Posted on 08/19/2006 3:56:52 AM PDT by DannyTN
The term "evolutionist" normally refers to people who believe in biological evolution as originally put forth by Darwin and others. Just because someone uses the term evolution doesn't mean they are biological evolutionists.
I am not sure what you meant when you called him an evolutionist.
So someone who uses the term evolution to describe their belief that the universe evolved isn't an evolutionist? Okaaaay. Let me just ask you this...
Yes or no
Four yes's and your argument is trashed.
It might be a better term but the same people who buy long ages and evolution for the earth buy long ages and evolution for the universe. So I'm not wrong in calling them evolutionists. In fact, I'd dare say that the number of poeple who believe in a long age for the Universe and stellar evolution, but a short age for the earth, is relatively small.
"Oh, my, yes...."
I believe in Creation of the automobile. I'm a creationist.
Seriously, are you trying to make a case that there are a substantial number of people who believe in "stellar evolution" and long ages for the Universe but reject biological evolution? And in fact, the reverse must be true, for what I said to be wrong. There would have to be a large number of biological evolutionists that reject stellar evolution. And I seriously doubt there are any.
You're just playing with semantics now that you're trapped logically! (/cr-id)
No, not all creationists are young earth.
And you made a mistake. Why won't you admit it and move on?
Not all creationists are young earth, but my comment wasn't about creationists. I said "Evolutionists believe". Do you want to try to tell me that there are Evolutionists believe in a young Universe?
Believing in an old universe does not make one an evolutionist.
No it doesn't. But evolutionists' believe in an old universe right?
No it doesn't. But evolutionists' believe in an old universe right?
Ok, you have me there. Of course you had to change frames of reference to do it. But indeed, there are a lot of YEC who believe that multple frames of reference could explain how stars were created on the fourth day yet appear to be very old at least from a starlight distance calculation.
Therefore, I concede that I have no way of knowing if the original author who clearly believes in evolution of galaxies, believes in biological evolution. And therefore labeling him an "evolutionist" is misleading, as I agree that the term "evolutionist" is commonly related to biological and not stellar evolution.
No concession needed... just a misunderstanding, that's all. Hope you had a good weekend.
I'm a born again christian....and your remark is offensive sir.
I am also an amature astronomer...I find no biblical conflict with these findings
We are probably stuck with the multi-definitional use of the term forever. What we ought to do in such usage is limit the definition in each particular field of study, but many or most won't, which opens the possibility of metaevolution as a study of evolution of evolution.
So? This has nothing to do with the ToE.
I want to see proof that this isn't an image of our own Milky Way, visible to us through multi-gravitational lensings. LOL
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.