That would be a silly goal inconsistent with my own views.
1 Like
You have a low bar for āfoul mouthedā, if thatās what you think.
Is it not your purpose to introduce the GAE so as to convince creationists that they can accept common descent?
What is an evolutionist? Iām not one. Iām a scientist and a Christian. I affirm evolutionary science, and I affirm the doctrine of creation. My grounding, however, is not in evolution or creation.
1 Like
I would define an evolutionist as a person who affirms evolutionary science, so we have no conflict there. I would define a creationist as a person who denies most common descent (above some level that varies with the creationist, but surely below the level of Class or Phylum). The doctrine of creation is not at odds with being an evolutionist.
Now sure, Greg probably means āevil atheist conspiratorā when he says āevolutionistā, but thereās no reason to use his definition.
1 Like
And you use phallic terms to describe the God that @swamidass and i serve. Have i ever called you in such terms? Have i ever declared that my God hates you? Or have i instead over and over proclaimed about a God who despises sin and yet chose to forgive all who sinned against Him with grace? And you return that with utter disrespect. Why? Why not go find some good science elsewhere and rub shoulders with those likeminded individuals whom you can find enjoyable banter about the God you dont believe in.
And I affirm evolutionary science too as it fits within the parameters of my belief which is based on revelation. And i believe that where it does not fit, it is not true. And all of this is confirmed with the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. If no resurrection, then all professing Christians are fools. Do you have some more nasty semantics to add towards me for that?
Are you pretending like you didnāt understand nwhat I said?
Thatās one wierd thing about āevolutionistsāā¦ they are quite interested in spreading their gospel.
Wonder why we donāt see signs of such religious enthusiasm among those who believe in Einsteinās theoriesā¦
Itās hard to understand why religious Creationists attempt to disparage the evolutionary sciences by calling them a religion. What does that make their own religious beliefs?
1 Like
What makes you think I am disparaging āevolutionary scienceāā¦ I am making an observation about the religious zeal displayed by āevolutionistsā.
And religious zeal itself need not be a negative thing.
People who refer to science as a religion almost always donāt know anything about science. Is that the case here?
Who has referred to Science as a religion? You are confused.
I am referring to some āevolutionistsā (both scientists as well as others) who display a religious zeal for spr adding their beliefs.
You did when you claimed evolutionist are " quite interested in spreading their gospel."
Well, Iām not sure that those are the same gods, and the terms arenāt really intended as phallic. Nor was I even trying to insult you, just using language that I considered descriptive of the character. I would be glad to substitute other words. Consider ābad personā as an alternative.
You are right that I have no respect for what I consider to be a fictional character, just as I have no respect for Sauron or Voldemort, and for similar reasons. We disagree on that point, for sure.
Well, your belief is based on your personal interpretation, which differs from that of many others, of something you consider to be revelation. It does seem, though, that not very much evolutionary science fits within those parameters. Hardly any, from what I can tell.
I find that to be true of scientists in general. We like people to appreciate our work. Come to think of it, itās true of people in general.
Like Timothy Horton, I find the āgospelā bit mildly offensive. Was that intentional?
So where is the mention of Scienceā¦ unless you equate the term āevolutionistā with āScienceāā¦ thatās just poor reading comprehension.
Well, evolutionists seem far more needy in this area.
Itās far more than just appreciationā¦ what is demanded seems to be conformance to your conclusions as the only rational position.
Why do you find it offensiveā¦ you yourself used the word āconversionā when talking about changing a person into an evolutionistā¦ what is it that converts a person other than a gospel?
I doubt thatās true. Whatās true is that thereās no real active movement opposing, say, quantum chromodynamics.
Not demanded, really. That is what Iām trying for, but through persuasion, not bullying.
All manner of things. āConversionā is not explicitly religious, while āgospelā is, and explicitly Christian at that. If however you were not attempting to paint āevolutionismā as a religion, my apologies for overrreacting.
1 Like
Maybe itās a question of chickens and eggs hereā¦ historically speaking, it was a bunch of āevolutionistsā that decided the theory is definitive proof for athiesm and based their gospel on it.
Is it persuasion alone. I see a fair amount of name calling.
Conversion is explicitly religious (atleast where I come from)ā¦ the word itself originated from a religious context. I will grant that you didnāt mean it in a religious sense.
And honestly speaking, would I be wrong in saying that your understanding of evolution contributes significantly to your metaphysical beliefs and commitment to materialism?
In such a sense, it seems to be connected to faith for many athiests.
No it isnāt. The doctrine of divine concurrence has been around since at least Aquinas, and before.
We are not nature, at least on the ānatural/artificialā axis, but never break the laws of nature.
God may not be nature, but nature may be seen as what God does, directly or indirectly, and habitually or contingently.
The bigger problem is making a coherent theory of laws of nature without God.
2 Likes