Humans are responsible for most of the recent global warming

[Jichard]

No, it's not. It could be, but there are ways to finesse the belief aspects so it's perfectly compatible with evolution and a population - Adam and Eve as figuratively the first to be singled out in some miraculous way by God, but not the first members of whatever hominin population they were supposedly part of. I'm friends with several people who believe this.

Please read what ox wrote:

"Evolution in general makes the idea of a unique Adam and Eve difficult - as a population is required and population bottlenecks are destructive and of to severe typically result in extinction. So to retain a believe in a unique Adam and Eve requires belief in some sort of miraculous intervention in the creation of mankind.

But I don't see that as any sort of real problem - mankind is singled out as created specifically by God and separately from the other life on the planet."

On this position, it's not just that Adam and Even were "singled out in some miraculous way by God". It's that they were specially and separately created apart from other life, in a way that generates a population bottleneck for humans. What you're doing is substituting what your friends believed, even though that's not what ox actually said.

Your first response, rather than to look to clarify, is to look to accuse.

It's not an accusation to point out what he is: a creationist, not a theistic evolutionist. When someone rejects the conclusions of evolutionary theory (by way of positing miracles), they're not a theistic evolutionist.

But hey, ox can fell free to clarify this by admitting that humans evolved from non-human ancestors (and did not live for hundreds of years), as opposed to being specially created separately from other animals. I won't hold my breath on whether he bothers to do that, though.

[Sparko]

Please read what ox wrote:

"Evolution in general makes the idea of a unique Adam and Eve difficult - as a population is required and population bottlenecks are destructive and of to severe typically result in extinction. So to retain a believe in a unique Adam and Eve requires belief in some sort of miraculous intervention in the creation of mankind.

But I don't see that as any sort of real problem - mankind is singled out as created specifically by God and separately from the other life on the planet."

On this position, it's not just that Adam and Even were "singled out in some miraculous way by God". It's that they were specially and separately created apart from other life, in a way that generates a population bottleneck for humans. What you're doing is substituting what your friends believed, even though that's not what ox actually said.

Not wanting to speak for Jim, but many TE's believe that once mankind evolved from animals and became men, God chose two of them to be "Adam and Eve" and gave them souls. Or something like that (I am not a TE myself, I am one of those durn Creationists)

[Jichard]

Based on who? YOU? No, I don't think so.

That's a really ridiculous thing to say, Little. If I tell you that Sam is not a bachelor since Sam is female, I'm not saying that Sam is not bachelor based on my authority/say-so. I'm saying that Sam is not a bachelor because he doesn't fit the definition of a bachelor. It would be stupid of someone to respond to what I said by saying:

"Based on who? YOU? No, I don't think so."

If someone was silly enough to say that, then I'd suggest they open up an English dictionary, and look up the term "bachelor", as opposed to pretending that the issue is my personal authority or say-so. Maybe said person is just ignorant on what terms mean.

Same advice to you, Little: stop acting that the issue is my authority/say-so, open up a reputable source, and look up "theistic evolutionism". Here's a Wikipedia page on that for you, along with a more reputable source.

You don't get to decide what we as TE's get to believe.

I don't need to decide anything, anymore than I need to decide what "bachelor" means or what "flat-earthers" believe. Terms has definitions, Little, and those definition don't need to be decided on by me. No need for you to act otherwise.

Now, ox isn't a theistic evolutionist. And that's based on the definition of theistic evolutionism. He's free to call himself one if he wants, just like a married female is free to call herself a bachelor. He'd just be wrong and misleading people with language.

[Jichard]

Exactly. Jichard seems to just uses the term to both try to shut up the other person and denigrate their opinion as some "luddite" so that he can safely dismiss them and their views and not have to actually use his brain to argue against them.

You do realize how silly yt is to say that on a thread where the first several posts are me arguing against the AGW denialist position by citing scientific evidence?

Sometimes I wonder if you some of the people on here can even reason rationally? It's just amazing the lengths to which some of you will go to willfully ignore evidence.

[Sparko]

You do realize how silly yt is to say that on a thread where the first several posts are me arguing against the AGW denialist position by citing scientific evidence?

Sometimes I wonder if you some of the people on here can even reason rationally? It's just amazing the lengths to which some of you will go to willfully ignore evidence.

Just calling it like I see it Jichard.

BTW - I heartily suggest you go and read your wiki link to TE that you posted above before carrying on your argument with Littlejoe and Ox about what TE believes. You seem to have just skimmed it and did not read it in depth.

[Jichard]

Jichard, you are making a fool of yourself with your assumptions about oxmixmudd and what he believes. You should stop before you embarrass yourself even further.

It's not an assumption when I can quote what he said, which you seem unable to do:

Evolution in general makes the idea of a unique Adam and Eve difficult - as a population is required and population bottlenecks are destructive and of to severe typically result in extinction. So to retain a believe in a unique Adam and Eve requires belief in some sort of miraculous intervention in the creation of mankind.

But I don't see that as any sort of real problem - mankind is singled out as created specifically by God and separately from the other life on the planet.

Even the other atheists are laughing at you right now.

Only in your fevered imagination. But rest assured, I am laughing at you.

Have fun trolling and cheerleading. You're very entertaining.

[Sparko]

It's not an assumption when I can quote what he said, which you seem unable to do:



Only in your fevered imagination. But rest assured, I am laughing at you.

Have fun trolling and cheerleading. You're very entertaining.

All right, just don't say I didn't warn you. You see I actually read the sources you linked to and they support what Ox said regarding TE. Your instant attack mode has resulted in a bad case of foot-in-mouth disease. You might want to take care of that.

[Jichard]

Then you should contact both scientific journals to tell them that they published things you think are wrong. I doubt you'll do that, though.

Sure - give me the references for the papers that your definitions come from.

Already gave them in the original post.

Because the first is wrong because some denialists simply claim any evidence we have is insufficient, and do not favor any alternative theory.

You're trying to apply that to this definition:

"Denialist" is a term used in science, history, etc. for people who reject positions supported by overwhelming evidence, in favor of positions supported by little-to-no evidence.

Now, saying that "any evidence we have is insufficient" is a position. It's a position that can be supported by little-to-no evidence, and it's a position that can go against what the scientific evidence shows. You seem to confuse this with advocating an alternative theory to explain the data. The two aren't the same. For example, if an AIDS denialist says we have insufficient evidence for thinking that HIV causes AIDS, they've advocated a position supported by little-to-no evidence, even if the AIDS denialist offers no alternative theory for what causes AIDS. In contrast, if I claim that we have insufficient evidence for thinking that the Earth is just tens of thousands of years old, I can cite plenty of evidence to back up that position.

And the second is a confused mess that assumes all pseudo skeptics are denialists

It doesn't assume that conclusion, but instead argues for it:

"Pseudoskepticism, as I will argue, is a species of science denialism related to pseudoscience"

Pseudoskepticism, as defined by the paper, is a form of science denialism. Here are the relevant definitions:

"Science denialism occurs when established science is rejected for motives independent of scientific research and progress.
[...]
When scientific consensus is rejected by non-experts who naively consider themselves more scientifically astute than the collective scientific community, it is appropriately labeled pseudoskepticism."

Sciene denialism is the broader category, while pseudoskepticism is a form of science denialist that involves people rejecting established science while thinking they are more astute than the scientific community on the relevant topic.

and that all denialists engage in motivated reasoning - neither of which appears to be true.

No, the second definition does not assume that. For example, there are forms of denialism that don't involve motivated reasoning, such as faith-based denialism where one doesn't even bother to try and twist science ot fit one's religious ideology:

"Religiously driven pseudoskepticism leads to motivated reasoning in favor of ideology preserving conclusions. In contrast, faith-based science denialism depends on an arational exercise of faith, which need not involve attempts to reconcile one's belief to scientific evidence (such efforts might even be viewed as antithetical to one's faith)."

So if you really intend to contact both scientific journals, then I suggest you remedy the false claims you made. Otherwise, the journals might not seriously consider your response and instead just tell you to read the papers more closely.

[Littlejoe]

That's a really ridiculous thing to say, Little. If I tell you that Sam is not a bachelor since Sam is female, I'm not saying that Sam is not bachelor based on my authority/say-so. I'm saying that Sam is not a bachelor because he doesn't fit the definition of a bachelor. It would be stupid of someone to respond to what I said by saying:

"Based on who? YOU? No, I don't think so."

If someone was silly enough to say that, then I'd suggest they open up an English dictionary, and look up the term "bachelor", as opposed to pretending that the issue is my personal authority or say-so. Maybe said person is just ignorant on what terms mean.

Same advice to you, Little: stop acting that the issue is my authority/say-so, open up a reputable source, and look up "theistic evolutionism". Here's a Wikipedia page on that for you, along with a more reputable source.



I don't need to decide anything, anymore than I need to decide what "bachelor" means or what "flat-earthers" believe. Terms has definitions, Little, and those definition don't need to be decided on by me. No need for you to act otherwise.

Now, ox isn't a theistic evolutionist. And that's based on the definition of theistic evolutionism. He's free to call himself one if he wants, just like a married female is free to call herself a bachelor. He'd just be wrong and misleading people with language.

Unlike Bachelor, TE has a much more range of definition. So, yes, you did decide which definition you were going to strawman an then proceeded to put your foot in it. As has already been pointed out to you by TE's, and atheists alike, TE isn't the rigid definition you have put forth. Also, as Sparko warned you, you should take you own advice to AGW skeptics and read your source pages and understand them before you spout off.

From YOUR Wikipedia Page:

Source: Jichards Wikipedia cititation

Morris^[who?] lists another type of theistic evolution that he calls "biblical evolution", i.e., the belief that God created a set of "kinds" of plants and animals at the beginning of Creation.^{[citation needed]} Proponents of this theory believe that many species have passed through biological changes in the course of time - as the result of adaptation (or microevolution) - but they retain the belief that human beings were literally created in God's image, so that evolution can be seen as completely consistent with the Biblical account in the Book of Genesis. Thus, the view of "biblical evolution" rejects the theory of Darwinian evolution, but openly accepts the possibility of transmutation of species.

© Copyright Original Source

From your second link:

Source: Jichards second link

Theistic Evolution (TE) -- Theistic Evolution is the theological view that God creates through evolution. Astronomical, geological and biological evolution are acceptable to TEs They vary in whether and how much God is allowed to intervene -- some come pretty close to Deists. Other TEs see God as intervening at critical intervals during the history of life (especially in the origin of humans), and they in turn come closer to PCs.

© Copyright Original Source

So, once again, I say, yes you are still wrong.

[Jichard]

All right, just don't say I didn't warn you. You see I actually read the sources you linked to and they support what Ox said regarding TE. Your instant attack mode has resulted in a bad case of foot-in-mouth disease. You might want to take care of that.

Not really. This is the post where I provided the sources. The more reputable source says the following:

"Theistic Evolution is the theological view that God creates through evolution."

Now, evolution involves humans evolving from non-human ancestors, as opposed to being specially created apart from non-human animals. Also, in evolutionary theory there's no population bottleneck in which there's just two humans, where the lineage descending from those two humans has no contributions from other gene pools. This contradicts what ox wrote:

"Evolution in general makes the idea of a unique Adam and Eve difficult - as a population is required and population bottlenecks are destructive and of to severe typically result in extinction. So to retain a believe in a unique Adam and Eve requires belief in some sort of miraculous intervention in the creation of mankind.

But I don't see that as any sort of real problem - mankind is singled out as created specifically by God and separately from the other life on the planet."

So no, what ox wrote is not a form of theistic evolutionism. If you doubt that, then feel free to quote where that source says that theistic evolutionists believe there is a population bottleneck where God specially created humans apart from other forms of life. I don't think you'll be able to.

Nor does ox's position fit the definition from Wikipedia since, once again, ox's statement involves God specially creating humans apart from other animals in a population bottleneck, as opposed to having humans evolve from non-human animals:

"Francis Collins describes theistic evolution as the position that "evolution is real, but that it was set in motion by God",[3] and characterizes it as accepting "that evolution occurred as biologists describe it, but under the direction of God".[4] The executive director of the National Center for Science Education in the United States of America, Eugenie Scott, has used the term to refer to the part of the overall spectrum of beliefs about creation and evolution holding the theological view that God creates through evolution. It covers a wide range of beliefs about the extent of any intervention by God, with some approaching deism in rejecting the concept of continued intervention."

And no, Eugenie Scott's statement does not support your point since my "more reliable source"... was what Eugenie Scott wrote on the topic.

[Jichard]

Just calling it like I see it Jichard.

And you're seeing wrong, willfully so. Of course, you don't address the facts that show you're wrong and instead just re-state your baseless opinion, but whatever.

BTW - I heartily suggest you go and read your wiki link to TE that you posted above before carrying on your argument with Littlejoe and Ox about what TE believes.

I suggest you read it as well, before continuing to make your false claims. Here's correction of your false claims: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...876#post299876

You seem to have just skimmed it and did not read it in depth.

... says the person who hasn't read the scientific evidence posted on this thread, yet acts I didn't post any. It actually turns out that ou badly misread the sources, if you bothered to read them at all.

[Jichard]

Unlike Bachelor, TE has a much more range of definition. So, yes, you did decide which definition you were going to strawman an then proceeded to put your foot in it. As has already been pointed out to you by TE's, and atheists alike, TE isn't the rigid definition you have put forth. Also, as Sparko warned you, you should take you own advice to AGW skeptics and read your source pages and understand them before you spout off.

From YOUR Wikipedia Page:

Source: Jichards Wikipedia cititation

Morris^[who?] lists another type of theistic evolution that he calls "biblical evolution", i.e., the belief that God created a set of "kinds" of plants and animals at the beginning of Creation.^{[citation needed]} Proponents of this theory believe that many species have passed through biological changes in the course of time - as the result of adaptation (or microevolution) - but they retain the belief that human beings were literally created in God's image, so that evolution can be seen as completely consistent with the Biblical account in the Book of Genesis. Thus, the view of "biblical evolution" rejects the theory of Darwinian evolution, but openly accepts the possibility of transmutation of species.

© Copyright Original Source

Do you realize what you just did, Little? You just cited Morris (a creationist) discussing the creationist position that rejects Darwinian evolution and calling that "theistic evolutionism". Seriously, based on your intepretation, Young Earth creationism is a form of theistic evolutionism. But please, tell me where evolutionary theory states that all the "kinds" of plants and animals were created at the beginning of Creation.

That's why I gave you a link to a more reputable source than Morris: Eugenie Scott. In fact, Scott's definition (along with Francis Collins', who is way more reputable than Morris) appears in the Wikipedia entry, right before what you quoted from Morris. But you chose to leave that out. I wonder why? Could it be that those definitions would have shown that (contrary to what Morris says) theistic evolutionists are committed to the biological account of evolution, an account that includes Darwinian evolution?

"Francis Collins describes theistic evolution as the position that "evolution is real, but that it was set in motion by God",[3] and characterizes it as accepting "that evolution occurred as biologists describe it, but under the direction of God".[4] The executive director of the National Center for Science Education in the United States of America, Eugenie Scott, has used the term to refer to the part of the overall spectrum of beliefs about creation and evolution holding the theological view that God creates through evolution. It covers a wide range of beliefs about the extent of any intervention by God, with some approaching deism in rejecting the concept of continued intervention."

From your second link:

Source: Jichards second link

Theistic Evolution (TE) -- Theistic Evolution is the theological view that God creates through evolution. Astronomical, geological and biological evolution are acceptable to TEs They vary in whether and how much God is allowed to intervene -- some come pretty close to Deists. Other TEs see God as intervening at critical intervals during the history of life (especially in the origin of humans), and they in turn come closer to PCs.

© Copyright Original Source

Already rebutted:

Not really. This is the post where I provided the sources. The more reputable source says the following:

"Theistic Evolution is the theological view that God creates through evolution."

Now, evolution involves humans evolving from non-human ancestors, as opposed to being specially created apart from non-human animals. Also, in evolutionary theory there's no population bottleneck in which there's just two humans, where the lineage descending from those two humans has no contributions from other gene pools. This contradicts what ox wrote:

"Evolution in general makes the idea of a unique Adam and Eve difficult - as a population is required and population bottlenecks are destructive and of to severe typically result in extinction. So to retain a believe in a unique Adam and Eve requires belief in some sort of miraculous intervention in the creation of mankind.

But I don't see that as any sort of real problem - mankind is singled out as created specifically by God and separately from the other life on the planet."

So no, what ox wrote is not a form of theistic evolutionism. If you doubt that, then feel free to quote where that source says that theistic evolutionists believe there is a population bottleneck where God specially created humans apart from other forms of life. I don't think you'll be able to.

Nor does ox's position fit the definition from Wikipedia since, once again, ox's statement involves God specially creating humans apart from other animals in a population bottleneck, as opposed to having humans evolve from non-human animals:

"Francis Collins describes theistic evolution as the position that "evolution is real, but that it was set in motion by God",[3] and characterizes it as accepting "that evolution occurred as biologists describe it, but under the direction of God".[4] The executive director of the National Center for Science Education in the United States of America, Eugenie Scott, has used the term to refer to the part of the overall spectrum of beliefs about creation and evolution holding the theological view that God creates through evolution. It covers a wide range of beliefs about the extent of any intervention by God, with some approaching deism in rejecting the concept of continued intervention."

And no, Eugenie Scott's statement does not support your point since my "more reliable source"... was what Eugenie Scott wrote on the topic.

You do also realize you contradicted yourself, right? After all, the source you just cited (Eugenie Scott) distinguishes theistic evolutionism from the sort of creationism Morris is discussing, even though, on your intepretation, Young Earth creationism is a form of theistic evolutionism?

So, once again, I say, yes you are still wrong.

Not really. Nice try, though.

[TheLurch]

Already gave them in the original post.

I cannot believe this is serious. One, there is no "them" there that i can see - there's only one link. And it's to an editorial, not a peer reviewed publication. And it's part of the BMJ Christmas issue, which is typically a bunch of jokes. Such as:
"Evidence of a Christmas spirit network in the brain: functional MRI study"

http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h6266

[Sparko]

This is really interesting to observe. everyone can see how Jichard is wrong and burning a straw man, yet he is completely blind to it and blithely continues to think he is completely competent in the subject matter of theistic evolution, while his own sources contradict him. This is a pristine example of the dunning-kruger effect in action.


From jichard's wiki link on theistic evolution:

"Theistic evolution typically postulates a point at which a population of hominids who had (or may have) evolved by a process of natural evolution acquired souls and thus (with their descendants) became fully human in theological terms. This group might be restricted to Adam and Eve, or indeed to Mitochondrial Eve, although versions of the theory allow for larger populations. The point at which such an event occurred should essentially be the same as in paleoanthropology and archeology, but theological discussion of the matter tends to concentrate on the theoretical. The term "special transformism" is sometimes used to refer to theories that there was a divine intervention of some sort, achieving hominization."

...which is what oxmix was saying. To which Jichard said he wasn't TE

[lilpixieofterror]

Wow, looks like Anti-Jorge continues to dig himself deeper and deeper rather than admitting he's wrong.