rmwilliamsll
avid reader
TE is an empty theology having no bearing on Biblical Christianity. Shrouded in ambiquity it is not discernably different then atheistic materialism in either it's logic or reasoning.
there is no such thing as a TE theology. as has been shown in this forum any number of times, the theology of any particular TE here is identical with the theology of the church or community they belong to.
TE is merely a label to easily identify a spectrum of positions on the creation-evolution scale.
TE is a position concerning evolution, it's a science, and it's effect on theology, little to nothing. It says nothing about the theology of the person, only how he interacts with biological science. something that is obvious when you actually listen to what people are saying here. A TE that is Lutheran talks like any other Lutheran, a TE that is Presbyterian sounds just like any other Presbyterian who is not TE but OEC or YEC. and etc.
I would not expect my logic or reasoning to be different that anyone elses, logic and reasoning are part of creation and available to anyone to use. Why should there be a Christian logic or a Christian technique of reasoning? Would a Christian logic always have a choice: e: goddidit.
i suspect this would be less than useful in say airplane guidance system programming.
However, in case i missed your point, please point me to where i can read about Christian logic and Christian reasoning as distinct from everyone else's.
Evolution as metaphysics is the single common ancestor and I am repulsed that these pseudo-scientific arguments cannot discern that distinction.
no, common descent is a scientific conclusion from the data.
the metaphysics of evolution would be something like:
man is nothing but an animal.
evolution is sufficient to explain everything we see in humanity.
altruism no more than the result of kinship selection.
etc. fundamentally claims to have found all the truth...this is metaphysics, not something like common descent.
First of all it is a self-evident fact with a self-referential starting point being identical to the conclusion.
this is the same kind of nonsense as:
'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
the sentence simply makes no sense. i wonder if you even know what self-referential means? without looking it up.
It is clearly an a priori assumption since it does not allow for alternatives, it includes all lineage and spans the history of all living systems.
actually i posed a decent alternative to common descent, smokey vent deep sea creatures with a distinctly different genetics. this would in no way challenge the TofE but would show common descent to be wrong and in need of modification. that makes common descent a conclusion from the data, not an a priori assumption. but i have yet to meet a YECist who can actually make this distinction.
I'll tell you what though, define God and I'll define an a priori assumption.
your turn.
there is no such thing as a TE theology. as has been shown in this forum any number of times, the theology of any particular TE here is identical with the theology of the church or community they belong to.
TE is merely a label to easily identify a spectrum of positions on the creation-evolution scale.
TE is a position concerning evolution, it's a science, and it's effect on theology, little to nothing. It says nothing about the theology of the person, only how he interacts with biological science. something that is obvious when you actually listen to what people are saying here. A TE that is Lutheran talks like any other Lutheran, a TE that is Presbyterian sounds just like any other Presbyterian who is not TE but OEC or YEC. and etc.
I would not expect my logic or reasoning to be different that anyone elses, logic and reasoning are part of creation and available to anyone to use. Why should there be a Christian logic or a Christian technique of reasoning? Would a Christian logic always have a choice: e: goddidit.
i suspect this would be less than useful in say airplane guidance system programming.
However, in case i missed your point, please point me to where i can read about Christian logic and Christian reasoning as distinct from everyone else's.
Evolution as metaphysics is the single common ancestor and I am repulsed that these pseudo-scientific arguments cannot discern that distinction.
no, common descent is a scientific conclusion from the data.
the metaphysics of evolution would be something like:
man is nothing but an animal.
evolution is sufficient to explain everything we see in humanity.
altruism no more than the result of kinship selection.
etc. fundamentally claims to have found all the truth...this is metaphysics, not something like common descent.
First of all it is a self-evident fact with a self-referential starting point being identical to the conclusion.
this is the same kind of nonsense as:
'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
the sentence simply makes no sense. i wonder if you even know what self-referential means? without looking it up.
It is clearly an a priori assumption since it does not allow for alternatives, it includes all lineage and spans the history of all living systems.
actually i posed a decent alternative to common descent, smokey vent deep sea creatures with a distinctly different genetics. this would in no way challenge the TofE but would show common descent to be wrong and in need of modification. that makes common descent a conclusion from the data, not an a priori assumption. but i have yet to meet a YECist who can actually make this distinction.
I'll tell you what though, define God and I'll define an a priori assumption.
your turn.
Upvote
0
