He's doing cladistics, not comparative theology, so I'm not sure how stinging this criticism is.
-
-
Replying to @Outsideness
This sort of cladistics isn't relevant when you have- let's call it- an immense amount of interbreeding in the intellectual formulation's population, in which the dominant genes of the original foundation disappear entirely.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @Outsideness @Logo_Daedalus
... If it were, you certainly couldn't tell just be identifying doctrinal discrepancies.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Outsideness
Matthew 12:32- Unitarianism isn't even Christian.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Logo_Daedalus
Doctrinally. Its cladistic Christianity seems indisputable though, surely?
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Outsideness
About as Christian as Mormons, Muslims, & Scientologists.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Logo_Daedalus
Muslims are complicated. They might very credibly have non-Christian lineages in play. Mormons and Scientologists (and Dawkins-style Darwinian atheists) no question.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Outsideness @Logo_Daedalus
... The whole point of cladistics is that speciation does in fact happen.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @Outsideness
& if speciation didn't eventually branch off into something new- there would be only amoebas.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Speciation is the only thing that "branches off into something new". That's what speciation means.
-
-
Replying to @Outsideness @Logo_Daedalus
... I'm getting the sense you haven't fallen in love with the genius of cladistics yet. Whales are in fact fish (Melville vindicated).
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes - 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.