RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (100) < ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... >   
  Topic: FL "Debate Thread", READ FIRST POST BEFORE PARTICIPATING PLZ< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2009,13:56   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 29 2009,13:43)
So I gave an honest "thank you" for your effort, as was due.

How many people do you suppose the Pope thinks were alive in 2500 BC? How many do you think were alive FL? Does your shutter not even allow you to consider that number?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2009,14:00   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 29 2009,13:20)
And yet, we've already seen that Pope Benedict DOES have a conflict with accepting evolution, the evolution that you believe in, the evolution that is textbook-taught this very day.

We've seen (you saw it too!) how Pope Benedict accepts evolution ONLY under the conditions that:

(1) God is the required explanation for the evolutionary process

(2) God's teleology is included in the evolutionary process

....which means that the current Pope has himself REINFORCED the first two of the Big Five Incompatibilities.

The Popes (or anyone else) are free to speculate (add, append, tack on their faith-based belief)  regarding what can be said (in their belief) about established evolutionary science.

What it doesn't mean is that you have somehow shown an inherent, incontrovertible incompatiblity between Christianity and evolutionary science.

Science itself simply says "science can't investigate some things, or pretend to "...but anyone is free to have an opinion, like the pope, about what science "means" in light of their faith.



     
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 29 2009,13:20)
But guess what?  You mentioned the late John Paul II, didn't you....?

Well, turns out that HE only accepted evolution if God was the required explanation for the evolutionary origin of humans.
               
Quote
"It is by virtue of his spiritual soul that the whole person possesses such a dignity even in his body. Pius XII stressed this essential point: If the human body take its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God[ ("animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere iubei"; "Humani Generis," 36).

Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person."

"Truth Cannot Contradict Truth" (1996)  

Are you willing to accept that evolution cannot account for the origin of humans on Earth and that at least one direct immediate supernatural act by God was ALSO required, Stanton?  

If not, then you clearly see the existence of the First Incompatibility clearly manifested in Pope John Paul II's own words.  

See above.  

     
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 29 2009,13:20)
See, it's not enough to say "the Pope accepts evolution" these days and think .  Gotta deal with their actual statements, for they're NOT conceding exactly what evolutionists would like for them to concede.

And speaking of not conceding things....

               
Quote
"For I confess that all men from Adam, even to the consummation of the world, having been born and having died with Adam himself and his wife, who were not born of other parents, but were created, the one from the earth, the other [al.: altera], however, from the rib of man.”

---Pope Pelagius I (557 AD)

               
Quote
"....We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep."

---Pope Leo XII (1880)

Now THAT's how you do papal pronouncements!

FloydLee

Is this supposed to demonstrate current incompatibilities? Inherent ones? Eternal irrefutable ones? What?

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2009,14:53   

Lying and quotemining what the Popes have said.

How unoriginal FL.

  
Dale_Husband



Posts: 118
Joined: April 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2009,20:21   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 29 2009,13:43)
Quote
flattery will get you no where.

What flattery?  I never said you offered any reconciliation -- not even remotely -- of any of the five large incompatibilities on the table, ohh no.

I simply gave you credit for that which you did offer.  You offered it in sincerity, it did shed a bit of light on how you view the situation, it was helpful.
So I gave an honest "thank you" for your effort, as was due.

Note that FL never even bothered to address the vital points I made about the Bible earlier.
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y154539
No wonder nmgirl
was not impressed with him.


--------------
If you need a man-made book to beleive in a God who is said to have created the universe, of what value is your faith? You might as well worship an idol.

   
Dale_Husband



Posts: 118
Joined: April 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2009,20:33   

Quote (nmgirl @ Sep. 28 2009,19:00)
1.  What is biblical Christianity?

As opposed to non-Biblical Christianity? I do not think there is such a thing.

2.  If the world is only a few thousand years old, why did God fake the ages of the rocks?

This illustrates the blasphemy of Young Earth Creationism (YEC). There is no evidence that God actually inspired the Bible, but it stands to reason that if any sort of God created the universe, we can learn about Him by studying His Creation. YECs claiming that we can learn more about God by studing some man-made book rather than something, the universe itself, that man could not have made is an absurdity, quite simply. Science depends on the physical and chemical laws being consistent over time and space, without exception. If that is not so, then reality itself becomes meaningless.

I'm not FL, but I'd like a shot at answering those earlier questions by nmgirl:

--------------
If you need a man-made book to beleive in a God who is said to have created the universe, of what value is your faith? You might as well worship an idol.

   
Keelyn



Posts: 40
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2009,01:58   

Well, this seems to be going nowhere really slow. No wonder Floyd wanted to drag this out until November 1st (2009 I assume). I hate to do it, but while Floyd is resting his mind (or whatever he said he was doing) let’s recap one more time (mundane as it is).

Floyd’s “Four Original Grand, Stupendous, Extraordinary (and totally false) Incompatibilities of Evolution with Christianity …blab, blab, blab …and more blab.”

1. God is clearly a REQUIRED explanation for all biological origins (and cosmological origins too), according to biblical Christianity. Evolution clearly denies this foundational belief.

2. God created everything with teleology (purposefulness, goal-directedness, and conscious forethought) according to biblical forethought. In fact, according to the clear statement of the New Testament, Jesus Christ himself is the Teleological Creator of the entire universe and everything in it, including us humans.
Evolutionary theory itself completely denies this, and especially denies ("DOES NOT ADMIT") the involvement of any conscious forethought at any point of the evolutionary process, including the origination of humans. No wiggle room, no exceptions, no escape hatches.

3. Evolution specifically denies the foundational Christian claim that humans are created and designed in the image of God. Needless to say, both the Old and New Testaments affirm that humans are created in God's image. Yet evolution denies this.

4. Evolution teaches (and absolutely requires) the historical claim of Death-Before-Adam, in clear violation and opposition to Romans 5:12-17.


Floyd then appropriates and misrepresents a quote by Richardthughes (“If God is timeless, then it all unfolds to the majesty of his great plan, surely?”) and invents a fifth incompatibility.

5. Notice how, under critical examination by evolutionists, evolution does NOT make God's plan look "majestic" at all, but instead cruel and sadistic.

ANOTHER incompatibility.


Number 5 first – A quick review of the Old Testament would easily convince anyone with an IQ higher than flat tire that the supernatural entity in question is as cruel, sadistic, vile, hateful, vindictive, murderous, and all around creepy as anything that could possibly be observed in nature. If Floyd thinks that nature is cruel and sadistic, then it couldn’t be more compatible with Christianity. (throw in crusades, inquisitions, witch burnings, etc – all human constructs dedicated to and in the name of the entity in question)


As for One through Four – It doesn’t matter what the Pope (any of them), or anyone else for that matter, has said or hasn’t said, implied or not implied, thinks or doesn’t think, whether orally or in writing; Floyd’s arguments fail from a major flaw in his basic premise. I, and others (notably Robin – and she has done so quite eloquently in my opinion), that evolutionary theory (nor any other scientific theory) makes NONE of the DENIALS or REQUIREMENTS that Floyd insists that it does. Not addressing something is not indicative of a denial or requirement …and THAT is the END of THAT. Floyd, you are totally within your right to introduce any supernatural explanations you want into biology theory or into any scientific theory. All you have to do is provide a hypothesis that can be scientifically tested and verified. Personally, I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for that, so I think you must concede, Floyd, that any impartial jury would conclude at this point that you have failed miserably to prove any of your arguments. With that, let’s move on to part 2 – “The Biblical Perspective on Biology” – I can’t wait (hardly).

--------------
This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. -- Wolfgang Pauli

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story. -- Mark Twain

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2009,04:45   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 29 2009,13:20)

 
Quote
"[snip] Adam himself and his wife, who were not born of other parents, but were created, the one from the earth, the other [al.: altera], however, from the rib of man.”

---Pope Pelagius I (557 AD)

 
Quote
"....[snip]gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep."

---Pope Leo XII (1880)

Now THAT's how you do papal pronouncements!

FloydLee


Ought not a (presumably) thinking, even rational person stop and wonder WTF is this all about? A god, presumably with unlimited magical powers, and he has perform such meaningless, absurd tricks - when he just have to snap his fingers to achieve whatever he wants? Make a woman? Snap, there she is!

Extracting a rib, then miraculously converting that to a woman?

Come on, if reason were ruling in this world nobody would even dream of taking that literally.

Whatever it is, it is not reporting of facts. I don't have to spell out the consequences of applying reason to this and all the other instances of similarly mythological utterances found in scripture?

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Robin



Posts: 1431
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2009,08:39   

Quote (Keelyn @ Sep. 30 2009,01:58)

Quote
I, and others (notably Robin – and she has done so quite eloquently in my opinion),


While I truly appreciate the compliment, I do wish to correct one misunderstanding - this "she" is actually a "he". I realize that gender isn't obvious on the Internet (which is actually a good thing in many ways) particularly when folks like me have a double-barreled name (to use a phrase from an Elton John song I always thought creative) and that in many ways it's a trivial detail. still it's the identity I'm more confortable with. Nicely summarized btw.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2009,09:13   

Quote
".... evolutionary theory (nor any other scientific theory) makes NONE of the DENIALS or REQUIREMENTS that Floyd insists that it does."

Well, let's look again.
   
Quote

(1st Incompatibility)

"Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.

The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically.

It no longer requires God as creator or designer..."


---Ernst Mayr, SciAm July 2000

   
Quote
(2nd Incompatibility)

"Evolutionary theory does not admit conscious anticipation of the future, i.e. conscious forethought."

---Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology 3ed.

Let's be honest here.  So far, Robin's response (and your response) to these very clear statements is simply to talk as if these statements were never made at all.    

Futuyma, for example, gives you a very specific reason why evolution does not admit teleology:
   
Quote
"The process cannot have a goal, any more than than erosion has the goal of forming canyons, for the future cannot cause material events in the past."

Exactly how did Robin neutralize this specific statement?  And how did you neutralize it?  
Answer:  She didn't.  You didn't.

So you gotta do more than just say, "Evolution doesn't deny these things."  Obviously it DOES deny these things.  

FloydLee

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2009,09:17   

Quote
"she" is actually a "he".

So noted, my apologies Robin.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2009,09:24   

lolol why apologize Floyd?  you clearly don't care about making sense.  might as well refer to robin as "that chair over there", it would be consistent with the rest of your rambling refusals to use your brain.

you have pointed out that Mayr's conception of the evolutionary process is inconsistent with your belief in Think-Poof.

your consistent goalpost shifting wrt OOL not withstanding  

nope.

if you think otherwise, look at your quote.  
 
Quote
explains the adaptedness and diversity


if you want to play quote games, bully for you.  i expect nothing less because you are too shallow and intellectually dishonest to address the fact that there is no conflict between belief in any number of immaterial gods and the first principles of the fact of biological evolution.

attacking personal interpretations and views held by individuals is all you can go for.  as such, your views are stupid and you are an idiot.  

as rich keeps asking you, biological evolution is a fact.  reality doesn't conform with your pathological interpretation of the babble.  grownups, when confronted with evidence that they are wrong, rectify their errors.  you, on the other hand, troll the internet in an attempt to get everyone else to piss on you.  Ok i'll piss on you.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2009,09:28   

Quote
Number 5 first – A quick review of the Old Testament would easily convince anyone with an IQ higher than flat tire that the supernatural entity in question is as cruel, sadistic, vile, hateful, vindictive, murderous, and all around creepy as anything that could possibly be observed in nature. )

I'm not ignoring you Keelyn, yours is an interesting post too.

Here's how your paragraph comes across to me (and some other posters have sounded the same way, btw):

"Evolution is cruel and sadistic, but that's okay, it's still compatible with Christianity because God and Jesus are cruel and sadistic too."

An interesting argument, but how many Christians do you think are going to buy into it??

FloydLee

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2009,09:34   

Hi FL,
How many people were alive in 2500BC?

Is that something you've ever thought about?

Is it something that you'll just continue to ignore so you can continue (pretend) to be a "honest" YEC?

Thanks in advance

OM

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2009,09:44   

Quote
Mayr's conception of the evolutionary process...

...is the same NT-NCF position as Futuyma's, Coyne's, Olroyd's, Myers', Dawkin's, Rachel's, and Biology 391 Online at U-Tenn at Martin.   In short, it's the consensus position, period.

And, as both Mayr and Futuyma independently pointed out----it's the actual position of the theory of evolution itself, (not a matter of anybody's personal opinions).

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2009,09:52   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 30 2009,10:44)
Quote
Mayr's conception of the evolutionary process...

...is the same NT-NCF position as Futuyma's, Coyne's, Olroyd's, Myers', Dawkin's, Rachel's, and Biology 391 Online at U-Tenn at Martin.   In short, it's the consensus position, period.

And, as both Mayr and Futuyma independently pointed out----it's the actual position of the theory of evolution itself, (not a matter of anybody's personal opinions).

no, you babbling fool, it's not the consensus.  

it's the parsimonoius position from MN.

you are free to add as many adhoc jesus particles (that can't be detected) as you so desire.  Just like tons and tons and tons of theistic evolutionists who don't deny your particular gods (or who advocate other gods).

This moron thinks every scientific theory should start out with "Our Father Who Art In Heaven"

Mayr and Futuyma didn't point any such thing out.  Another lie from Floyd's corner.  Well to be fair, I don't think you even understand your subject matter so it might not be reasonable to assign your action to malevolence when sheer stupidity would suffice.

*  answer old man's question.  chickenshit

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2009,09:56   

Quote
How many people were alive in 2500BC?

Hi OM!  Gotta ask......would you be trying to ask me a question about the Flood after I stated that I wouldn't try to do a Flood discussion (because of the need to stay with thread topic).  

That one poster asked for an explanation of "where did the water come from" and "where did the water go" and I simply supplied the links, but that's all for that.

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2009,10:03   

Quote
Mayr and Futuyma didn't point any such thing out.

What?  Did I fail to provide their clear statements a couple minutes ago?  
Let me check----yep, their clear statements are sitting right there on your computer monitor.  Ain't goin' away anytime soon.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2009,10:07   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 30 2009,10:56)
Quote
How many people were alive in 2500BC?

Hi OM!  Gotta ask......would you be trying to ask me a question about the Flood after I stated that I wouldn't try to do a Flood discussion (because of the need to stay with thread topic).  

That one poster asked for an explanation of "where did the water come from" and "where did the water go" and I simply supplied the links, but that's all for that.

hahahahahahahahahahaaha

right.  

what does the number of people in 2500 BC have to do with Duh Flud?

(hint:  nothing)

it doesn't have anything to do with the great buzzard whose wings created the appalachian mountains, either.

it doesn't have anything to do with reptilians seeding life on earth from outer space either.

tard

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2009,10:14   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 30 2009,11:03)
Quote
Mayr and Futuyma didn't point any such thing out.

What?  Did I fail to provide their clear statements a couple minutes ago?  
Let me check----yep, their clear statements are sitting right there on your computer monitor.  Ain't goin' away anytime soon.

futuyma thinks that evolutionary theories can't provide explanations wherein biological agents can manifest evolutionary changes as a function of the prediction of the future.  

floydlee thinks that means evolution denies god

the mayr statement is a complete non-sequitor to the point Floyd is trying to make.  

as others have said, time and time again (what, floyd, you too proud to read, son?) The theory of the rotation of the earth does not admit any teleology or knowledge of the future.  

yet plants somehow know that there will be a sun tomorrow so they maintain their photosynthesizing apparati anyway.  amazing, isn't it?  clearly this proves that the israelites shit in the desert for 40 years.

your quote mining exercise is boring.  why don't you explain how many people were on earth in 2500 BC

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2009,11:00   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 30 2009,10:14)
your quote mining exercise is boring.  why don't you explain how many people were on earth in 2500 BC

Perhaps if FL is too cowardly to explain how many people were on Earth during 2500 BC, and how they were able to build the Pyramids and all other structures dating from that time, perhaps FL would like to explain why, if Creationism is so superior to Evolutionary Biology, then how come a) Louisiana, Texas, and Florida, states that mandate the teaching of Creationism in science classes, have education systems that rank the very worst in the entire system, b) why is Intelligent Design worth teaching in a science classroom, instead of actual science, even though all Intelligent Design proponents have no desire to do actual science, and c) where is all the evidence that points to a Young Earth and Intelligent Design?

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2009,11:02   

I also noticed that FL is too cowardly to explain why all the bad things in nature, i.e., predation, internal parasites and old age, are supposed to be worse than the various bad things mentioned in the Bible, including divinely ordained murder, genocide, and rewarding soldiers with child-slaves.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2009,12:45   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 29 2009,14:00)
The Popes (or anyone else) are free to speculate (add, append, tack on their faith-based belief)  regarding what can be said (in their belief) about established evolutionary science.

What it doesn't mean is that you have somehow shown an inherent, incontrovertible incompatiblity between Christianity and evolutionary science.

Science itself simply says "science can't investigate some things, or pretend to "...but anyone is free to have an opinion, like the pope, about what science "means" in light of their faith.



     

Read for comprehension, Floyd. Science doesn't  deal with some things -- like supernatural creators or "ultimate purposes" -- that fall outside of the investigative/evidential purview of science.

But anyone, and I mean anyone (including Popes or paupers) is free to speculate on what actual science might mean in light of their faith.

No incompatibilities there, Floyd. Science proper is limited, sure.

But as you amply demonstrate, even you are free to believe or disbelieve what you wish about what science can and does say.

You being able to DEFEND your views appears to be quite another thing, though, eh?

At this point in this discussion, all you're doing is squeezing your eyes shut, clapping your hands over your ears and saying "Nuh-UH!" in between spouting a few well-worn fallacies, Floyd. Perhaps you'll fare better at  showing how Intelligent Design is "really" science, despite it having all the hallmarks of Creationist pseudoscience.

Be a good cdesignproponentists and do try to manage something other than fallacies there, would you?

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Robin



Posts: 1431
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2009,13:03   

[quote=FloydLee,Sep. 30 2009,09:13][/quote]
[quote]  
Quote
 
Quote
".... evolutionary theory (nor any other scientific theory) makes NONE of the DENIALS or REQUIREMENTS that Floyd insists that it does."

Well, let's look again.
     
Quote

(1st Incompatibility)

"Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.

The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically.

It no longer requires God as creator or designer..."


---Ernst Mayr, SciAm July 2000

     
Quote
(2nd Incompatibility)

"Evolutionary theory does not admit conscious anticipation of the future, i.e. conscious forethought."

---Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology 3ed.

Let's be honest here.  So far, Robin's response (and your response) to these very clear statements is simply to talk as if these statements were never made at all.  


Sorry Floyd, but you're in error again. I do not deny these types of statements - I merely pointed out that there is a distinct difference between what the Theory of Evolution (your "Darwinism") actually states and some folks' opinions about the world based on the theory or an understanding of the process. Posting a quote by Ernst Myer that indicates he rejects a need for any god based on his understanding of evolution is not the same thing as demonstrating that the ToE is incompatible with Christianity. That's the problem with your argument - you've only demonstrated you can engage in equivocation.  

Quote
Futuyma, for example, gives you a very specific reason why evolution does not admit teleology:
     
Quote
"The process cannot have a goal, any more than than erosion has the goal of forming canyons, for the future cannot cause material events in the past."

Exactly how did Robin neutralize this specific statement?  And how did you neutralize it?  


Quite effectively - by pointing out that while the process itself cannot have a goal, that doesn't mean that the process can't have been used to achieve a specific goal. You can attempt to conflate the two, but they are quite separate concepts.

Quote
Answer:  She didn't.  You didn't.


"She" may not have; "he" (that is me) just did again however.

Quote
So you gotta do more than just say, "Evolution doesn't deny these things."  Obviously it DOES deny these things.  

FloydLee


Guess what...Evolution doesn't deny these things. You're insistance on substituting peoples' opinions for "Darwinism" is just plain old nonsense.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Robin



Posts: 1431
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2009,13:04   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 30 2009,09:24)

Quote
might as well refer to robin as "that chair over there"


Hmmm...depending on who wanted to do the sitting...Oops...wrong forum...nevermind...;-P

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Robin



Posts: 1431
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2009,13:12   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 30 2009,09:44)

Quote
And, as both Mayr and Futuyma independently pointed out----it's the actual position of the theory of evolution itself, (not a matter of anybody's personal opinions).


Outright false - neither one said that the position that God can't use the process of evolution is part of the Theory. You're being dishonest Floyd.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Robin



Posts: 1431
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2009,13:26   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 30 2009,09:44)

Quote
Quote
Mayr's conception of the evolutionary process...

...is the same NT-NCF position as Futuyma's, Coyne's, Olroyd's, Myers', Dawkin's, Rachel's, and Biology 391 Online at U-Tenn at Martin.   In short, it's the consensus position, period.

And, as both Mayr and Futuyma independently pointed out----it's the actual position of the theory of evolution itself, (not a matter of anybody's personal opinions).


It would be so nice if creationists would for once check a source and honestly represent it. Here's what Mayr actually said:

Quote
First, Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena
and causations. The theory of evolution by natural
selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the
world solely materialistically. It no longer requires God as
creator or designer (although one is certainly still free to
believe in God even if one accepts evolution).
- Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought, Ernst Mayr, SciAm, July, 2000.


Why do you insist on leaving out his parenthesis that note that his assessment is based on his opinion of what Darwinism presented historically? Why go through this elaborate argument without checking your sources, most importantly citing the context of your sources when they are so easily checked, Floyd? You really aren't setting much of an example for Christianity there...

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2009,13:31   

Quote (Robin @ Sep. 30 2009,13:26)
[quote=FloydLee,Sep. 30 2009,09:44][/quote]
Quote
Quote
Mayr's conception of the evolutionary process...

...is the same NT-NCF position as Futuyma's, Coyne's, Olroyd's, Myers', Dawkin's, Rachel's, and Biology 391 Online at U-Tenn at Martin.   In short, it's the consensus position, period.

And, as both Mayr and Futuyma independently pointed out----it's the actual position of the theory of evolution itself, (not a matter of anybody's personal opinions).


It would be so nice if creationists would for once check a source and honestly represent it. Here's what Mayr actually said:

Quote
First, Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena
and causations. The theory of evolution by natural
selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the
world solely materialistically. It no longer requires God as
creator or designer (although one is certainly still free to
believe in God even if one accepts evolution).
- Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought, Ernst Mayr, SciAm, July, 2000.


Why do you insist on leaving out his parenthesis that note that his assessment is based on his opinion of what Darwinism presented historically? Why go through this elaborate argument without checking your sources, most importantly citing the context of your sources when they are so easily checked, Floyd? You really aren't setting much of an example for Christianity there...

If you have to lie and distort to make your point, what does that say about your point (and you)?


Exodus 20:16

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2009,13:41   

Quote
.... while the process itself cannot have a goal, that doesn't mean that the process can't have been used to achieve a specific goal.

Understand carefully what you just said, Deadman.  You have just stated that somebody can direct an undirected process.  That's not a rational statement.

Also, consider this:  you are attempting to "reconcile" the NT-NCF issue (the 2nd Incompatibility), by making a statement that actually contradicts what you said about "the process itself cannot have a goal."  

The fact is that you are claiming that the evolutionary process is goal-directed (teleological) ANYWAY-----your statement only pushes back the teleology by one level!

FloydLee

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2009,13:45   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 30 2009,13:41)
 
Quote
.... while the process itself cannot have a goal, that doesn't mean that the process can't have been used to achieve a specific goal.

Understand carefully what you just said, Deadman.  You have just stated that somebody can direct an undirected process.  That's not a rational statement.

Also, consider this:  you are attempting to "reconcile" the NT-NCF issue (the 2nd Incompatibility), by making a statement that actually contradicts what you said about "the process itself cannot have a goal."  

The fact is that you are claiming that the evolutionary process is goal-directed (teleological) ANYWAY-----your statement only pushes back the teleology by one level!

FloydLee

Understand carefully that I didn't write that, ____ ... *Insert denigrating insult of choice here.

Are you sober, Floyd?

And by the way, what the phrase does say is "used" not "directed"

Wow, it sure does look as if you're quote-mining and misrepresenting Mayr, too, Floyd...especially when Mayr actually says    
Quote
The theory of evolution by natural
selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the
world solely materialistically. It no longer requires God as
creator or designer (although one is certainly still free to believe in God even if one accepts evolution).
- Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought, Ernst Mayr

And you were attempting to use this as evidence that notions of Gods are absolutely forbidden (by one guy that you are also dishonestly misrepresenting as spokesperson for all of science, too).

That's like a triple-dipper fallacy for you, Floyd. Congratulations

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2009,13:56   

Quote
ANYWAY-----your statement only pushes back the teleology by one level!


Sure, but that one level that it got pushed out of was biological evolution.

  
  2975 replies since Sep. 12 2009,22:15 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (100) < ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]