Posted on 02/13/2009 8:34:41 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Are mutations part of the engine of evolution?
....
Are mutations really the key to our evolution? Do mutations provide the fuel for the engine of evolution? In this chapter, we take a close look at mutations to see what they are and what they are not. When we understand genetics and the limits of biological change, we will see how science confirms what the Bible says, God made the beasts of the earth after their kind (Genesis 1:25)...
(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...
So when you say in post 40 , "I have long maintained that if you look at the belief set of creationists they will almost invariably also believe in many other equally unsupportable beliefs (UFOs, Geocentricism, HIV-AIDS denial, Jesus rode on a dinosaur, etc, etc).",you really didn't mean what you said?
You now claim that you meant that it was just gleaned from FReepers who are creationists. But you took that and painted all creationists with a broad brush to make all of them out to look like kooks, right?
I feel that FR creationists are representative of the beliefs of creationists. Do you maintain that they are more likely to be a bit off that your “average” creationist?
It means what it says in the dictionary.
cre·a·tion·ism (kr-sh-nzm)
n.
Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible
There is this poll...
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=982
Not exactly the question we want, but among those who never go to church, among whom belief in evolution is most common (67%) and creationism the least common (13%); we find they believe in UFO’s MORE often than average (44% to 36%), Ghosts less often than average (39% to 44%), Witches less often than average(27% to 31%), and Astrology less than average (27% to 31%). But we would have to ask Harris polls for their raw numbers to separate out the 67% from the 13% and see if those differences grow or shrink, and if they are statistically significant.
I believe you introduced the idea of an epithet.
. . . when accused of being a liberal for the sole reason of my confidence in the scientific method I dont quibble over the meaning of the word; I know they mean it as an epithet. post # 202
I take your argument here to be that I shouldnt quibble over Creationist being used as an epithet. Is that what you meant? Or, were you just feeling sorry for yourself?
Seeings as how the accepted and dictionary definitions are identical to the meaning I wished to convey I would say it was you whose argument is incoherent.
Im having a little trouble reconciling your different statements about the term:
A Creationist is shorthand for a Special creationist, i.e. someone who believes in a literal interpretation of Genesis and denies the evidence for evolution; not just anyone who believes that God was responsible for creation. see post # 155
Which definition are you using when you discuss UFOs, Geocentricism, HIV-AIDS denial, Jesus rode on a dinosaur, etc, etc post # 40
cre·a·tion·ism : a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis compare evolution 4b cre·a·tion·ist \-shə-nist\ noun or adjective post # 213
How ever you parse the term, its obvious this discussion isnt over the sacred integrity of a definition. Its about the use of a rhetorical shotgun allowing you to clear the room with a single blast. When you use the term Creationist what you want smuggled into the minds of your readers is the concept kook, or perhaps dangerous fanatic.
I guess you would know better than I.
Right — and “everyone” understands that “Gay” no longer means “happy” or “brightly-colored”, but, instead means “queer” or “homosexual” or “perverted” or “abomination” nowadays...
This long-time scientist -- who is also a devout believer in our Creator, the works of His hands, and in His Son, our Lord and Saviour -- calls that statement pure
Not what one would expect from Aquinas. We would have to think, rather, that Aquinas is being quoted out of context. You might ask your poster to cite his source so you may go and see for yourself.
The entirety of your argumentative style seems to be putting words in peoples mouths (misquoting me saying ‘proof’, conflating creationists with Christians, telling me what I mean when I say creationist); so why don’t you tell us what Thomas Aquinas meant when he said...
“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”
Tell them yourself if you think its all that important.
Proof? Now you are just inventing things. I cited no such thing as proof and now you are trying to say I did; it doesnt say much for your honesty.
I take it this means you have no intention of supporting any of your allegations or any of the pics you spammed me with. On top of that you enter specious innuendos regarding my honesty. Youre acting more and more like Barney Frank, and less and less like the scientist you represent yourself to be.
Obviously a look at your posting history shows that you are presently engaged in more than one I am an aggrieved Christian being bullied thread.
The shin kicking getting a little tough for you is it? Hoping to set up a little sidetrack Ill go galloping down?
Maybe you should grow thicker skin or refrain from engaging in debate that could so easily bruise your tender feelings.
You should follow your own advice. Maybe youll feel a little better then.
You've got it backwards there. It's a matter of whether science is in conflict with Scripture.
You're setting the wrong thing up as the absolute standard against which to measure things.
If anything needs adjustment, it's the subjective interpretation of the imperfect and incomplete observations made by man about only a part of the world around them.
Comparing the whole (all of reality) to only a part of the whole (that which scientific methodology deals with) is no way to make any valid determination of the whole. It is based on faulty and incomplete information.
In the beginning is pretty dadgumed specific. But I guess you have to parse things to maintain your Boyarin reputation.
I've shown with several sources . . .
Yeah, and Ive responded with several sources that show a generic use and a more specialized use. You dont have a leg up on anything except a quantity of brass that permits you to breezily dismiss anything that runs counter to what you want.
CREATIONISTS CALL THEMSELVES THAT!
Ill take that as emphasis and not an instance of yelling. Yeah, Creationists call themselves that. What do you expect them to call themselves? Creotards?
Now it's my turn to invite you to look at my posting history.
Now its my turn to take your word for it. Of course, you dont have to lower yourself to calling people kooks or fanatics if you can gain a general acceptance that Creationist means the same thing. Which has the added advantage of plausible deniability.
:)
Yeah, and I was talking about the part that begins, Creationism is the belief that the earth and universe and the various kinds of animals and plants was created by God or some other supreme being . . . and then goes on to discuss some of the modifiers creating less general meanings of the term.
So how, using your philosophy of never giving way in Biblical interpretation to data gathered using the scientific method, would one reconcile...
Prov 104:5 HE set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be moved.
as an interpretation that the Earth didn’t move, with the data that it does move?
Similarly when data shows a scriptural interpretation to be in error, it is not the message of scripture that is diminished, it is seen in the light of what the writer meant, rather than the interpretation people have made of it.
Not so much baloney.
Newton's conclusion that the universe was orderly and could be studied in a systematic, orderly fashion, was because of the Scriptural teaching that God is a God of order, not of disorder. That enabled him to develop the scientific method.
Then there was Murray who used Scripture as inspiration to investigate ocean currents and meteorology.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i3/maury.asp
So, you do place science above Scripture after all.
If you feel that Scripture needs to be adjusted to fit current scientific pronouncements, then you have demonstrated what it is that you put your faith in as being most correct.
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.