That is an interesting aspect of these discussions. It is curious to hear creationists talk about how wonderful the creation is, but then act disgusted when confronted with the possibility of being related to that creation.
4 Likes
Animals of the MONKEY class are furnished with hands instead of paws; their ears, eyes, eye-lids, lips, and breasts, are like those of mankind; their internal conformation also bears some distant likeness; and the whole offers a picture that may mortify the pride of such as make their persons the principal objects of their admiration.
John Wesley (1703-1791)
- A Survey of the Wisdom of God in the Creation; Or A Compendium of Natural Philosophy New York: Bangs and T. Mason, 1823, Part the Second, Chapter I, volume 1, pages 147-148.
2 Likes
Of course, what makes that all sort of ironic is that by our usual standards, we are monkeys.
The whole notion that any of the evolutionary theory could be used by God has only recently been broached, John Wesley was not of that era.
Richard
Asa Gray advocated for theistic evolution in the late 1800’s.
“Darwiniana” was published in 1876, and you can read it for free here:
Some interesting work from one of your fellow theistic evolutionists.
3 Likes
Of course, I made a point to giving Wesley’s dates, lest someone think that evolution was intended. However, the point that monkeys’ similarity to humans was obvious before Darwin, and that similarity would “mortify the pride of such as make their persons the principle objects of their admiration.” Darwin didn’t invent the similarity. Indeed, in “On the Origin of Species”, he didn’t dwell on human evolution. Despite that lack, the immediate response from the public was to dwell on it - tho…cartoons and Bishop Wilberforce’s famous quip.
1 Like
Then there’s no point in you making any assertions about science because you are committed ahead of time to refusing to think scientifically.
You have now asserted that your thinking is superior to everyone else’s, with all your claims that people do not understand you; that you have no obligation to make sense, with your rejection of logic; and that you don’t care about science, with your statements that you don’t have to think scientifically about science.
What it boils down to is that when it comes to making sensible dialogue, your words are like leaves flapping in the wind.
Then you believe in dualism, because anything that is, was created by God – according to scripture. If sin was not created, then it existed from eternity, and that makes two deities – God and sin.
Isn’t that a sort of Manichaeism?
1 Like
That’s like saying that if there were ever no books, there were no printers.
“Nothing” is a description of the condition with respect to created things: first there was nothing, then there were created things. It is not a descriptor that applies to God – that is confusing categories.
The thing we call ‘wave’ was already there; this is a transition from one thing into another thing. An uncollapsed wave is a thing just as much as a collapsed one.
1 Like
It was actually the first response to the idea of evolution – a quite reasonable response since if evolution is real then it is something that God does. The negative reaction wasn’t far behind, though.
1 Like
In the 1700’s Linnaeus grouped humans with other animals, and he caught some flack for it.
“I well know what a spendidly great difference there is [between] a man and a bestia when I look at them from a point of view of morality. Man is the animal which the Creator has seen fit to honor with such a magnificent mind and has condescended to adopt as his favorite and for which he has prepared a nobler life; indeed, sent out for its salvation his only son; but all this belongs to another forum; it behooves me like a cobbler to stick to my last, in my own workshop, and as a naturalist to consider man and his body, for I know scarcely one feature by which man can be distinguished from apes, if it be not that all the apes have a gap between their fangs and their other teeth, which will be shown by the results of further investigation.”–Carolus Linnaeus
“Yet man does recognise himself [as an animal]. But I ask you and the whole world for a generic differentia between man and ape which conforms to the principles of natural history, I certainly know of none… If I were to call man ape or vice versa, I should bring down all the theologians on my head. But perhaps I should still do it according to the rules of science.”–Carolus Linnaeus
3 Likes
That is not what I said.
I said that do not have to think iogically.(Not that I can’t or won’t in the right context)
If you say so.
(But you do not understand my view)
Sin was not created. It has no for or substance… So you logic fails.
Sin is an adjective not a noun
.
St Roymond has spoken
He know everything. He even knows what everyone thinks or thought.
(But not what they understand or understood)
Richard
Edit.
They probably thought that (scientific) evolution is theistic, as you still do.(@T_aquaticus please note)
I thought we are apes.
the chicken and the egg question should be easy to understand. The act of creation is fulfilled in the fertilised egg, the point of recombination were two become one flesh, as that is where new life begins. It is an essential understanding of reality
It’s a bit simpler than that. There were egg laying birds for 10’s of millions of years before there were chickens. The egg is clearly the winner.
3 Likes
Egg laying creatures, not necessarily birds
(I can knit pick as well)
Richard
If I understand your point, in saying that sin is not a noun, but an adjective, it might be better expressed in terms of grammar. Adjectives and nouns are both substantives. Perhaps one would say that sin is an interjection - like “hiss”, “boo”, or “darn”? The laws of logic apply to adjectives as well as nouns, but not to interjections.
Yes. This made me chuckle because it was a question from one of the examiners on my Ph.D. comprehensive exam. I gave a similar answer to what you said above 
1 Like
Why make it out to be what it isn’t?
It is an adjective.It describes the nature of the action.
When used like a verb “He sinned” that is an abbreviation of
He did a sinful action.
Sin is a quality, or type. It describes what the action is. Like "cold.
You would not say that cold had a form (Jack frost?) It describes the nature of the person or situation. Instead of “coldful” we say chilled to the bone.
The grammatical use is as an adjective.
I see no reason to try and make it out as anything else.
Richard
The irony is almost too much for me.
3 Likes
nitpicking: giving too much attention to details that are not important, especially as a way of criticizing
Pointing out your misspelling would nitpicking. But when it is not just unimportant but completely irrelevant that goes a bit beyond.
Besides… Are you suggesting that chickens are the first birds ever?
LOL I think this discussion has become a comedy.
1 Like
The chicken-egg riddle was used to argue for a process without a beginning. Aristotle’s defense of infinite time caused consternation when he was discovered in Middle Age Europe.
BTW, “ex ovo omnia” - “everything from an egg” is associated with William Harvey (1578-1657) (I give the dates lest anyone might think that Harvey was speaking of maybe some 19th century biology.
I find it difficult to resist joining on the joke.
1 Like