Stop there.
Like i said, bedfore, you just say that i am wrong.
Do not bother any further.
Richard
Edit
You just cannot resit the dig, jibe, insult.
Iâd say thatâs because mainstream society has bought the lie that the Bible teaches science.
Interestingly, in a panel discussion Richard Dawkins admitted that it is correct â shocked the heck out of me; I expected him to say that evolution disproves God.
And a huge number who donât care how He did it.
2 Likes
I explained why you are wrong. Perhaps you should address it.
It wasnât an insult.
1 Like
You explained wht you think is right
It says that everything Richard believs or says is made up.
on the other hand if @T_aquaticus says it it must be true.
Richard
Correct. I didnât just say you were wrong.
Nowhere did I say that.
And that makes it better?
So I am wrong again! (according to you)
You just can,t help yourself.
When you learn to understand the words you wriite, I will engage you.
As long as you continue to dismiss, belittle and ignore what I write, I will basically ignore you.(Not engage or answer a question)
(And this applies equally to @Roy & @St.Roymond)
Richard
Now there is an interesting assertion.
I have been arguing Theistic Evolution for most of my adult life, long before BioLogos came into existence, You might even say, long before it was ever really considered an option. I may not have papers or recognition but as such Theistic Evoltion is exactly about what Richard believes. Not because i invented it, but because i beleive it.
Richard
1 Like
Werenât you the one who wanted explanations as to why we think you are wrong?
Then quote one of my posts where I said what you accused me of saying.
1 Like
No, if you do not see it for yourself, I cannot show it you.
(you wonât beleive me)
Richard
Incorrect. I read what he wrote, here it is:
Your reply wasâŚ
Unless you can name a scientific theory which does include God, then his statement about evolution is correct. The result is that your objection is not about the scientific theory but about YOU. You only object to this one scientific theory because it doesnât agree with something YOU believe.
The method of science in theoretical biology is exactly the same. You have simply decided to believe something and interpret scripture in a way contrary to the findings of science. Something which past Christians like Augustine have warned against doing.
Thus the conclusionâŚ
is perfectly on target. His statement was about a scientific theory and your objection is not about the scientific theory but about what you believe.
Yes. Why shouldnât he say you are wrong when you speak of things which are not about you.
Its like thisâŚ
Suppose I say your church seeks to do evil in the world.
Then you say that is wrong.
Can I then say you are insulting me by saying I am wrong?
again this is about what you believe and the thread is not about what you believeâŚ
But anyway, how can you blame us for confusion when you constantly say evolution denies God? Incoherence like this on your part naturally leads to incoherent discussions.
Why should he believe you?
3 Likes
I say ToE denies God, and that Theistic Evvolution is the Christian alternative.
That is not your concern, Kindly do not get involved here.
Richard
Which is false â it cannot deny what it cannot address.
So what you have is an unsubstantiated, baseless opinion. Thatâs fine â but it doesnât make your statement correct.
Of course itâs his concern â heâs part of this thread. And since this board is focused primarily on science, and you have given no scientific reasons for anyone to believe you, the question is valid.
That is not an empiracle deduction it is subjective and based on understanding. As such you are in no position to assert that your view is superior or better than mine.
Again you are asserting where you (he) do npt have the full unformation.or the authority to do so.
It was a specific conversation between me and Aquaticus (although You were supposed to understand as well, but apparetly do not)
It is not about believing a specific part of the OP so it does not concern Mitchell.
(If he wants to get involved he should read and understand the whole conversation between me and Aquaticus)
Richard
How is that denial any different than what is seen in any other scientific theory?
Theistic evolution agrees with the scientific theory in that the mechanisms described in the theory are capable of producing the biodiversity we see today. Theistic evolutionists do not reject the ToE in the same way you do. I wouldnât classify you as a theistic evolutionist. You are more closely tied to Intelligent Design which also states certain evolutionary steps could not be achieved through evolutionary mechanisms.
Where is the empirical deduction that the theory of evolution denies God? Or is that your subjective opinion?
In keeping with BioLogos, here is how Francis Collins describes theistic evolution:
1 Like
I am not oing to repeat ad infinitum
As you do not hold to it you are out of line claimng to know it better than me.
Then you are mistaken.
I do not have to supply empiracle information
There is no authority on Theistic Evolution.
One manâs view is as valid or invalid as any other.
Your scientific methodology fails.
So does your need for some sort of citation or dicatation.My view is as vvalid as any other. (but I would not dream of claiming it to be definitive.)
Richard
You canât repeat what you have never said.
Then what would you call someone whose views match the description used by Francis Collins?
1 Like
You have been eiither asserting that there is no dofference or asking me what the difference is for over two years. So rhat is just a bare faced lie (apologies to the moderators)
Hmm that looks like a question.
(See my comments elsewhare about your questioning)
Not only that, it is a repetition of
Just a rewording.
So there is no point in me answering You have ignored my previus posts. (twice)
Richard
It is a logical deduction.
A system of thought cannot deny something it is not capable of addressing. Itâs no different than claiming that a railroad service refuses to take you to Dodgeville when there arenât any tracks that go there â they arenât refusing, they donât have the capacity to get you there.
All the âauthorityâ needed is that he is part of this thread. You donât get to dictate to others what they can or cannot participate in once you post something here.
Maybe you should try giving a logical response. So far your position boils down to âbecause I say soâ.
Thatâs the same reasoning as used by women who insist that a male doctor is not capable of handling childbirth.
Things have definitions, Richard, and sensible people stick to them. By the common definition, T is right.
Now we see the core of your position: you donât have to be logical, or even reasonable, you just get to make claims without having to back them up, and your subjective opinion is just as good as the definitions used by everyone else. You demand that others adhere to standards that you refuse to follow!
Fallacious reasoning . . . again.
If the above is true, then an opinion that Richard is a pickled trout is just as valid as the view that Richard is a human being.
I note that Collinsâ definition matches that of Asa Gray from a century and a half ago. It matches that of Wikipedia and Britannica, for that matter.
And for two years your only response boils down to âI say itâs differentâ.
But that is exactly what I did. I even quoted what he said in his very first post. And his is a response to the OP which I have also clearly engaged in my own response right next to his. It is crystal clear to everyone that I have been involved in the whole conversation from the beginning.