My Continuum Challenge

[sjastro]

Theistic evolution (a.k.a., guided evolution) is evolution as it is taught in religious science.

Where is religious science taught which is based on evidence and peer reviewed?
Is that at the same place that taught Aryan Physics which opposed the Jewish science of General and Special relativity.
It illustrates the nonsense and dangers of what happens when one uses adjectives to describe science.

 

[AV1611VET]

It illustrates the nonsense and dangers of what happens when one uses adjectives to describe science.

Like junk science?

 

[Mr Laurier]

Not if a distinction is required.

And since no distinction is required...

 

[AV1611VET]

And since no distinction is required...

Actually it is.

And another distinction I've seen academians deny now is cosmic evolution.

It's as if evolutionists don't want to have to make a distinction between different types for some reason.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Actually it is.

And another distinction I've seen academians deny now is cosmic evolution.

It's as if evolutionists don't want to have to make a distinction between different types for some reason.

This may have something to do with your "evolutionists" being imaginary boogiemen, created by creationist apologetic writers.

 

[AV1611VET]

This may have something to do with your "evolutionists" being imaginary boogiemen, created by creationist apologetic writers.

Either that, or Harvard University has it depicted graphically.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Either that, or Harvard University has it depicted graphically.

... which it hasn't.

 

[AV1611VET]

... which it hasn't.

Wow -- LOL -- okie-doke.

What is that picture from Harvard University that the whole Internet world can see then?

 

[Mr Laurier]

Wow -- LOL -- okie-doke.

What is that picture from Harvard University that the whole Internet world can see then?

Which one? There are a few million at last estimate

 

[AV1611VET]

Which one?

The one we're talking about.

 

[Mr Laurier]

The one we're talking about.

And??? Which one is that?
Post it.

 

[sjastro]

Like junk science?

Try answering my question instead of cherry picking.
FYI Aryan science is an extreme example of junk science.

I was taught in the Catholic education system and learnt about evolution in biology.
Despite being in a Catholic school, evolution was taught as a science subject which excludes any divine or metaphysical considerations.
Science is about "how" not "why" and therefore there is no distinction between theistic and atheistic evolution which turn out to being nonsensical terms.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Every university has produced MILLIONS pf pictures that the whole internet world can see.
The fact that AV has one specific picture in mind, does not tell me what one it is.

 

[AV1611VET]

I was taught in the Catholic education system and learnt about evolution in biology.
Despite being in a Catholic school, evolution was taught as a science subject which excludes any divine or metaphysical considerations.
Science is about "how" not "why" and therefore there is no distinction between theistic and atheistic evolution which turn out to being nonsensical terms.

That's because you're looking at the term from a science [class] perspective.

Try understanding the term from an English [class] perspective.

 

[sjastro]

That's because you're looking at the term from a science [class] perspective.

Try understanding the term from an English [class] perspective.

You are confused and have avoided my question as to provide an example where evolution is taught in "religious science".
In fact a more general question is what the heck is religious science?

Theistic evolution (a.k.a., guided evolution) is evolution as it is taught in religious science.

 

[Torah Keeper]

Flat Earthism Ogg the Trogg
Geocentrism Ptolemy
Atheistic Evolution Epicurus/Lucretius
Gap Theory Origen of Alexandria / Scofield Reference Bible
Day-Age Theory Saint Augustine / William Jennings Bryan
Theistic Evolution Thomas Aquinas / Leibniz
Progressive Creation Cuvier / Agassiz
Bonus: Omphalos Gosse
Young Earth Creationism McCready Price / Henry Morris

It seems that according to your chronology,

The Troggs abandoned their primitive view of Flat Earthism, in favor of Ptolemy's impressive Geocentric Antikythera Mechanism. However, Epicurus and Lucretius led the Enlightenment, and the Enlightened Ones were delighted to believe they were not made in the divine image of God, but were instead descendants of pond scum.

Origen, not content with being a son of pond scum, decided to build a bridge between the two religions with the Gap Theory. The people gladly accepted the God of the gaps, because they didn't like being pond scum descendants either.

But with Genesis 1 lacking any implied gaps, Saint Augustine proposed the Day Age Theory. And the creation week was once again accepted as a real event. They just thought God took longer than a literal week.

But Thomas Aquinas could see no reason why we couldn't be the descendants of pond scum, and yet made in the image of God at the same time by the process of Theistic Evolution.

Cuvier convinced the people that God was not done with the creative process, thus, Progressive Creation was born.

But all these primitive religions of the past were swept aside by the wisdom of McCready Price. Modern man is far too sophisticated to believe in old fables, and has gladly embraced the final truth: Young Earth Creationism.

 

[Frank Robert]

Okay.Atheistic evolution (a.k.a., evolution) is evolution as it is taught in secular science.

There is no such thing as Atheistic evolution. There is only the ToE.

[/QUOTE]Theistic evolution (a.k.a., guided evolution) is evolution as it is taught in religious science.

It is not about guided evolution which is involves a designer. It is not taught in religious science it is a belief that God started evolution and that A&E were created by God.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is no such thing as Atheistic evolution.

Here we go again.

Maybe not in a science classroom, okay?

But in English class, where they teach that adjectives modify nouns, there is.

Fair enough?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Here we go again.
But in English class, where they teach that adjectives modify nouns, there is.

I mean, yes, adjectives modify nouns, but this particular combination looks as meaningless as

Atheistic gravity
Atheistic sword swallowing
Atheistic tax preparation
Atheistic pâtisserie

There is no difference between the atheistic kind and the vanilla kind.

 

[essentialsaltes]

It seems that according to your chronology,

Well, when you're talking about things that are not-science there is no guarantee that the models improve with time in their fidelity to reality.

But I'm glad someone thought enough of my sincere answer to the OP to provide a little creative writing response.