Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: tacticalogic
Somehow that seems to be too much to ask for.

It is too much to ask for. Reliance on dictionary terminology can be a substitute for thought. We need to agree on the meaning of words. Then we'd need to ask, which dictionary? For different dictionaries may give differently nuanced definitions. It's better to "reason together" and see if we can stand together on the same page thataway. If not, then not. Besides, the point you were raising went to "subjectivity." And so I gave my subjective opinion that "generic creationism is pretty well spelled out in Genesis."

Whereupon you inquired: "does that mean that other religions (not just specifically Islam) that believe in the creation of the universe by a supernatural diety don't really believe in "creationism" if that account doesn't agree with Genesis?"

I don't think I have suggested that. What I did suggest: I regard Genesis as a truthful account of creation regardless of what other accounts other religions or cultures might come up with, even scientific accounts (such as orthodox darwinist theory).

173 posted on 06/22/2007 1:17:05 PM PDT by betty boop ("Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -- A. Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies ]


To: betty boop
I don't think I have suggested that. What I did suggest: I regard Genesis as a truthful account of creation regardless of what other accounts other religions or cultures might come up with, even scientific accounts (such as orthodox darwinist theory).

I believe you also maintain that your definition of cretion is completely objective and free of personal bias.

It is too much to ask for.

I've already had one discussion on this thread with another poster in the same vein on the meaning of the word "evolutionism" and "evolutionary philosophy". When the answsers didn't seem to correspond to what I understood the word "evolution" and it's derivatives to mean, I asked what definition he was using and where I might find it. I was informed that his definition was an "original work" that couldn't be found in any standard reference, and that it was "dishonest" of me to attribute commonly accepted and understood meanings to the words he was using.

The whole arrangement seems calculated to make sure nobody can really know what's been said, so that you can always claim to be "right" and the other guy can always be "wrong".

177 posted on 06/22/2007 1:31:38 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson