Re: [M & B] My Three Famous Arguments!
- --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
Ray Ausban <rayausban@...> wrote, in part:
> Now, in your third argument,I think that illustrates why stipulated definitions are important to so many of these issues. Stipulated, I say, because too many "debates" are over word meanings instead of substantive issues.
> I am a little confused.
> Both creationists and evolutionists use
> the term "Creation".
> When the big bang occurred that is considered
> 'creation' or when the particles compressed
> into a star or planet that is considered
> 'creation' for evolutionists (at least the
> TV documentaries use that terminology) and
> for creationists, it is the same process
> except God is directing this process or another
> we are not aware of.
> So, do you mean something different than this
> by 'Creation'?
Can anyone say "Jerry D. McDonald"!!!!
My "Cogent Creation Argument" was designed to address the existence of God and his "creation" in opposition to the godless proposals from atheism.
I have repeatedly suggested that the substantive issue is not properly framed as "creation v. evolution".
Evolutionists may be theists and use "creation" with reference to God's part in things.
Atheists may even use "creation" with reference to a beginning but not meaning the same thing as what a theist refers to in referencing God's part in bringing things into existence.