Posted on 08/02/2006 9:17:33 AM PDT by JCEccles
>>My beliefs are not relevant. <<
If that is true... Then nothing you say is relevant... Because you're only posturing a postition that you're either too embarassed to admit, or, you're just trying to create an issue where this is none... Either way... You've just revealed a lot about yourself... By refusing to admit what your personal beliefs are...
Julian Huxley was principally an after-the-fact popularizer of the neo-darwinian synthesis. His contributions TO the synthesis were minimal, and certainly FAR less than either of the THREE theists I mentioned.
If it's a battle of competing authorities, you loose. Besides, it's only necessary to point to some nontrivial number of creationist-evolutionists to prove that the doctrines are potentially compatible. That some others do not inhabit the intersection of the two doctrines does not disprove that the intersection exists.
>>>>"Really? Perhaps you can tell us what version of "evolution" that you believe in... What is your personal "creed"?" <<<<
>>There is only one 'version' of the Synthetic Theory of Evolution (SToE). It is not inherently anti-theistic and is only a-theistic in the sense that theism is not considered one way or the other, as is the case in all other fields of science.<<
According to some of your friends that believe in evolutionism, evolutionism comes in many shapes and sizes... Pastuer, who you and others contend was believed in evolution, was a devout believer in the Creator... How does this fit with your personal belief in evolutionism? Don't be bashful... No need for smoke and mirrors here...
So did you. Apparently you don't realize, but everything you just wrote presumes that the ad hominem argument (of the circumstantial as opposed to abusive variety) is valid. This fallacy of the circumstantial ad hominem entails that an argument can be rejected purely because of the circumstances of the person making the argument, despite or ignoring the content of the argument itself.
BTW, you also just agreed (if consistent) with all the extreme leftists who claim that Vice President Cheney, for instance, can have nothing to say about matters of war and peace because he didn't serve in the military; and that George Bush can't legitimately lead American forces into combat because his service didn't include combat experience.
>>No, I'm stating a fact about what people believe. <<
What kind of credibility do you think you have when you won't even state what you believe?
You claim that you are stating "facts" about what other people believe.. That may be your opinion, but it isn't backed up by any "facts". Again... Loss off credibility on your part...
A DIRECT QUOTE from a person, regarding a specific subject, is not a "fact" relevant to determining what that person believed about the subject????
Wow.
That is doubtful but I'll play along. What are those shapes and sizes?
"Pastuer, who you and others contend was believed in evolution, was a devout believer in the Creator...
We accept that. He was a devote believer in the Creator.
Although others have tried to get you to understand with little or no success, I'll reiterate their statements. The belief in a Creator does not conflict with acceptance of biological evolution. If you are for some reason including Abiogenesis and the BB in your definition of evolution you are incorrect.
There are many who believe in common descent who also believe God started it all.
There are some who believe that Abiogenesis did indeed happen but that God created the conditions necessary for it to occur.
There are some who believe God created the BB and the conditions necessary for life knowing beforehand that humans would evolve.
All of those 'options' support the belief in a Creator and biological evolution.
The only group that ardently believes in a Creator and rejects Evolution are the YECs. The only way you can claim belief in a Creator excludes accepting the SToE is if you redefine belief in a Creator to exclude all but YECs. Is that what you are doing?
"How does this fit with your personal belief in evolutionism? Don't be bashful... No need for smoke and mirrors here...
Not that it is relevant but I am an atheist. I do not believe in a Creator and have not for almost 40 years. Although I grew up in a highly religious setting, God stopped making sense to me long before I learned about Evolution.
However, my beliefs do not reflect the majority belief of those that accept Evolution.
Yes, the "Darwinists" are on the run, soon we'll get the Newtonists and their godless atheist theory of "gravity" next. My kids sure ain't being weighted down by some invisible "gravity" force that only the Newtonists can see and notice.
The Galileoists will fall shortly afterwards, I'm so sick of hearing their anti-bible speils about the solar system being accepted as fact.
We're had enough of these so called scientists and their revisionist nonscene. Everyone knows that the earth is flat, the sun revolves around the earth (just at it moving in the heavens above us!), this planet is roughly 6000 years old, and man appeared fulled formed one day because everything in the bible is literally true. I also object to this continual talk of "germs" that exist that cannot be seen by the naked eye, the silly notion that egg and sperm create human life, and that garbage about using injections to cure disease.
I'm due for my daily blood-letting tomarrow and plan to get a small toad on my head to ward off illness. Try it sometime, that REALLY frosts the ignorant Darwinists and Newtonists!
Simple. I require the same standards to be applied to ALL of science: the theory of gravity, the germ theory of disease, etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.