My theory on creation.

[Speedwell]

Two questions... 1) what is your definition of "Christian"? 2) Do you have verifiable data for that "close to two billion Christians" figure?

1) I take a Christian to be anyone who can swear to the tenets of the Nicene Creed with a clear conscience, which is also the standard for this forum.

2) I think it is well established that there are about 2.2 billion Christians in the world. The number of Creationists probably does not exceed 100 million, most of them in the US. As an example, the largest Creationist denomination is the Southern Baptist Convention, at about 16 million.

One more, I believe there are over a billion Muslims that disagree with Christianity, does that make them correct?

It's not a popularity contest, it's a matter of attitude. Once again, this is not about a conflict between theism and atheism, as Creationists like to paint it. It's a conflict between a cranky Protestant religious minority with a political agenda versus everybody else, Christians, other theists and atheists alike.

 

[pitabread]

Then consider Darwin's definition:

Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention. This justly-celebrated naturalist first published his views in 1801; he much enlarged them in 1809 in his "Philosophie Zoologique,' and subsequently, in 1815, in the Introduction to his "Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertébres.' In these works he upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of 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)​

Look, you're just not getting it.

When you say "Darwinian evolution", most people are going to interpret that as referring to Darwin's views of biological evolution via natural selection. That's it.

When you actually appear to be referring to is metaphysical atheism (or at the very minimum, methodological naturalism), it just starts to get confusing. Even more so when you start referencing the Big Bang in relation to "Darwinian evolution", a model of the universe which didn't appear until the 20th century, well after Darwin's death.

Do you not understand how your posts can be confusing?

 

[pitabread]

That is not a definition. That is a quotation.

What you cannot seem to handle is the fact that the theory of evolution is a testable idea. It has been tested countless thousands of times and has been confirmed. That means that your claim of it being an "a priori assumption" is demonstrably wrong.

The problem is that Mark plays so loose with his definitions that who even knows what he talking about half the time. When he says "a priori assumption" he seems to be suggesting that in relation to methodological naturalism and/or metaphysical atheism, not explicitly biological evolution.

It's such a struggle to interpret what he is trying to say, who really knows what he's trying to argue.

 

[mark kennedy]

Look, you're just not getting it.

When you say "Darwinian evolution", most people are going to interpret that as referring to Darwin's views of biological evolution via natural selection. That's it.

No, I get it just fine, when I say Darwinian evolution I mean the a priori assumption of universal common descent going all the way back to and including the Big Bang. I base that on Charles Darwin's definition not mine.

When you actually appear to be referring to is metaphysical atheism (or at the very minimum, methodological naturalism), it just starts to get confusing. Even more so when you start referencing the Big Bang in relation to "Darwinian evolution", a model of the universe which didn't appear until the 20th century, well after Darwin's death.

Do you not understand how you are being confusing?

Darwinism is clearly existential as is the Christian doctrine of creation. Define the terms and you determine the substance of the discussion. It's not confusing, it's obvious.

 

[mark kennedy]

The problem is that Mark plays so loose with his definitions that who even knows what he talking about half the time. When he says "a priori assumption" he seems to be suggesting that in relation to methodological naturalism and/or metaphysical atheism, not explicitly biological evolution.

It's such a struggle to interpret what he is trying to say, who really knows what he's trying to argue.

No the problem is you guys don't like defining your terms and there are consequences for that. You define your terms or you test the substance of your arguments against the counter argument. You choose to do neither and that's why your arguments are fallacious.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I get it just fine, when I say Darwinian evolution I mean the a priori assumption of universal common descent going all the way back to and including the Big Bang. I base that on Charles Darwin's definition not mine.



Darwinism is clearly existential as is the Christian doctrine of creation. Define the terms and you determine the substance of the discussion. It's not confusing, it's obvious.

And once again he makes the demonstrated false claim of an "a priori assumption".

I need to point out that Mark is not an authority and not able to make up his own definitions in a debate.

 

[pitabread]

No, I get it just fine, when I say Darwinian evolution I mean the a priori assumption of universal common descent going all the way back to and including the Big Bang. I base that on Charles Darwin's definition not mine.

And did you see Charles Darwin referencing the Big Bang in any of his published works?

No? Exactly.

Darwinism is clearly existential as is the Christian doctrine of creation.

But again, you're operating with a private definition of "Darwinism". Unless someone knows explicitly what you are referring to, it gets confusing trying to follow the intended meaning.

Define the terms and you determine the substance of the discussion. It's not confusing, it's obvious.

No, it's confusing Mark. You're operating with private definitions of terms like "Darwinism" or "Darwinian evolution" and it leads to a discussion where you end up talking past people because they aren't interpreting those terms the same way you are.

No the problem is you guys don't like defining your terms and there are consequences for that. You either resort to fallacious logic or you test the substance of your arguments against the counter argument. You choose to do neither and that's why your arguments are fallacious.

I can define terms just fine. I tend to go by common parlance, as that's the easiest way to have a conversation. I've never understood why some feel the need to make up private definitions of words unless it's to deliberately obfuscate what they are trying to say.

I don't think that is what you're trying to do, but the fact you are so resistant to the idea of using better terminology makes me wonder...

 

[mark kennedy]

And did you see Charles Darwin referencing the Big Bang in any of his published works?

No? Exactly.

All change, organic and inorganic, that includes everything.

But again, you're operating with a private definition of "Darwinism". Unless someone knows explicitly what you are referring to, it gets confusing trying to follow the intended meaning.

Unless you actually read the definition of Darwin.

No, it's confusing Mark. You're operating with private definitions of terms like "Darwinism" or "Darwinian evolution" and it leads to a discussion where you end up talking past people because they aren't interpreting those terms the same way you are.

We? I was under the impression I was talking to you.

I can define terms just fine. I tend to go by common parlance, as that's the easiest way to have a conversation. I've never understood why some feel the need to make up private definitions of words unless it's to deliberately obfuscate what they are trying to say.

Fine, where are your definitions?

I don't think that is what you're trying to do, but the fact you are so resistant to the idea of using better terminology makes me wonder...

What terminology? You haven't bothered to define your terms.

 

[pitabread]

Fine, where are your definitions?

Darwinian evolution = Darwin's theory of evolution by which populations evolve from earlier species via reproduction, heritable variation and natural selection

 

[mark kennedy]

Darwinian evolution = Darwin's theory of evolution by which populations evolve from earlier species via reproduction, heritable variation and natural selection

Darwinian evolution is:

the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of 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)​

 

[tevans9129]

In post 159, I tried to answer this question about the origin of space, matter, energy and time. In post 168 you said,

My apologies, when your first line started with…

The empirical evidence for the 'Big Bang' (the expansion of the universe from an initial state of high temperature and high density)

I stopped reading as I have seen this 8319 times, more or less, and in addition, I have read many articles by opponents and proponents of the BB subject and it gets a little old hearing the same thing repeatedly when it does not answer my question as it was asked.

With that said, I will return to your post and offer some comments and no doubt will have a question or two. It may be a little later in the day.

 

[pitabread]

Darwinian evolution is"

the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of 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)​

It's like trying to have a conversation with a brick wall.

 

[mark kennedy]

It's like trying to have a conversation with a brick wall.

No, it's like begging the question of proof on your hands and knees.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Darwinian evolution is:

the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of 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)​

Nope, no "doctrines" in science.

Try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's like trying to have a conversation with a brick wall.

I could have told you that.

 

[pitabread]

I could have told you that.

Oh, I know. I don't know why I waste the time.

I guess once in awhile I get this glimmer of hope, but then it all comes crashing down... ce la vie.

 

[pitabread]

No, it's like begging the question of proof on your hands and knees.

Non-sequitur response is a non-sequitur.

Look, all I'm doing is telling you that your non-standard use of terminology like "Darwinism" and "Darwinian evolution" is going to be confusing in conversation. If you don't care, then that's fine, but understand that you're only sowing confusion in the process, and making it unnecessarily difficult to try to discuss anything with you.

If that's not important to you, then by all means carry on.

 

[Speedwell]

Non-sequitur response is a non-sequitur.

Look, all I'm doing is telling you that your non-standard use of terminology like "Darwinism" and "Darwinian evolution" is going to be confusing in conversation. If you don't care, then that's fine, but understand that you're only sowing confusion in the process, and making it unnecessarily difficult to try to discuss anything with you.

If that's not important to you, then by all means carry on.

The whole point is confusion: to confuse methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism.

 

[mark kennedy]

Non-sequitur response is a non-sequitur.

Look, all I'm doing is telling you that your non-standard use of terminology like "Darwinism" and "Darwinian evolution" is going to be confusing in conversation. If you don't care, then that's fine, but understand that you're only sowing confusion in the process, and making it unnecessarily difficult to try to discuss anything with you.

If that's not important to you, then by all means carry on.

No, it's the definition that is behind Darwinian evolution, you ignore it and it never goes away. That's on you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, it's the definition that is behind Darwinian evolution, you ignore it and it never goes away. That's on you.

No, it is merely a quote and nowhere near being a "definition". Nor does it support your claim of an "a priori assumption".