It is easy, or at least it poses no great difficulties. The problem is that your entire discourse is focused on attacking Creationism, not defending science.
Your usual standard baseless claim.
I have cast no aspersions on the genuine article of science and certainly have no animosity toward empirical science.
Since you are the one insisting there are differences, it is not up to me to define your terms. It is up to you.
I wanted to make that clear before I posted the definitions for the core terms at issue. It was important because no matter what I post you will assail me with constant ad hominem attacks calling my definitions bogus. It will be clear to anyone who is remotely discerning that you had every opportunity to provide them and you refused.
It might be because you already have multiple definitions, and Im counting at least 3 for science: Newtonian, aristotelian, and something else. You also have a new meaning for Darwinian, with no evidence that it applies other than your bare assertion, that has a different from normal meaning. Ditto for evolution.
It would have been had you provided a clear, concise definition of the principle terms you are using. You refused and I know why.
Yes, you do. Its for the reasons I claimed, and none other. Except you know my mind better than I do, so whatever YOU think is actually right, right?
You love the personal pronoun 'you' don't you? The purpose of these endless attacks has nothing to do with science or theology, it's a personal distaste for the convictions of Creationists regarding essential Christian theism.
Actually, no. Not one thing Ive said to you has attacked you over anything about essential Christian theism. Ive merely stated my distaste for and the arrogance of your debating techniques, pointing out where you are doing them over and over. After all, if you can use that same excuse to defend yourself against making ad hominems, so can I.
I can't just make a statement like that without proof but isn't it interesting that every post you have made in the thread has been focused on me rather then the subject of the thread.
Really? Even the ones I posted before you entered the thread? Well, if you cant be bothered to read where Ive defined things, I suppose thats not surprising.
It's in virtually every line of your posts with only the vaguest of references to the actual topic. That is by far the most obvious fallacy of Theistic Evolution, the focus is on the Creationist rather then the substance of their convictions.
Actually, Ive focused on your fallacious define everything ad infinitum that you constantly pull.
Definitions are profoundly important, I just refuse to chase your fallacious logic in circles. I honestly believe you have no idea where this philosophy is coming from, you may even think your defending Christianity from mistreatment. Whatever the case, you cannot make a coherent statement with regards to evolution and salvation unless you clearly define both.
Since you are the one insisting there are multiple terms, you should be the one defining them, then I can provide mine, then we can have a decent discussion. Instead, you barge in with accusations of equivocation and demands for definitions without providing anything on your own.
If I had just defined them myself you could have ignored it. Now you are forced to at least consider the substantive issues.
Im sorry, when I defined something, YOU ignored it, and now you claim that is what I would do? Oh, the irony...
And by the way... since I HAVE been addressing the ONE definition you provided, what does that suggest about my likelihood to ignore further ones? And since YOU ignored where I defined something, what does that say about YOUR likelihood to ignore further definitions of MINE?
I didn't ignore it, I just waited for the discussion to draw you like a moth to the flame.
Actually, you did. You admitted you did, and you still havent gone back to look for it. And remember, I posted in the thread before you did, so theres no high horse of I JUST WAITED FOR YOU TO DO WHAT I KNOW YOU WOULD DO WHEN I CAME INTO THIS THREAD BEFORE YOU.
There is one fallacy Theistic Evolutionists find irresistible, the inevitable ad hominem attack. What you may or may not say along the way is incidental since I know where you are going and I can just wait there until you arrive. You have been there for several pages, I have to give you credit for at least being consistent.
Thats extremely funny, as it is again your M.O. Ask for definitions, attack right, left, and center, claim to be attacked, and hand wave your attacks away as just pointing things out. By the way, no, you dont know where Im going, perhaps because you havent seen fit to raise to the level of actual discourse from the level of DEFINE EVERYTHING AND I WILL BE DAMNED IF I DO THE SAME.
No, I did provide a definition for Darwinism, I know you understood it because you commented around it several times. The only thing you had to do was to define evolution and the clear difference between Darwinian Evolution and the genuine article of 'evolution' in Biology would have been inescapable. In fact it will be but since you refused to define your terms you just going to have to listen to mine with nothing to respond with except pedantic ad hominem attacks. Theistic Evolutionists always go there so I have come to the point where I wait for the discussion to go there and then I address the substantive issues. That way you don't even have to bother with a debate, it's over before it starts because all they will have is one long fallacious argument already refuted.
The second definition is for science, or evolution, or for the other terms you assert I am equivocating upon. Youve provided ONE definition for Darwinian (wrong though it be), so a question for a second would obviously not be referring to that.

The only one claiming the difference between Darwinian evolution and evolution is you, so it should be up to YOU to define the difference, not me. And I cannot listen to yours unless you actually GIVE them.
I will, you already have the most important one, the bogus Darwinian definition. I'm just letting you wind down a little before I make a long, carefully prepared post you will want to ignore. The fact is, after all the drama you have worked so hard to create you won't be able to bury it. You guys are your own worst enemies.
Oh, so you have something big waiting in the wings? Then provide it, dont talk it up. And by the way, you will still have to show that your version of Darwinian applies after youve defined both kinds of biology instead of us all taking it as being Gospel Truth merely because you deigned to finally define something.
That should do it, you have conceded that you have no definition for science or evolution.
Nothing of the sort. Perhaps if you actually read what I say?
Why your afraid of what I will do with it is a mystery to me but my reason for being here is different then yours. I'm not here to change anyone's mind, I want to know how you think. Like Darwin, my interest is in the origin and development of living creatures as a theory of the mind.
Im not afraid, I find bait-and-ambush tactics highly distasteful. Im not afraid of them, I just dislike them. By the way, you dont know how I think, and you wont, because you assume you know how I think and why I say what I do and then tell me Im wrong when I tell you how I actually think.
Furthermore you have provided nothing with regards to Soteriology even though you have had ample time to do so.
See my first post in the thread. Furthermore, all thats been done is demands for definitions with nothing given in return; theres not BEEN much talk of it because of all the NO DEFINE X FOR ME AND I WILL DEFINE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING FOR
YOU!
All well and good, you did exactly what I expected you to do, drive the thread off topic and focus on the same worn out fallacious logic that is Theistic Evolution, the inevitable ad hominem. Good job, thanks for confirming my prediction with such candor and alacrity.
Actually, youre the one who has driven it off topic with all these demands for definitions and talks of how you know all my reasonings for everything.
Any way, I'm through wasting time on your pedantic ad hominems. You have posted enough to sufficiently prove you have nothing else, at least to my satisfaction.
Maybe if you read what I posted instead of what you ASSUME Im saying, including the last half of that post, youd have something. Pity.
Now, I said Id say something about Newtonian vs Aristotelian, even if Mark never got around to it. Here it goes.
Okay. So lets talk Newtonian vs Aristotelian physics and why its still bunk to ask me to define which science I was talking about, as I wasnt flipping between them.
Aristotelian science is divvied up into 3 sections: practical, poetic, and theoretical. The theoretical part is broken up into mathematics, metaphysics, and physics. Now, biology is not part of physics, and not part of Aristotelian science. Since I was referring to multiple fields of science, including biology (not physics), meteorology (not physics), atomic theory (debatable if it is physics, one could make the case for it belonging to physics or chemistry), and astrophysics (which is physics), it should be extremely clear Im NOT talking about Aristotelian science. Nor have I ever mentioned mathematics, nor have I talked about metaphysicality in the science I HAVE talked about, despite your assertions that I HAVE been swapping.
Furthermore, metaphysics in Aristotelian science is not a field of science as astrophysics or biology or chemistry or whatnot are.
Furthermore, Aristotelian science is not exclusively metaphysical. Metaphysics is one part out of seven (depending on how you slice it. Normally Ive seen politics/ethics/poetry/other fine arts/ math/phsyics/metaphysics), and the metaphysics does not even deal exclusively with theology. It has a metaphysical component, but it still deals with the physical. And the metaphysical parts are also not all theological.
And in the multiple colleges I have attended, in all the classes in the multiple fields I have taken, the only people who have ever spoken about Aristotelian science have been my parents, who teach philosophy.
Besides, I also specifically said:
Point me out a field of science not dealing with computers or directly man made things
Computer and other man made things are specifically NOT PHYSICS, and thus should specifically rule out any notion of Aristotelian science, yet thats the first time you tell me to define science.
Especially because the beginning of your next paragraph was
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.
which is where YOU introduce some non-natural science definition, indicate multiple definitions of evolution and science, and declare Darwinian evolution (youre using a completely made-up and inaccurate definition for what Darwinian means, but at least you bothered to explain that you meant something completely inaccurate and made up by Darwinian instead of the actual definition of having to do with Darwin, so credit shall be given where it is due) to be not one of those types of science or something, but dont bother to say which one YOU are trying to refer to.
By the by, theres nothing but your bare assertions to suggest that your application of your specific definition of Darwinian is correct to apply, nor that evolution isnt science, nor that the parts of evolution that make you apply the Darwinian label to it arent also part of the science that is evolution. So the whole evolution isnt compatible with faith thing is all your bare assertions, nothing else, and I have no reason to give it any weight. That part is all bare, baseless assertion. NOT the Aristotelian version there.
Also, something I didnt mention earlier:
You stated
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.
You are making assumptions about what I believe again. I believe in miracles. I have specifically talked about at least two here, though you have failed to address it every time Ive talked about it, telling philadiddle something about my professing to miracles being meaningless because of a lack of definition of faith. So I wanted to say what I think of miracles:
Miracles happen. Miracles may or may not leave permanent, lasting effects. Some of them, like the Incarnation or the Resurrection of the multiplication of the loaves fall under the category of NOT leaving permanent, lasting effects that can be measured 2000 years later. Some, like a 4000 year old worldwide flood or instantaneous special creation with no precursors WOULD leave evidence. If they did happen, then methodologically naturalistic science would be sitting there, scratching its head, going How do we naturally account for all this recent sudden creation? and be totally unable to do so. That is NOT the case. I do not believe miracles are off limits. A lot of the miracles that anti-science or anti-evolution folks want to invoke would not be allowed as evidence by science, true, very true. BUT there would STILL BE all these WHY IS IT LIKE THIS THIS COULD NOT HAPPEN NATURALLY moments in all the associated fields of science. There arent those moments everywhere. So, while science as it is may not allow miracles as explanations, if all the miracles actually DID happen, there would be tons and tons and tons of dumbfounded head-scratching moments in everything from astrophysics to zoology. There arent. So its not that those miracles COULD NOT happen, its that they DID NOT. HUGE difference.
Metherion