Dunno about gay, but the thread has been kind of entertaining, in a frustrating sort of way.

Can I suggest the simple distinction between 'cosmological evolution' and 'biological evolution'?

It's not precise in that the cosmological processes have different mechanisms than mutation and natural selection, but at least it allows us to talk sensibly about, on the one hand, the Big Bang and all the processes that led to the formation of heavy elements, stars, our galaxy, our sun and our planet, and on the other, the processes that led to life existing in its current incredible variety. Those who simply say 'evolution' tend to slide between those two sets of quite different processes in ways that are confusing.

If we want to interact with people we need to speak their language, even if they use words that may not be a correct application of the words (i.e. gay). I have no problem adjusting any specific words I might use but to stand up and tell the entire creationist community to stop misusing the word evolution seems a bit silly to me. Just as silly as telling all the homosexuals to stop using the word gay.

And to be consistent, if we are going to tell creationists to stop misusing the word evolution we need to tell homosexuals to stop misusing the word gay.

True, but adding a distinction when we want to get into serious discussion here is probably not too much to ask. I do try to distinguish between ancient and recent creationism and between atheistic and theistic (biological) evolution, for example, in the interests of clear conversation.

I suspect part of Vera's concern (though I can't speak for her) is instances when this imprecision is used to mislead...

On the homosexual red herring, the most common term used today in serious discussion as opposed to general usage is GLBTI - gay, lesbian, bisexual, trans-sexual and intersex. It recognises the complexity of gender, as the terms I'm suggesting above recognise the complexity of origins.

(off topic: another problem with 'fair and balanced' besides the one I laid out a week or two ago is that it defaults to the assumption that there are two and only two possible positions on any question)

I can live with that distinction, even though as you say it's not precise.

Shane, I doubt we'll ever be on the same page, but words do have meaning, and meaning and usage can change over time. Evolve, if you will. I get speaking Adventist and creationist and Christian; I do it all the time. I'm not sure why I picked this particular thread and this particular moment to make an issue out of it, but I did. Maybe I'm tired of always being the one to speak the other's language (and while you might argue that I'm the outsider here, I'm still a member of the church, and I will likely maintain some sort of lifetime connection to it.).

You've talked before about avoiding personal remarks (please forgive me: I know I'm wildly paraphrasing you here), but it seems to me you found a way to deliver a putdown anyway.

I've never really cared one way or the other about the usage of gay to mean homosexual, but I was sufficiently piqued to look it up in Wikipedia. Looks like it's been around for a while.

You do have a penchant for ignoring what is being quoted or talked about! Reread my post in which I quoted you talking about conversations with 'creationists'.

Or do you just ignore the real issues on purpose?

The thread is about evolution and faith...nothing about sex...sorry!

I understand the meaning of the word and I don't believe I was the one in this thread misusing the word evolution - although I may have. My point is this: if a person wants to discuss origins with people that are creationists they have to understand the words creationists use and the meaning that creationists attach to them. Now if they don't want to talk to creationists but would rather keep their discussions within the realm of secular science, they will not need to know any creationist lingo.

Yes, I started this thread. I know what its topic is.

If the word gay offends people we can change the example.

How about Scotch tape? How many people call transparent tape Scotch tape? Scotch is a brand name owned by 3M. It is not a kind of tape. They make tape but not all the tape they make is transparent. This is another area where the word police really need to get busy.

If creationists (such as you) are content to keep the dialogue among themselves, there is no need for them (including you) to learn to speak any language but their (your) own.

I truly, honestly get your point. I got it the first time you made it. I'll stop short of saying that I don't like how you made it.

Does that sound like a "Creationist" trusting the actual details of scripture to you?

in Christ,

Bob

Let us turn the question around, then:

If someone did not believe in the Bible, what would lead them to believe in recent creation?