Posted on 06/20/2007 5:24:39 AM PDT by spirited irish
The assertion that evolution denies the spiritual exists by failing to address it is yours. For that premise to be valid, the converse would also be true - that the metaphysical denies that we have corporeal existence by failing to address it. The argument is no better than the premise it's based on.
In any case, I still think this is a bit of squabbling over the proper application of a label at the expense of the larger questions...
Indeed, some Muslims, like some Christians subscribe to different (literal vs figurative) interpretations of thier respective scriptures. But it is still a matter of theology.
It's not an argument over what the definition of what "is" is, but rather exactly what the primary principles in the debate (evolution and creation) are. What would you consider the possibility of having a rational debate on the issue of one side or the other can arbitrarily re-define them at will?
Um, no. The only purpose in calling them creationists is that they are creationists. Maybe that will sink in this time, but I'm not holding my breath.
Dumb and/or poorly educated and/or unreflective Muslims, including Islamists, are creationists; but so are smart and/or well educated and/or reflective Muslims. Same with Jews and Christians. Dumb Christians are creationists, but so are smart ones.
I thought you conceded this point but now you're back to wasting bits on this gratuitous and irrelevant (and btw stupid, and btw bigoted) non-distinguishing distinction. I officially give up. Ramble on.
See 239.
LOL! I just now noticed your tagline! Too, too funny.
Thanks. It’s been a good one.
“...Indeed, some Muslims, like some Christians subscribe to different (literal vs figurative) interpretations of thier respective scriptures. But it is still a matter of theology. ...”
Yes, your first sentence is fundamentally a true statement...but your second sentence takes things in a direction I’m not sure I agree with. I think I get what you’re saying, but being relatively new to this very long thread in the name of caution I’d like to ask that you clarify what you mean by “it is still a matter of theology”? What is “it”?
“It” is creationism, or more properly in the context of this exchange, “creationists” - people who believe in “it”.
Agreed.
lifebygrace, you contributed greatly at post 280: thanks.
Stultis, there is no need to use such abrasive language. If you wanna be done, leave. If you can refute what she said with logic, why not do so? Why hurl invectives at betty boop? Why not work out our terms peaceably, as tacticalogic is doing: "What would you consider the possibility of having a rational debate on the issue of one side or the other can arbitrarily re-define them at will?"
betty boop and tacticalogic were defining terms by standard rules of argument I thought. Though it was exciting reading over their shoulders as they did so, it was more like an organized boxing match than a street fight. (:
Oh my, has it come to this? (: Wasn't communication simpler a decade or two ago?
Visions of Tower of Babel. Let's try discussing this in French and see if that helps.
I’m not here to make enemies or make anyone mad. I just like to get people to think about what’s really being said, and what the logical implications are.
LOL, can America survive Bill Clinton? (:
Can’t tell you how much I appreciate that. Now, what were we talking about? (:
Sadly it has. Earlier on this thread, I had an exchange with someone over "evolutinary theory". When the replies I was getting didn't seem to add up, I inquired as to where they were getting their definion of "evolutionary theory", and was told it was an "original work" - that their definition wouldn't be found in any reference, and that it was "dishonest" of me to try and attribute commonly accepted meanings to the terms they were using.
Of course not. But it doesn't matter. Science can get sidetracked temporarily by fraud or by petty tyrants in college departments, but it doesn't matter in the long run.
The only reason you know that such things exist is that the normal workings of science expose errors. Creationists have no basis on which to determine fraud (such as Piltdown) and no methodology by which to test theories for error.
I'm merely curious about the former screen name of lifebygrace. People have posted here for years without figuring out how to address a post to no one.
I find it particularly interesting, since he/she mentioned me by name, but took some pains to avoid pinging me.
Coming in the middle as I did, I just wantd to make sure I knew what was being referred to — this has been a long and, uh, somewhat...meandering...thread.
Coming in the middle as I did, I just wantd to make sure I knew what was being referred to — this has been a long and, uh, somewhat...meandering...thread.
tactical said..The assertion that evolution denies the spiritual exists by failing to address it is yours. For that premise to be valid, the converse would also be true - that the metaphysical denies that we have corporeal existence by failing to address it. The argument is no better than the premise it’s based on.
Irish...Are you saying that the spiritual Does exist? You’ll need to clarify your first assertion.
Your second assertion is based in ignorance. The Genesis account speaks of man being created with both corporeal body (the material) and spirit (the metaphysical/immaterial/spiritual)
The American Dictionary of the English Language (Noah Webster, 1828) defines person as: “An individual human being consisting of body and soul....possessed of a rational nature.”
By accepting as true the evolutionary creation story, you possess no spirit, thus as EO Wilson and other evolutionists candidly admit, no mind, free will, conscience, reason, 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.