think God is creator because I have faith, not because of science. But science has to be interobective, and faith IS NOT, and beliefs that cannot be proved as facts have no place there.

When Jesus was raised from the dead that was a miracle right? How about when Jesus came into the world, definitely a miracle right?

Yes. And I believe them because of FAITH IN THE BIBLE AND IN GOD, not because of scientific interobjectivity.

Did this happen in time and space

Yes...

and more importantly how is a miracle distinctly different from the pagan mythologies you mentioned above.

It’s distinct because the two of us have FAITH IN OUR GOD that it happened.

But they haven’t left physical interobjective scientific evidence, their proof is left up to faith, and they are in holy books/holy stories. That’s how they are similar.

A Muslim would not believe in the Incarnation, but would believe in the angelic revelation to Mohammed, which would be a miracle, because (s)he has FAITH IN THE KORAN. We believe it didn’t happen, because we’re not Muslim. However, there is no physical interobjective evidence either way, just like there is a similar lack of evidence for the Resurrection.

I expect you to address the specific miracles of the resurrection and the incarnation or you are going to see them again every time I respond to one of your posts. You don't get to do that, you don't get to categorically ignore miracles.

So what am I supposed to say about them? I believe that they happened. I believe that because of my faith in God. I KNOW they left behind no physical interobjective evidence. There is also no physical interobjective evidence to show them wrong, so there is no faith/whatever conflict with them. I do NOT believe they happened because of science. I have no expectation that science will ever declare they happened. What more do you want? I don’t think anything that I said has ever really been in doubt.

Metherion

 

[mark kennedy]

Except, as I pointed out, that is not an assumption, that is a CONCLUSION. And calling it a naturalistic assumption means that the results of natural law are naturalistic. Therefore, natural laws EXCLUDE GOD. That is Deism, not Christianity. Remember, all creation proclaims the glory of God and is the work of His hands, including all the natural laws.

It's an a priori assumption if it does not allow for the inverse logic, is made before the evidence is considered and remains transcendent in all other areas of thought. That is Darwinism in no uncertain terms. Deism is the idea that God created everything and let it run like a watch. You can attribute everything to God since he created the watch, or the laws of nature, but direct intervention and miracles are out of bounds.

That's the kind of thing you get into with Liberal Theology which is why it's notoriously ambiquise.

Point me out a field of science not dealing with computers or directly man made things where inferring a creator or a designer IS allowed. Hint: There isn’t one. I mean, astrophysics doesn’t allow for stars to be created nor designed, but do you ever rail against that?

Define science because this kind of thing goes in circles endlessly until you do.

Also, point me out the field of science that includes miracles as acceptable explanations. Any field at all. Go on, find me a field of science that DOESN”T USE methodological naturalism. Also, go find me a field of science that IS BY DEFINITION metaphysically naturalistic. Go ahead, find them for me. I’ll wait.

Who said we are talking about natural science. This is about heaven and evolution, the issue is whether the two concepts are compatible. The problem is that we are talking about two things at the same time, you are working from two definitions of science and two definitions of evolution. The equivocation fallacy of Darwinian evolution being science is what has caused the confusion in this controversy in the first place so spare me the circular rhetoric.

Meanwhile, astrophysics and gravity are feeling left out that you never talk about how accretion of stars is ALSO naturalistic because it says God didn’t divinely create the stars.

The whole POINT of science is to include only what is interobjective, and faith-based belief that something was created based upon a holy book is NOT interobjective.

Stop! I think I've heard all I need to. I don't care how much contrived terminology you invent in this discussion, there are objective realities that must necessarily be true or necessarily be false.

Let's start with the most important one, did the incarnation happen and if so how do you know that interobjectively because all of Christian theism is based on that.

In short, how can you know the truth of the Gospel objectively based on the available evidence?

I expect an answer or you can expect the questions to be in every post of your I respond to. I don't take kindly to circular rhetoric, define your terms and answer the questions.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[metherion]

It's an a priori assumption if it does not allow for the inverse logic, is made before the evidence is considered and remains transcendent in all other areas of thought.

Except the very next sentence of your quote details EXACTLY HOW IT IS A CONCLUSION AND NOT AN ASSUMPTION. Furthermore, certain miracles, like explicit creation of animals, would leave certain evidence that is simply not there. That's why it is a CONCLUSION, certain miracles would leave evidence that is simply not seen.

That is Darwinism in no uncertain terms. Deism is the idea that God created everything and let it run like a watch. You can attribute everything to God since he created the watch, or the laws of nature, but direct intervention and miracles are out of bounds.

That's the kind of thing you get into with Liberal Theology which is why it's notoriously ambiquise.

Funny, that’s the type of thing you have been espousing when you say that the natural laws are naturalistic.

Define science because this kind of thing goes in circles endlessly until you do.

And of COURSE I get your ‘define X’ canard. Maybe you should try defining some stuff. Furthermore, I said FIELD of science, and gave some examples, like astrophysics. THAT should tell you what I’m talking about.

Who said we are talking about natural science. This is about heaven and evolution, the issue is whether the two concepts are compatible.

You are the one who said evolution has naturalistic assumptions, are you not? Well, there are three options: either ALL science has naturalistic assumptions, ONLY SOME FIELDS have naturalistic assumptions, or NO FIELDS AT ALL have naturalistic assumptions. Since you rail ON and ON and ON about naturalistic assumptions EVERYWHERE just about every post, find me some field of science that doesn’t have it.

Furthermore, heaven and evolution as I defined it earlier are compatible, in my opinion, as I already stated.

The problem is that we are talking about two things at the same time, you are working from two definitions of science and two definitions of evolution. The equivocation fallacy of Darwinian evolution being science is what has caused the confusion in this controversy in the first place so spare me the circular rhetoric.

No, I’m not. You are. You like to make up your own ‘naturalistic assumption’ hooey and throw it into everything and then claim not to know what we’re talking about. Maybe if you’d read my earlier post, you would have seen where I defined evolution. And what ‘second definition of science’, unless you’re pulling that etymology canard and going ‘BUT HOW CAN A WORD THAT MEANS KNOWLEDGE GO AGAINST GOD?’ which won’t work because I’ve been talking about the actual human endeavor, not the old root meaning of the word. It’s the anti-evolution side of the field that muddies up all the water with all this fake terminology that is spewed everywhere, with the ‘multiple types of evolution’ and the ‘excessively naturalistic assumptions’ and the ‘two types of science’. Go ahead, tell me the two definitions of science I’ve been flipping between. ALSO, tell me which fields of science ALLOW MIRACLES AS ACTUAL ACCEPTABLE EXPLANATIONS. It’s a simple question, and should be easy to answer.

Stop! I think I've heard all I need to. I don't care how much contrived terminology you invent in this discussion, there are objective realities that must necessarily be true or necessarily be false.

Contrived terminology? That’s rather hilarious. So, tell me, what terminology have I contrived?

Let's start with the most important one, did the incarnation happen and if so how do you know that interobjectively because all of Christian theism is based on that.

I BELIEVE the incarnation happened based on my FAITH IN GOD, which I already said here:

When Jesus was raised from the dead that was a miracle right? How about when Jesus came into the world, definitely a miracle right?

Yes. And I believe them because of FAITH IN THE BIBLE AND IN GOD, not because of scientific interobjectivity.

So, apparently, you didn’t read all you needed to.

As to do I interobjectively KNOW the incarnation happened, and the resurrection, we can again go to the end of my post which you apparently skipped:

I believe that they happened. I believe that because of my faith in God. I KNOW they left behind no physical interobjective evidence. There is also no physical interobjective evidence to show them wrong, so there is no faith/whatever conflict with them. I do NOT believe they happened because of science. I have no expectation that science will ever declare they happened.

I believe the happened. I do not interobjectively know they happened. I am not Doubting Thomas, I did not get to put my hands in his hands, feet, and side. I have no interobjective evidence, merely subjective belief and subjective faith.

In short, how can you know the truth of the Gospel objectively based on the available evidence?

For the Gospel? You don’t. You have faith. None of the miracles in the Gospel would leave evidence that would persist to today to be measured.

I expect an answer or you can expect the questions to be in every post of your I respond to. I don't take kindly to circular rhetoric, define your terms and answer the questions.

Funny, I gave them. And also funny, if you didn’t keep inventing new definitions and expect us to keep track of them, there wouldn’t be extra defining. Also funny, I already did define one of them and give examples of what I meant by the other. Perhaps you should read my posts and let go of your definition canard. See, this is among the reasons I won’t debate you. All your rhetoric circles back to ‘no you’re swapping definitions, define every word you use that I’ve ever invented another definition for, even if you haven’t ever used an extra one’.

Metherion

 

[philadiddle]

So what am I supposed to say about them? I believe that they happened. I believe that because of my faith in God. I KNOW they left behind no physical interobjective evidence. There is also no physical interobjective evidence to show them wrong, so there is no faith/whatever conflict with them. I do NOT believe they happened because of science. I have no expectation that science will ever declare they happened. What more do you want? I don’t think anything that I said has ever really been in doubt.

I wonder why MK ignored this part.

 

[mark kennedy]

I wonder why MK ignored this part.

I didn't ignore it, it's meaningless if there is no definition of science that is not mutually exclusive with faith. Faith is not something ambiguous, it a confidence you base on both your relationship with God and the truth of the Gospel. There is an exploration of evidence involved in faith.

I didn't ignore the statement, it's just meaningless without a definition for science. The key here is the epistemology because in both science and theology there are certain things that have to be 'known' with a high degree of certainty. What the differences are can only be determined when a clear definition is assigned.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Except the very next sentence of your quote details EXACTLY HOW IT IS A CONCLUSION AND NOT AN ASSUMPTION. Furthermore, certain miracles, like explicit creation of animals, would leave certain evidence that is simply not there. That's why it is a CONCLUSION, certain miracles would leave evidence that is simply not seen.

That's simply not true, Darwinism is metaphysics without the epistemology that determines the difference between transitive facts and transcendent truth. The Christian faith has never been predicated on such ambiguous logic. Not certain miracles but all miracles are categorically rejected without exception in this profoundly atheistic philosophy.

You said that believing in evolution is not a salvation issue, and your right. Providing of course you are talking about evolutionary biology that necessarily confines itself to natural phenomenon that is directly observable or demonstrative.

Funny, that’s the type of thing you have been espousing when you say that the natural laws are naturalistic.

When you are discussing natural laws then there is a specific focus and limit to the particular law in view. There is a big difference between the genuine article of natural science and the naturalistic assumptions that are equivocated with natural science.

And of COURSE I get your ‘define X’ canard. Maybe you should try defining some stuff. Furthermore, I said FIELD of science, and gave some examples, like astrophysics. THAT should tell you what I’m talking about.

The question of the thread regards evolution and 'going to heaven', it has nothing to do with astrophysics and I think you realize that. Define science, evolution and whatever Soteriology terminology you feel relevant but don't expect me to chase your satirical whims and caprices endlessly.

You are the one who said evolution has naturalistic assumptions, are you not? Well, there are three options: either ALL science has naturalistic assumptions, ONLY SOME FIELDS have naturalistic assumptions, or NO FIELDS AT ALL have naturalistic assumptions. Since you rail ON and ON and ON about naturalistic assumptions EVERYWHERE just about every post, find me some field of science that doesn’t have it.

Furthermore, heaven and evolution are compatible, in my opinion, as I already stated.

All natural science is necessarily confined to natural phenomenon, that's a truism not an earth shaking revelation. Let's look at the options you listed:

1. ALL science has naturalistic assumptions.​

Then we are talking about natural science, this still does not define the term 'science'. Your begging the question on your hands and knees here.

2. EVERYWHERE just about every post, find me some field of science that doesn’t have it.​

The key word here is 'EVERYWHERE', this clearly indicates a transcendent factual element in all of science. That is why you must define the core term because such a vast metaphysical principle has to be qualified by an explicit definition that includes natural law but excludes miracles.

3. heaven and evolution are compatible​

Then where is the comparison and more importantly, what do you mean by those terms? This is tiresome, if you want to make this kind of a positive statement you either define the terms or drift into fallacious logic. Don't blame me when I finally conclude that you making emotive fallacious statement with no basis in scientific reasoning or theological principles because so far you haven't even made the slightest attempt.

By what definition of science do you make such a broad statement? I have asked you repeatedly for a definition and yet all I get are generalities. Define science and end this circular logic once and for all.

No, I’m not. You are. You like to make up your own ‘naturalistic assumption’ hooey and throw it into everything and then claim not to know what we’re talking about. Maybe if you’d read my earlier post, you would have seen where I defined evolution. And what ‘second definition of science’, unless you’re pulling that etymology canard and going ‘BUT HOW CAN A WORD THAT MEANS KNOWLEDGE GO AGAINST GOD?’ which won’t work because I’ve been talking about the actual human endeavor, not the old root meaning of the word. It’s the anti-evolution side of the field that muddies up all the water with all this fake terminology that is spewed everywhere, with the ‘multiple types of evolution’ and the ‘excessively naturalistic assumptions’ and the ‘two types of science’. Go ahead, tell me the two definitions of science I’ve been flipping between. ALSO, tell me which fields of science ALLOW MIRACLES AS ACTUAL ACCEPTABLE

Typical evolutionist rhetoric, if you have a definition for science (btw I have one) then you should have no reservations about providing it. We still don't know if the 'word' goes against God because you have failed to define your core terms. Evolution has a scientific definition, science has an epistemological foundation and Darwinism has a presuppositional a priori assumption. All of these rationalizations you are aiming at me dodge the question proposed in the OP and challenges you have refused to accept.

This is too consistent to be incidental, you are deliberately avoiding the substance of the topic and I don't play nice with fallacious logic. Define your terms!

EXPLANATIONS. It’s a simple question, and should be easy to answer.

It's not only simple but evident and obvious. I know what your definitions are whether you know or not, believe it or not, or most likely, want to admit it or not.

Contrived terminology? That’s rather hilarious. So, tell me, what terminology have I contrived?

All of it as far as I can tell since you refuse to define anything.

I BELIEVE the incarnation happened based on my FAITH IN GOD, which I already said here:

I don't care what you said previously, confessing the incarnation and creation are the same thing if you are remotely familiar with the Nicene Creed. It starts of with the creation, incarnation and then confesses Christ as Creator. You must be a Creationist in order to be a Christian, you must believe in the incarnation and worship Christ as Creator. It seems a bit dubious to spend so much of you time railing against those who believe in Christ as Creator while never making any profession of faith with regards to the incarnation. You seem to have broad interpretive powers with regards to Genesis, I'm trying to figure out if they are extended to the New Testament and you are nearly silent and completely ambiguous with regards to New Testament doctrine.

I find this behavior inconsistent, what is the difference between the historical narrative of Genesis and the one in the Gospel according to John?

So, apparently, you didn’t read all you needed to.

I have read more then enough, you simple repeat the same worn out rhetoric in circles. Define your terms and trust me when I tell you, the discussion will be going into Soteriology soon. When you have finally demonstrated enough times that you don't have a definition for the core terms you are using I will. Then we are going to discuss what it means to be saved and compare the two.

Finally I'm going to tell you what evolution means to Origins Theology even though you may not understand it, you may not believe it and certainly won't want to admit it.

It would not be so bad if you didn't make it so easy.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

I'll make this easy:

Define these terms:​

• Science
• Creation
• Knowledge
• Heaven
• Incarnation
• Faith
• Evolution

I expect specific definitions for each or you can expect to keep seeing them until you do.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[metherion]

Ha. I find it hilarious because you're the one who keeps insisting there are multiple definitions and that I'm swapping between them. Why does the onus to define terms fall on ME when you are constantly the one declaring that I'm using non-standard and equivocating definitions right, left, and center? Go through and tell me where I'm swapping, and to/from what definitions I am swapping. Your 'define everything' game is designed pretty much to frustrate people into giving up so you can declare victory. Besides, if you'd bothered to read the thread, you'd've seen I already defined at least one of those. But, you didn't, so you can keep playing your stupid definitions canard. It's a red herring from someone who likes to claim there are a bazillion definitions so you can hand wave things away while saying nothing.

Burden of proof here, Mark, you are the one making the claim that I'm equivocating between two definitions of the same word, repeatedly over all these words, so go ahead and provide evidence for your claim.

Metherion

 

[juvenissun]

(take back this one because I just figured out some argument).

 

[juvenissun]

But God created evolution, it's not the evil conspiracy that you think it is.

Do you think Jesus ultimately came from dirt? After all, Adam was made from dirt right?

Are you suggesting Jesus Christ, as a human, is the same as everyone of us? I guess you forgot one of the most important point in the doctrine.

Jesus Christ has nothing to do with evolution. His existence violates everything evolution said. Is it amazing when we look at Him from this point of view? Why would any decent people want to invent the story of a virgin birth?

 

[philadiddle]

Are you suggesting Jesus Christ, as a human, is the same as everyone of us? I guess you forgot one of the most important point in the doctrine.

You'll have to make your point more clear. He is like every one of us. He is fully human.

At the same time he is fully God. It's a counter-intuitive doctrine but that's what it is. I'm not sure what point you are getting at.

Jesus Christ has nothing to do with evolution. His existence violates everything evolution said. Is it amazing when we look at Him from this point of view? Why would any decent people want to invent the story of a virgin birth?

Yes, a miraculous birth defies what we know about procreation. Again, what's your point?

 

[mark kennedy]

Define these terms:​

• Science
• Creation
• Knowledge
• Heaven
• Incarnation
• Faith
• Evolution

Ha. I find it hilarious because you're the one who keeps insisting there are multiple definitions and that I'm swapping between them. Why does the onus to define terms fall on ME when you are constantly the one declaring that I'm using non-standard and equivocating definitions right, left, and center? Go through and tell me where I'm swapping, and to/from what definitions I am swapping. Your 'define everything' game is designed pretty much to frustrate people into giving up so you can declare victory. Besides, if you'd bothered to read the thread, you'd've seen I already defined at least one of those. But, you didn't, so you can keep playing your stupid definitions canard. It's a red herring from someone who likes to claim there are a bazillion definitions so you can hand wave things away while saying nothing.

Well, your never define anything game is fallacious, so there. So far your argument has been riddled with three major flaws, begging the question because you refuse to define the core terms of your argument. Equivocation since you are obviously using more then one definition for science and evolution but refuse to admit it. Finally, the inevitable ad hominem attack that makes 'you' and 'your' the heart of the emphasis through out your, shall we say, discussion.

Burden of proof here, Mark, you are the one making the claim that I'm equivocating between two definitions of the same word, repeatedly over all these words, so go ahead and provide evidence for your claim.

Metherion

I am not making the positive statements here, one right after the other. You are! Define your terms because I already know what definitions your using as well as how these terms are rightly discerned.

I promise you there will be a full accounting but I'm giving you every opportunity to defend your positive statements.

Define your terms! Or you can expect to be seeing them again and again until you do or I finally list the only reasons you could have for not doing so.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Assyrian]

You have been shown before that the science of evolution is much broader than just the definition, yet you keep hiding behind "define this" "define that". Perhaps if you could show the equivocation rather than just claiming it is there.

 

[metherion]

Well, your never define anything game is fallacious, so there. So far your argument has been riddled with three major flaws, begging the question because you refuse to define the core terms of your argument. Equivocation since you are obviously using more then one definition for science and evolution but refuse to admit it. Finally, the inevitable ad hominem attack that makes 'you' and 'your' the heart of the emphasis through out your, shall we say, discussion.

Actually, nope, that’s not true one bit. I’m begging no question, because I’m using actual definitions. I’m using one definition, and you STILL haven’t gone back through to see where I defined at least one of them, despite your insistence that you know what I’m typing better than I do. Obviously, you don’t. Finally, I haven’t actually said any of your arguments are wrong, I’ve identified what you’ve been doing throughout the discussion, and in the past. This game you play is getting old very quickly.

I am not making the positive statements here, one right after the other

Actually, you are. You are constantly telling me that I am equivocating (positive statement), that I’m swapping terms on you (positive claim), that I’m using nonstandard definitions (positive claim), that I’m begging the question (positive claim). And, funny story, you still haven’t defined any of YOUR terms. Nor have you bothered to post anywhere that I've made an equivocation. Probably because I haven't. SHOW ME WHERE! BACK UP YOUR CLAIM! Heck, in the past I’ve played this game with you. It doesn’t go anywhere.

Define your terms because I already know what definitions your using as well as how these terms are rightly discerned.

Obviously you DON”T or you wouldn’t be playing this hooey. Pretending you know everything, including what I’m saying, better than I do, while I’m telling you you are wrong is pretty stuck-up and makes for an impossible discussion.

By the way, except for improperly defining Lamarck’s conclusion as a Darwinian presumption, have you ever defined anything? I think not.

I promise you there will be a full accounting but I'm giving you every opportunity to defend your positive statements.

Full accounting of what? You acknowledge none of my points, all you do is go YOU ARE WRONG DEFINE YOUR TERMS YOU ARE WRONG BECAUSE YOU ARE SWAPPING DEFINITIONS BUT I WILL NOT SAY WHERE OR FROM WHAT TO WHAT BUT DEFINE YOUR TERMS DEFINE YOUR TERMS over and over again.

Define your terms! Or you can expect to be seeing them again and again until you do or I finally list the only reasons you could have for not doing so.

You want me reasons? Here are my reasons:
1. I’ve played this game with you before. You just continued playing it..
2. You already play fast and loose with your definitions.
3. I’m not using multiple definitions, I’m using one, and they’re the most commonly accepted ones.
4. The only reason they would even need defining is because twisting them only serves one person, that’s the person who declares they need to be defined.

Of course, you’re going to tell me I’m wrong, and that what I’m actually thinking is some pandering to my Darwinian masters for show because TEs always suck and do nothing else. Funny how you apparently know my reasoning and my terms and my arguments better than I do, even while I’m telling you that you are wrong.

Pity.

Metherion

 

[mark kennedy]

Actually, nope, that’s not true one bit. I’m begging no question, because I’m using actual definitions. I’m using one definition, and you STILL haven’t gone back through to see where I defined at least one of them, despite your insistence that you know what I’m typing better than I do. Obviously, you don’t. Finally, I haven’t actually said any of your arguments are wrong, I’ve identified what you’ve been doing throughout the discussion, and in the past. This game you play is getting old very quickly.

Then define your terms.

Actually, you are. You are constantly telling me that I am equivocating (positive statement), that I’m swapping terms on you (positive claim), that I’m using nonstandard definitions (positive claim), that I’m begging the question (positive claim). And, funny story, you still haven’t defined any of YOUR terms. Nor have you bothered to post anywhere that I've made an equivocation. Probably because I haven't. SHOW ME WHERE! BACK UP YOUR CLAIM! Heck, in the past I’ve played this game with you. It doesn’t go anywhere.

Your use of evolution is an equivocation since there are two distinct definitions, one scientific and the other metaphysical. You do the same thing with science and evolution and have yet to qualify either term. That is two fallacious lines of argumentation that inevitably refer back to me personally in every post. That makes three and still no coherent definitions and only one vague reference to the incarnation that you said was based on faith in God. That added another term I expect you to define which is faith as distinct from science or conclusions based on evidence.

Obviously you DON”T or you wouldn’t be playing this hooey. Pretending you know everything, including what I’m saying, better than I do, while I’m telling you you are wrong is pretty stuck-up and makes for an impossible discussion.

I know enough dear and I've played this game before. The discussion is not about my merits as a debater, it's about evolution and salvation which is something you will be reminded of continuously until you accept that your rhetoric does not work on me.

By the way, except for improperly defining Lamarck’s conclusion as a Darwinian presumption, have you ever defined anything? I think not.

Lamarck was the first to 'draw attention' to a naturalistic assumption as opposed to special creation. At best it is inferred but if it's applied uniformly and universally across all taxonomic categories and all time frames it's an a priori, transcendent, self-evident fact that comes before the evidence since it is the substantive element that transcends all reality.

Show me one living creature who's lineage can be attributed to God rather then natural law and and I will withdraw the statement. If it were a conclusion based on empirical evidence then the inverse logic would be intuitively obvious. So, is the inverse logic of universal common descent intuitively obvious or is it an a priori fact assumed before the evidence is considered?

Full accounting of what? You acknowledge none of my points, all you do is go YOU ARE WRONG DEFINE YOUR TERMS YOU ARE WRONG BECAUSE YOU ARE SWAPPING DEFINITIONS BUT I WILL NOT SAY WHERE OR FROM WHAT TO WHAT BUT DEFINE YOUR TERMS DEFINE YOUR TERMS over and over again.

Define these terms:

• Science
• Creation
• Knowledge
• Heaven
• Incarnation
• Faith
• Evolution

You want me reasons? Here are my reasons:
1. I’ve played this game with you before. You just continued playing it..

You have yet to play the epistemology game because you know you can't win.

2. You already play fast and loose with your definitions.

Not true, I have used the same definitions for years without revision.

3. I’m not using multiple definitions, I’m using one, and they’re the most commonly accepted ones.

Yet you have offered none. If it's that simple then define your terms.

4. The only reason they would even need defining is because twisting them only serves one person, that’s the person who declares they need to be defined.

No, because the discussion is philosophical and in that kind of a discussion you must define your terms.

Of course, you’re going to tell me I’m wrong, and that what I’m actually thinking is some pandering to my Darwinian masters for show because TEs always suck and do nothing else. Funny how you apparently know my reasoning and my terms and my arguments better than I do, even while I’m telling you that you are wrong.

I do know the definitions you are working from, I want you to admit them. I doubt seriously that we will have the slightest problem agreeing on definitions for any of these things unless there are hidden meanings. That has yet to be determined because you refuse to define your terms.

Pity.

Metherion

Either define your terms or expect to keep seeing them until you do or I finally decide to define them for you. If I have to do that I know why you are refusing to define your terms.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[gluadys]

Are you suggesting Jesus Christ, as a human, is the same as everyone of us? I guess you forgot one of the most important point in the doctrine.

Jesus Christ has nothing to do with evolution. His existence violates everything evolution said. Is it amazing when we look at Him from this point of view? Why would any decent people want to invent the story of a virgin birth?

Don't know, but they have many, many times.

List of women/goddesses who are said to have given birth while virgins:




Alcmene, mother of Hercules who gave birth on December 25th
Alitta, Babylonian Madonna and Child
Anat, Syrian wife of "the earlier Supreme God El," called "Virgin Goddess"
Cavillaca, Peruvian huaca (divine spirit) impregnated by the "son of the sun god" through eating his sperm in the shape of a fruit
Chimalman, mother of Kukulcan
Chinese mother of Foe (Buddha)
Coatlicue, mother of the Mexican god Huitzilopochtli
Cybele, "Queen of Heaven and Mother of God"
Danae, mother of Perseus
Demeter/Ceres, "Holy Virgin" mother of Persephone/Kore and Dionysus
Devaki, mother of Krishna
Frigga, mother of the Scandinavian god Balder
Hera, mother of Zeus's children
Hertha, Teutonic goddess
Isis, who gave birth to Horus on December 25th
Juno, mother of Mars/Ares, called "Matrona" and "Virginalis," the Mother and Virgin
Mandana, mother of Cyrus/Koresh
Maya, mother of Buddha
Mother of Lao-kiun, "Chinese philosopher and teacher, born in 604 B.C."
Mother of the Indian solar god Rudra
Nana, mother of Attis
Neith, mother of Osiris, who was "worshipped as the Holy Virgin, the Great Mother, yet an Immaculate Virgin."
Nutria, mother of an Etruscan Son of God
Ostara, the German goddess
Rohini, mother of Indian "son of God"
Semele, mother of Dionysus/Bacchus, who was born on December 25th
Shin-Moo, Chinese Holy Mother
Siamese mother of Somonocodom (Buddha)
Sochiquetzal, mother of Quetzalcoatl
Vari, Polynesian "First Mother," who created her children "by plucking pieces out of her sides."
Venus, the "Virgo Coelestis" depicted as carrying a child


And, yes, of course, Jesus, as a human, is the same as everyone of us. That is what it means to say "He was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and became man." That is what it means to say "and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us."

Remember that the first and most pernicious heresy the early Church dealt with (Gnosticism) was the denial that Jesus was truly human. That is why the Apostles' Creed (written against that heresy) emphasizes all the human qualities of Jesus: he was born, he suffered, he died, he was buried, he descended into Sheol---just like every other human.

In confirmation class, as we were studying this Creed, our pastor remarked that today people debate the word "virgin" in "born of the Virgin Mary". But in the early days of the Church, when the creeds were first being formulated, the controversial term was "born".

In any case, to reject Jesus' humanity is to reject the basis of the Christian faith, just as surely as rejecting his divinity is. The Incarnation was not play-acting.

 

[metherion]

Then define your terms.

Tell when I’ve been equivocating.

Your use of evolution is an equivocation since there are two distinct definitions, one scientific and the other metaphysical.

No, there aren’t. There is a scientific definition which I use and then anti-science twisting to attempt to make Darwin a scapegoat for all fields of science not accepting miracles. I’m using the scientific one only. The ‘second definition’ is complete horse crap and I’ve never used it because it’s not real, merely made up by anti-science folks.

ou do the same thing with science and evolution and have yet to qualify either term.

No, I don’t do the same thing because I didn’t even do it with the first term. And I see you STILL have not read where in the thread I defined evolution.

That is two fallacious lines of argumentation that inevitably refer back to me personally in every post.

In response to your direct addressing of me to constantly define terms in virtually every thread, and the times I’ve indulged you it’s gone nowhere.

That makes three and still no coherent definitions and only one vague reference to the incarnation that you said was based on faith in God. That added another term I expect you to define which is faith as distinct from science or conclusions based on evidence.

Actually, by my count, it’s zero.

I know enough dear and I've played this game before.

Actually, you don’t know enough, because you can’t even understand that I’m not using anti-science doublespeak and constantly assume I am, and claim to know what I am saying better than I do. You obviously don’t. And I’m not playing your definition game. You don’t even have the courtesy to go back and read past parts of the thread.

The discussion is not about my merits as a debater, it's about evolution and salvation which is something you will be reminded of continuously until you accept that your rhetoric does not work on me.

The debate, however, has devolved into your pit of definition demanding which I refuse to sink into because I have seen it so many times before.

Lamarck was the first to 'draw attention' to a naturalistic assumption as opposed to special creation.

Lamarck, if you read the actual quote, came to the idea after seeing things that contradicted the idea of special, recent, instantaneous creation that only comes from a holy book, our holy book though it be.

At best it is inferred but if it's applied uniformly and universally across all taxonomic categories and all time frames it's an a priori, transcendent, self-evident fact that comes before the evidence since it is the substantive element that transcends all reality.

So the assumption of no miracles in naturalistic, so find me a field of science that accepts miracles as explanations! It shouldn’t be hard at all. Furthermore, it is not an assumption, it is a conclusion, because otherwise lines of evidence would show evidence for things like a 4000 year old worldwide flood. Inferring something from a lack of evidence is not an assumption, it is a conclusion. maybe if there were interobjective physical evidence of a miracle...

Show me one living creature who's lineage can be attributed to God rather then natural law and and I will withdraw the statement.

Only applicable if God and natural law are in complete opposition to one another. Furthermore, where is the interobjective physical evidence for miraculous creation anywhere? Otherwise it’s just God of the Gaps.

If it were a conclusion based on empirical evidence then the inverse logic would be intuitively obvious. So, is the inverse logic of universal common descent intuitively obvious or is it an a priori fact assumed before the evidence is considered?

And what inverse logic would that be? That if similarities imply common ancestry, differences imply uncommon ancestry? Funny thing is, it is obvious and applied. It is used to figure out where the branches in the tree of life split. But the further back similarities are found, the more the data leads to an original ‘trunk’ as it were.

So, again, find me ONE FIELD OF SCIENCE WHERE MIRACLES ARE ACCEPTED AS EXPLANATIONS.

You have yet to play the epistemology game because you know you can't win

I was referring to the definition game.

Not true, I have used the same definitions for years without revision.

Uh huh. That’s why you are using anti-science doublespeak definitions that are made up solely to sow confusion, such as some sort of metaphysical evolution definition.

Yet you have offered none. If it's that simple then define your terms.

Really? You, sir, are dead wrong. I have offered at least one in this thread. I have stated so repeatedly, and I put it in parenthesis when I did so. The fact that you continue to ignore this just proves my point that you have nothing but empty ‘define your terms’ canards.

No, because the discussion is philosophical and in that kind of a discussion you must define your terms.

Especially if extra, fake, metaphysical ones have been invented yet given the same name. I’ve never used evolution as any sort of metaphysical term.

I do know the definitions you are working from, I want to admit them.

No, you don’t. The very fact that you think I am swapping between terms shows that you don’t. And the fact that you haven’t even read the thread thoroughly enough to catch any that I already have defined just proves my points.

I doubt seriously that we will have the slightest problem agreeing on definitions for any of these things unless there are hidden meanings.

Like some sort of metaphysical evolution meaning crap?

That has yet to be determined because you refuse to define your terms.

And you haven’t defined yours, nor identified where I’ve swapped, nor believe me when I say I have NOT swapped terms, and insisted you know what I’m saying better than I do, and haven’t even bothered to read everything I’ve written in this thread.

Your constant begging for definitions and adding in crazy metaphysical definitions to science and evolution and mislabeling Darwinism as an assumption that was actually a conclusion and other crap doesn’t work on me. You can keep demanding definitions till the cows come home, I’ve given them to you before in other threads,but every thread it’s ‘define this, define that, you’re swapping into some metaphysical meaning over there’ canard.

Either define your terms or expect to keep seeing them until you do or I finally decide to define them for you. If I have to do that I know why you are refusing to define your terms.

See, I’d love to see where you actually define terms, instead of demanding them right, left, and center, and adding in weird metaphysical terms to words I’ve never seen used that way except by anti-science types. But you’ve never actually done it. And yes, you do know why, I’ve given you the four reasons.

Metherion

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

I'll make this easy:

Define these terms:
​

• Science
• Creation
• Knowledge
• Heaven
• Incarnation
• Faith
• Evolution

I expect specific definitions for each or you can expect to keep seeing them until you do.

Have a nice day
Mark

Dictionary.reference.com

 

[mark kennedy]

Tell when I’ve been equivocating.

Evolution as science and metaphysics, there is a difference between naturalistic assumptions and the genuine article of natural science. Define science.

No, there aren’t. There is a scientific definition which I use and then anti-science twisting to attempt to make Darwin a scapegoat for all fields of science not accepting miracles. I’m using the scientific one only. The ‘second definition’ is complete horse crap and I’ve never used it because it’s not real, merely made up by anti-science folks.

You are not using any definition, at least none that you will admit. The fact is that there are two, one is science and one is supposition.

No, I don’t do the same thing because I didn’t even do it with the first term. And I see you STILL have not read where in the thread I defined evolution.

No, define your terms.

In response to your direct addressing of me to constantly define terms in virtually every thread, and the times I’ve indulged you it’s gone nowhere.

It goes no where because there are two definitions. You will admit to neither because you are using both, define your terms.

Actually, you don’t know enough, because you can’t even understand that I’m not using anti-science doublespeak and constantly assume I am, and claim to know what I am saying better than I do. You obviously don’t. And I’m not playing your definition game. You don’t even have the courtesy to go back and read past parts of the thread.

I'm not anti-science, I'm not anti-evolution, I'm anti-fallacy, define your terms.

The debate, however, has devolved into your pit of definition demanding which I refuse to sink into because I have seen it so many times before.

The thread is based on a simple question regarding a belief in evolution and salvation, first you render a scientific definition of science and then a theological definition of salvation. Define your terms.

Lamarck, if you read the actual quote, came to the idea after seeing things that contradicted the idea of special, recent, instantaneous creation that only comes from a holy book, our holy book though it be.

Lamarck was the first to draw attention to natural law as an alternative to God's miraculous interpolation. Define your terms.

So the assumption of no miracles in naturalistic, so find me a field of science that accepts miracles as explanations! It shouldn’t be hard at all. Furthermore, it is not an assumption, it is a conclusion, because otherwise lines of evidence would show evidence for things like a 4000 year old worldwide flood. Inferring something from a lack of evidence is not an assumption, it is a conclusion. maybe if there were interobjective physical evidence of a miracle...

Assumption of no miracles is atheistic. I will show you a science that accepts God as the cause when you define your terms.

Only applicable if God and natural law are in complete opposition to one another. Furthermore, where is the interobjective physical evidence for miraculous creation anywhere? Otherwise it’s just God of the Gaps.

There is no God of the Gaps, there is no interobjective physical evidence. There are only two presuppositional truths that are mutually exclusive. Either God created life or life is the result of natural law. After life is created evolutionary principles are identical to the two concepts. Define your terms.

And what inverse logic would that be?

The inverse logical cause of creation is evolution.

That if similarities imply common ancestry, differences imply uncommon ancestry? Funny thing is, it is obvious and applied. It is used to figure out where the branches in the tree of life split. But the further back similarities are found, the more the data leads to an original ‘trunk’ as it were.

So, again, find me ONE FIELD OF SCIENCE WHERE MIRACLES ARE ACCEPTED AS EXPLANATIONS.

Define science.

I was referring to the definition game.

I was referring to the substantive questions that are actually pertinent

Uh huh. That’s why you are using anti-science doublespeak definitions that are made up solely to sow confusion, such as some sort of metaphysical evolution definition.

No, they are Newtonian and Aristotelian, they are scientific and they are theological, the are subjective and they are objective but they are not anti-science in the proper sense of that term. Define your terms.

Really? You, sir, are dead wrong. I have offered at least one in this thread. I have stated so repeatedly, and I put it in parenthesis when I did so. The fact that you continue to ignore this just proves my point that you have nothing but empty ‘define your terms’ canards.

I have read a lot of philosophy, theology and scientific literature. This discussion is concerned with epistemology which demands clear definitions. Define your terms.

Especially if extra, fake, metaphysical ones have been invented yet given the same name. I’ve never used evolution as any sort of metaphysical term.

Metaphysical terms are never fake, they are either transcendent or they are not. There is no such thing as fake Metaphysics, the concept is absurd.

No, you don’t. The very fact that you think I am swapping between terms shows that you don’t. And the fact that you haven’t even read the thread thoroughly enough to catch any that I already have defined just proves my points.

You not making points, your making an endless stream of personal attacks, refusing to define your terms and talking in circles. Define your terms.

Like some sort of metaphysical evolution meaning crap?


And you haven’t defined yours, nor identified where I’ve swapped, nor believe me when I say I have NOT swapped terms, and insisted you know what I’m saying better than I do, and haven’t even bothered to read everything I’ve written in this thread.

I have ignored nothing, I have the definitions I demand of you, all of them. I have nothing to hide and nothing to prove. I learned early and often no Darwinian will ever admit to a miracle, nor will they ever admit to their a priori assumptions. Define your terms.

Ok, that's enough of that. Here is the deal, define your terms or I will. Don't complain that I am telling you what you mean by them when you have refused to define them yourself.

I don't play this round the mulberry bush game evolutionists like.

I know you think I'm ignorant because I read Genesis literally or I'm somehow anti-science but that's not based on anything I've said or posted. It's based on assumptions you made about me before we ever talked. I'm just trying to determine if you statement regarding evolution not being a salvation issue which is next to impossible when you will discuss neither.

Either way, I know what those terms mean, I suspect you do as well which is why you won't admit the actual definitions.

Have a nice day
Mark