Believing it is not proving it

RR's original argument was phrased more like:You can't believe in evolution and the christian god.To which Jar's reply is: Well, I do, so obviously you can.No problem. I, too, believe in both so to say that you can't is wrong.Now, RR's argument has been changed to saying that christianty and evolution are exclusive, so having someone that believes in both is not an argument for why they are not exclusive. His argument went from 'a person cannot believe in both' to 'one rules out the other'.Jar's reply has remained the same and RR's argument has been changed and now jar's originally good point has become illogical in the context of RR's new and improved argument.So, lets drop the bitchfest and type about why evolution and christianity are or are not exclusive.

That's the root of the problem jar. That is no longer the position being held. The position is not that a person cannot believe both its that believing in both is a contradiction.

I think its because the term evolutionist is equated with believing that life came into being by purely naturalistic means and the term chritian is equated with believing that god created life, thus the contradiction.

The contradiciton lies in the means being purely natualistic. Without a limit on god's means of creating life or without the means being purely naturalistic, the contradiction falls apart. I don't think the contradiction is there without specific, and mostly untrue, definitions of 'christian' and 'evolutionist', but with the right definitions, a contradiction can be made.

Which is why I have no problem accepting evolution and the existence of god.I'd say that a YEC evolutionist is a contradiction but a christian evolutionist is not.

aaah, I didn't consider that.I just wanted to say that this type of YEC evolutionist would be wrong in being an evolutionist because of their interpretation of evolution, but then we're getting into the specific definitions of the words and you could make it a contradiction or not by changing the definitions (like, what it means to be an evolutionist).But, from your example I see that one could be considered a YEC evolutionist.

But I don't think jar was refuting that it was a logical contradiction. He was replying to a more general statement of:'One can't believe in both christianity and evolution'to which jar's reply was 'well I believe in both so obviously someone can believe in both'It was only when RR's statement was specified to be describing the belief in both to be a logical contradiction that jar's reply became no longer applicable, but jar continued to reply with the same reply because he was still replying to the general claim, not the specific one.get it? does that make sense?

When I define christian as a believer in the divinity of christ and an evolutionist as someone who accepts that evolution occurs, they are not logically incompatible.If you disagree, would you explain to me why they are incompatible? Please explain why using the definitions I provided and also include which definitions you would change them too to make it a contradiction.

Whatever they are going to be, the definitions of the words need to be established before we can argue whether or not there is a contradiction. I provided very simplified definition so that the contradiction falls apart. I'm interested in what definitions are required to complete the contradition. For example, if we use very specific definitions, like in a couple posts up, it is possible to make it a contradiction. Can we determine at what point the definitions become a contradiction? As of now, I don't know which definitions RR or Faith are using so I don't see the contradiction. I was hoping one of them would provide the definition they are using so we can argue whether or not they contradict and whether or not their definitions are proper.

Would you provide me with those if you know them so I don't have to page through threads to find them?

Then I think that the position was misunderstood. But thats the impression I got from the original position. Its stupidity is the reason that jar's reply so easily refuted it, its just that he was refuting the wrong position.edited typoThis message has been edited by Catholic Scientist, 03-31-2006 03:22 PM

Lets get away from the she said he said and get down to the actual position.Provide some definitions, like I did in Message 38, and why they contradict and we can discuss it.

But I really don't think that this is what jar was claiming. He was refuting that stupid idea about how someone can't believe in both.

weird, I read you post and then hit reply and the post I was replying to was different than the one I just read. Must have been perfect timing on the editing and replying.Anyways, Lets get the words 'christian' and 'evolutionist' defined so we can determine if they contradict. The way I define the words, like in Message 38, there is no contradiction.

False.The logical contradiction is entirely dependant on the definitions of the words.