RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (100) < ... 34 35 36 37 38 [39] 40 41 42 43 44 ... >   
  Topic: FL "Debate Thread", READ FIRST POST BEFORE PARTICIPATING PLZ< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
didymos



Posts: 1826
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2009,18:57   

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 12 2009,16:42)
Quote
Do you remotely understand the difference between "excluding" and "not requiring"?

Yes. †Something that is said to be "not required" (i.e. God as creator or designer), is considered excludable. † You can drop God out of the biological origins situation altogether if you want to, and that's that.

But when you say something "could not exclude a role for God", then suddenly God becomes required for that particular something. †You don't get to drop Him.

Add the two positions together and you get an incompatibility. †The First Incompatibility, to be exact.

OK, I don't get this at all.  One guy (Mayr) said science can't rule God in.  The other guy (Pope) said it can't rule him out.  And this is incompatible how exactly?  I'm ignoring the Oldroyd thing since it's unsourced, but it doesn't really matter since ultimately, we have just have three guys dispensing personal opinions, all slightly different as opinions ever and always tend to be.

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2009,19:02   

Gotta hurry on to DHeddle, but let's also do SLP as well. †

Here's your question: †Exactly how does this extended quote by the late evolutionist John Oro (Schopf 2002, "Life's Origins")....
 
Quote
In the mid-1800s, Darwin showed how the concept of evolution by natural selection applies to living systems. But evolution also operates in the inanimate world, not only Earth but the universe as a whole, including all cosmic bodies (galaxies, stars, circumstellar and interstellar clouds, interstellar molecules, planetary systems, planets, comets, asteroids, meteorites) and all chemical elements. Comets transported organic molecules and water to the primitive Earth early in the planet's history, presumably over a period of several hundred million years. In the oceans that then formed, both cometary and terrestrial (those synthesized directly in the environment) organic molecules evolved by natural selection, ultimately giving rise to life - possibly in the "warm little pond" that Darwin envisioned in his famous letter to Joseph Hooker (see chapter 3). The linkage from cosmic elements to cometary molecules to primitive Earth to biological evolution ties cosmochemical evolution to the origin of life.

....disprove or even disagree what I said earlier about the short version of Oro's quote?
Quote
Notice that evolutionists posit the very same driving force for both prebiotic evolution and postbiotic evolutionĖnatural selection. Hence prebiotic evolution is part and parcel of the overall theory of evolution.

******
Good luck answering that one, SLP. †But honestly, you can't answer it, and you know it. †Oro simply made clear that abiogenesis is part and parcel of evolution.

Furthermore, one of your comrades came up with a very recent De Duve quotation, which only serves to reinforce what Oro said.
Quote
Nobel laureate Christian de Duve summarized the plenary session: "The participants unanimously accepted as indisputable the affirmation that the Universe, as well as life within it, are the products of long evolutionary histories...."

---Nmgirl's post, Oct 6th, 11:58, "International General 2009 (Conference)"

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2009,19:07   

Quote
I'm ignoring the Oldroyd thing since it's unsourced....

Ohhhh no no, a very specific and direct source citation was given for Oldroyd's statement by AIG. †Here it is, right down to the page number, in case you missed it.
 
Quote
David Oldroyd, The (Australian) Weekend Review, 20Ė21 March 1993, p. 5.

If a person doesn't have time to visit their local library and track down the Weekend Review article, then that's understandable, but please don't make the mistake of saying or suggesting it's unsourced. †That would be a falsehood.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3353
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2009,19:16   

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 12 2009,19:07)
Quote
I'm ignoring the Oldroyd thing since it's unsourced....

Ohhhh no no, a very specific and direct source citation was given for Oldroyd's statement by AIG. †Here it is, right down to the page number, in case you missed it.
Quote
David Oldroyd, The (Australian) Weekend Review, 20Ė21 March 1993, p. 5.

If a person doesn't have time to visit their local library and track down the Weekend Review article, then that's understandable, but please don't make the mistake of saying or suggesting it's unsourced. †That would be a falsehood.

LOL

"Kettle, thou art black," sayeth the pot.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
didymos



Posts: 1826
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2009,19:16   

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 12 2009,17:07)
Quote
I'm ignoring the Oldroyd thing since it's unsourced....

Ohhhh no no, a very specific and direct source citation was given for Oldroyd's statement by AIG. †Here it is, right down to the page number, in case you missed it.
Quote
David Oldroyd, The (Australian) Weekend Review, 20Ė21 March 1993, p. 5.

If a person doesn't have time to visit their local library and track down the Weekend Review article, then that's understandable, but please don't make the mistake of saying or suggesting it's unsourced. †That would be a falsehood.

Quite right.  I amend that to "I'm ignoring the Oldroyd thing since it's not reliably sourced." In any case, one quote by one guy still doesn't matter.

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
rhmc



Posts: 340
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2009,19:17   

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 12 2009,19:42)

But when you say something "could not exclude a role for God", then suddenly God becomes required for that particular something. †You don't get to drop Him.

wrong.  again.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2009,19:19   

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 12 2009,20:07)
Quote
I'm ignoring the Oldroyd thing since it's unsourced....

Ohhhh no no, a very specific and direct source citation was given for Oldroyd's statement by AIG. †Here it is, right down to the page number, in case you missed it.
Quote
David Oldroyd, The (Australian) Weekend Review, 20Ė21 March 1993, p. 5.

If a person doesn't have time to visit their local library and track down the Weekend Review article, then that's understandable, but please don't make the mistake of saying or suggesting it's unsourced. †That would be a falsehood.

where is the source for this?

Quote
why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?


Oh, that's right, 10 DAYS AGO.

you just chickenshit, or something else too?

--------------
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: Oct. 12 2009,20:18   

Mayr said that the theory of evolution "no longer requires God as creator or designer."

And yet, according to both the Old and New Testaments, God is absolutely required as creator and designer. †(Already cited examples in the Bible text.)

And the Pope agrees.
Quote
"How many people are there today who, fooled by atheism, think and try to demonstrate that it would be scientific to think that everything is without direction and order.

"Through sacred Scripture, the Lord reawakens the reason that sleeps and tells us that in the beginning is the creative word, the creative reason, the reason that has created everything, that has created this intelligent project." †--- Pope Benedict (CNS, Nov. 9 2005

So, we have the First †Incompatibility there. †No way to escape it.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2009,20:37   

oh yeah speaking of your required explanations

Quote
why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?


seems like you are a bit confused about what is required of explanation.

--------------
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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2009,20:38   

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 12 2009,20:18)
Mayr said that the theory of evolution "no longer requires God as creator or designer."

And yet, according to both the Old and New Testaments, God is absolutely required as creator and designer. †(Already cited examples in the Bible text.)

And the Pope agrees.
† † †
Quote
"How many people are there today who, fooled by atheism, think and try to demonstrate that it would be scientific to think that everything is without direction and order.

"Through sacred Scripture, the Lord reawakens the reason that sleeps and tells us that in the beginning is the creative word, the creative reason, the reason that has created everything, that has created this intelligent project." †--- Pope Benedict (CNS, Nov. 9 2005

So, we have the First †Incompatibility there. †No way to escape it.



This is the relevant part you keep ignoring, immediately preceding the sentence you keep trying to isolate (i.e. quotemine by removing context):
 
Quote
"The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically"

THEN Mayr says "IT [meaning the evolution of diversity] no longer requires God as creator or designer (although one is certainly still free to believe in God even if one accepts evolution)." http://sciphilos.info/docs_pages/docs_Mayr_Dawin_css.html

1) No one is obliged to agree with Mayr on any theological claims.
2) However, Mayr's statement, in context refers to the diversity of the world's organisms by the mechanisms of adaptation and speciation. He is quite clear about that. What he is NOT speaking about is the Ultimate Origins of all things. †
3) No Science can address sophisticated (meaning Prime Mover) claims of Ultimate Deistic Creation/Purpose. None. That's why Mayr is specifically talking about DIVERSIFICATION via adaptation speciation

4.) And lastly,even if Mayr was to make such a claim about some Ultimate Deistic Creation of all living things, so what? As you said, anyone is free to also ignore your "Big Five" accept evolution and remain a Christian, by your own admission.

---------------------------------

There's four reasons why you're wrong. Any one of them is good enough to negate your attempt at "battling quotes." These things were pointed out to you many times so far, but you're too dishonest to acknowledge them anyway, so ...who cares what you claim now?

More importantly, you already failed in your overall task of showing that evolution and Christianity are inherently incompatible. You have no arguments left.

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2009,20:53   

Quote
You have no arguments left.


sooooo

you might as well address the question

--------------
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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2009,20:55   

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 12 2009,19:07)
Quote
I'm ignoring the Oldroyd thing since it's unsourced....

Ohhhh no no, a very specific and direct source citation was given for Oldroyd's statement by AIG. †Here it is, right down to the page number, in case you missed it.
† †  
Quote
David Oldroyd, The (Australian) Weekend Review, 20Ė21 March 1993, p. 5.

If a person doesn't have time to visit their local library and track down the Weekend Review article, then that's understandable, but please don't make the mistake of saying or suggesting it's unsourced. †That would be a falsehood.

YOU were asked to provide it, and you didn't. It's not up to me to look for some obscure magazine article (it's NOT a "journal" and it doesn't appear as a scientific journal at all).

I went to Caltech to look there. It's not available in any form I could find. Period. My guess is it's an ALLEGED interview in a failed newspaper "Weekend" magazine.

As I said, I have no evidence that the claimed "source" even exists at all, so I have no reason to address it, especially when the alleged quote is lacking any context. YOU cited it, it's your job to provide it, not ask me to go to australia and dig through old newspaper files. But you can't even do that, because AIG doesn't even have a copy of the alleged interview.  

AiG has a bad habit of using bogus quotes, this is provable to any reasonable person (which surely leaves you out).

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

  
nmgirl



Posts: 92
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2009,20:57   

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 12 2009,20:18)
Mayr said that the theory of evolution "no longer requires God as creator or designer."

And yet, according to both the Old and New Testaments, God is absolutely required as creator and designer. †(Already cited examples in the Bible text.)

And the Pope agrees.
†  
Quote
"How many people are there today who, fooled by atheism, think and try to demonstrate that it would be scientific to think that everything is without direction and order.

"Through sacred Scripture, the Lord reawakens the reason that sleeps and tells us that in the beginning is the creative word, the creative reason, the reason that has created everything, that has created this intelligent project." †--- Pope Benedict (CNS, Nov. 9 2005

So, we have the First †Incompatibility there. †No way to escape it.

Floyd, where is the text of the entire speech? I looked this up and you have taken one person's opinion of what they thought the Pope meant.  You keep taking stuff out of context and posting opinion as fact and you wonder why you keep losing.  

You know one definition of insanity is repeating the same behavior over and over again and expecting a different income.

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2009,20:58   

Okay, so let's look again at DHeddle's remarks one more time.

Originally, another poster had stated:
Quote
I think every and all sanctimonius fanatics such as FL should take a look at Augustin's (sic) work, just for the sake of it.

I replied,
Quote
I have, actually. †Augustine wrote that the earth was less than 6000 years old, he believed that God created everything instantly (yes, literally), and he believed that the global Noahic Flood was literally true. †A very good YEC, to be sure!

So Dheddle said,
Quote
Augustine did not take Genesis literally. †Instantaenous does not mean six days. †Instantaneous creation is an infinite number of orders of magnitude different from six days. †A 14 bya universe only differs by a mere †12 OOM. †In that sense, Augustine is the most radical non-literalist of all time. †He would say to you, "My god don't need no six days to create a universe!"

So I responded point by point:,
Quote
("Augustine did not take Genesis literally") But some things, Augustine DID take literally. †We know this from his own writings. †Like, the earth being less than 6000 years old. †He wrote that. †He meant that. †Literally. †Another example: †The Genesis account of a global Noahic Flood. He took that one literally. Not allegorical. †Literal history, period.

Quote
("Instantaneous does not mean six days") But it does mean YEC. †It only rationally fits in with YEC beliefs (a less-than-6000-year-old earth). †It's not ever gonna fit the OEC category, nope. †And it will never ever quality Augie for TE.

Quote
("Instantaneous creation is an infinite number of orders of magnitude different from six days.") Yes it is. †Also infinitely different from 14 billion years (universe or 4.6 billion years (earth).

Quote
("In that sense, Augustine is the most radical non-literalist of all time. †He would say to you: †"My god don't need to six days to create a universe!") †And he would say to you, "And He don't need to wait around for any 14 billion years (nor 4.6 billion years) eitehr. †He can do it instantly, and He did."

Okay, so that's kind of the background there. †The next post replies to DHeddle's subsequent response to that.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2009,21:01   

Your job was to demonstrate that evolutionary theory and Christianity were inherently incompatible, Floyd. You failed.

Your primary argument for the incompatibility of evolution and Christianity was that you had your "Big Five Fantasies."

To try to pretend that those BFF's were valid, you tried to juggle three lines of fraudulent "evidence" :

1. You claimed that Christians (like the Pope) had to address your BFF's. Then you later later admit this not to be true -- Christians don't have to address your Fantasies at all, and they can still remain Christians in your own view....while still accepting evolution.

2. You used quotes from evolutionists that are shown invalidly applied to support your claim . For instance, the personal opinion of Mayr, which is (a) consonant with the Pope's statements that believers are free to believe, and (b) consistent with the scientific consensus view that science can't deal with claims of divine teleology and ontology.

3.You used quotes from apologist-"scientists" with you claiming that your BFF's Divine Teleology and Ontology DID apply to science. Unfortunately, your creo-scientists can't provide any viable scientific research model that would provide evidence in favor of their empty blather. Nor can you provide any such "pathetic level of detail." (to use Little Billy Dembski's hilarious phrase)
------------------------------

Your parrot is still dead.

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

  
Reed



Posts: 274
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2009,21:09   

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 12 2009,16:42)

Yes. †Something that is said to be "not required" (i.e. God as creator or designer), is considered excludable. † You can drop God out of the biological origins situation altogether if you want to, and that's that.

But when you say something "could not exclude a role for God", then suddenly God becomes required for that particular something. †You don't get to drop Him.

Add the two positions together and you get an incompatibility. †The First Incompatibility, to be exact.

What a bizarre display of logic fail.

An omnipotent god cannot be excluded from anything by definition. You can discount the whole god hypothesis as not amenable to rational investigation and thus irrelevant, but even that doesn't exclude gods possible influence.

Evolution is a naturalistic theory which is sufficient to explain the available evidence. That does not, and by definition cannot, exclude the possibility of supernatural meddling. No amount of quotes from "evolutionists" can get around this. Either they are making an basic logical error, or (much more likely) you are misinterpreting them.

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2009,21:58   

Okay. †(Continuing with DHeddle). †He wrote on Oct 5,
†  
Quote
There was no claim by me that Augustine did not take any part of Genesis literally. That goes without saying. The most ardent non-literalist conservative Christian will still take much if not most of Genesis literally. They will agree, for example, that God made a covenant with Abraham.

Here's the thing, DHeddle. †You may not have MEANT to say that "Augustine did not take any part of Genesis literally", but in fact you DID say "Augustine did not take Genesis literally." †THAT statement, was what was responded to.

No use accusing anybody of being "disingenuous" when you write stuff like that. †If you need to be a little more specific in your claims, then just plain be more specific already, because I responded to the actual statement that you put out.

***
†  
Quote
I made the specific claim that Augustine did not take the creation days literally, and he didn't.

Actually, you said, "Instantaneous does not mean six days", and I did not deny that. †

However, I did respond directly to it. †I pointed out that "instantaneous" would only rationally fit in with YEC, a less than 6000 year old earth. †It's absolutely logical that if the earth was created instantaneously, its age would be less than 6000 years (at the time Augie wrote that statement.) †
It certainly would NOT be an old earth in Augie's view, and Augie's view (not Hugh Ross's) is currently what's under examination right now.

(Although, it should be mentioned, that Hugh Ross is wrong about the way he views "yom", †Please see Robert McCabe's journal article on that issue.
http://www.dbts.edu/journals/2000/McCabe.pdf )

Your Oct 5 post also claimed that my reply was "irrelevant", but you are totally wrong on that because even Augie himself wrote that the the earth was less than 6000 years old, so it's clear that Augie's "instantaneous" position is still YEC anyway. †It's what HE meant.

***

You also said, †
†  
Quote
(Nor, by the way, did many revered church fathers, such as Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Ö most of whom who argued one creation day = 1000 years ( a la 2 Pet 3:8) to solve the very same "in that day you will surely die" problem.)

Consider what James R. Mook says, however:
†  
Quote
"The oft-used counter examples of Clement, Origen, and Augustine, best understood through the lens of Alexandrian allegorical hermeneutics, all held that the creation had been fully completed in an instant."

---Mook, "The Church Fathers on Genesis, the Flood, and the Age of the Earth" in Coming to Grips with Genesis, eds. Terry Mortenson and Thane Ury, c2008, p.51.


So, long story short, these church fathers aren't nearly as old-earth as you make them out to be. †In fact, Mook points out, point-blank, that "The fathers were young-earth creationists" (Mortenson and Ury, page 51.)

As for the 2 Peter 3:8 "one creation day = †1000 years" argument, Dr. McCabe refutes that one totally in the previously provided journal article.

***

Long story short, I believe I have sufficiently answered your reply there about Augustine. †We could go into things more, obviously (especially with Mook's survey of the church fathers), but I want to get into your additional remarks on the Fourth Incompatibility. †As for St. Augie, he's a clear YEC.

FloydLee

  
Henry J



Posts: 4116
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2009,22:05   

Quote
Pope said that the theory of evolution "could not exclude a role by God."

That's the First Incompatibility in a nutshell, quite honestly.  Evolution denies that God is a Required Explanation for biological origins, Christianity affirms that God is a Required Explanation for biological origins.

That argument presupposes that God is either unable or unwilling to use evolution as the method of causation. Which is it, and why? (Without that presupposition, the argument is a non-sequitor.)

Henry

  
Henry J



Posts: 4116
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2009,22:30   

Quote
You know one definition of insanity is repeating the same behavior over and over again and expecting a different income.
 
But what does that say about the people who keep trying to explain stuff to Floyd? ;)

Henry

  
Henry J



Posts: 4116
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2009,22:30   

Quote
As for St. Augie, he's a clear YEC.

In what century did "St. Augie" live?

In what century was evidence of an old earth discovered by geologists?

Sheesh.

Henry

  
Constant Mews



Posts: 323
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2009,00:06   

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 12 2009,18:42)
Quote
Do you remotely understand the difference between "excluding" and "not requiring"?

Yes. †Something that is said to be "not required" (i.e. God as creator or designer), is considered excludable. † You can drop God out of the biological origins situation altogether if you want to, and that's that.

But when you say something "could not exclude a role for God", then suddenly God becomes required for that particular something. †You don't get to drop Him.

Add the two positions together and you get an incompatibility. †The First Incompatibility, to be exact.

Your logic is fallacious.  I see that you are lacking even the most rudimentary understanding of basic logic.  I will clarify for you.

The theory of evolution says nothing about God.  Nothing.  God might be involved, God might not, but the theory does not EXCLUDE the possibility that God might be required.  The theory, like all scientific theories, is a testable explanation.  God is not testable, but God certainly created the universe and sustains it in being.  You have already admitted that God need not be measurably involved in every step of the process.

  
Constant Mews



Posts: 323
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2009,00:09   

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 12 2009,20:18)
Mayr said that the theory of evolution "no longer requires God as creator or designer."

And yet, according to both the Old and New Testaments, God is absolutely required as creator and designer. †(Already cited examples in the Bible text.)

And the Pope agrees.
†  
Quote
"How many people are there today who, fooled by atheism, think and try to demonstrate that it would be scientific to think that everything is without direction and order.

"Through sacred Scripture, the Lord reawakens the reason that sleeps and tells us that in the beginning is the creative word, the creative reason, the reason that has created everything, that has created this intelligent project." †--- Pope Benedict (CNS, Nov. 9 2005

So, we have the First †Incompatibility there. †No way to escape it.

I'm sorry Floyd, but you completely wrong about this.  Your simplistic understanding of logic makes that clear.

The theory of evolution does not exclude God - just as the Pope said.  But as a theory, it includes only testable elements.

You are continuing to ignore my posts which have addressed all your points.

Looking back at your past behavior, I see that you do this every single time you are unable to deal with a poster's argument, so I take it that you have no capacity to refute my points.

  
Constant Mews



Posts: 323
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2009,00:12   

Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 12 2009,10:17)
Since Floyd has become confused and unable to respond to requests for clarification on his points, I think it's best to provide a summary of what I believe his position to be.

Floyd believes that evolutionary theory and Christian doctrine are incompatible because:

1. Christian doctrine specifies that God is the necessary and sufficient explanation for biological organisms. †Evolutionary theory does not require God as the necessary and sufficient explanation.

2. Christian doctrine specifies that God chose to create the universe and mankind. †Evolutionary theory denies that God chose to create the universe and mankind.

3. Christian doctrine specifies that God created man in His own image. †Evolutionary theory denies that God created man in His own image.

4. Christian doctrine specifies that death did not occur before man. †Evolutionary theory requires that death existed before man.

5. Christian doctrine specifies that God is a loving, and all-powerful God. †Evolutionary theory implies otherwise, since the evolutionary process involves gratuitous pain and suffering.


Floyd has supplied no definition of Christian doctrine except John 3:16. †Although he later amended this by specifying that certain other beliefs were required or implied by John 3:16, he has never clarified what these beliefs are.

He has supplied a definition of evolutionary theory:

Quote
Evolution comes in two flavors, micro-evolution and macro-evolution.


Quote
Microevolution: Evolutionary change below the species level, change in the genetic makeup of a population from generation to generation.


Quote
Macroevolution: Evolutionary change above the species level, including the appearance of major evolutionary developments, such as flight, that we use to define higher taxa.


Quote
Macroevolution: Large evolutionary change, usually in morphology; typically refers to the evolution of differences among populations that would warrant their placement in different genera or higher-level taxa.


Finally, Floyd has offered a number of opinions and personal beliefs of scientists who accept evolution regarding the implications of evolutionary theory. †I must point out that these opinions and personal beliefs are not supported by the definitions Floyd has provided.

And that is all that Floyd has actually supplied.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

What can we see from this? †Several points emerge immediately. †

First, that using the definitions Floyd provided, his point 1 is logically meaningless; God is not mentioned by evolutionary theory, and being thus silent, evolutionary theory has nothing whatever to say about God's necessity.

Second, that using the definitions that Floyd provided, his points 2 and 3 are completely false: nothing in Floyd's definitions specifies that God did not CHOOSE to create the universe and man; nothing in Floyd's definitions specifies that God did not make man in His own image.

Third, Floyd's point 4 is predicated on two things: a literal reading of Genesis and an unsupported reading of Romans 5:12. †Since a literal reading of Genesis is precluded by all available evidence of the world - a direct creation of God, we may reasonably discount Genesis 1:1-11 as being literally correct. †A contextual reading of Romans 5:12 indicates that "sin" and "death" are inextricably linked, and hence the reasonable reading of Romans 5:12 refers to spiritual death, not physical death. †This is supported by the clear logical problem of reading God's threat to Adam that on the day he ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil that he would die. †Since Adam did NOT die on that die, we cannot read that threat as implying physical death.

This leaves only his point 5. †Point 5 is simply the ancient Problem of Evil; the ultimate thorn in the side of Christianity. †Christianity provides the twin primary defenses of Free Will and the Fall to account for this.

Thus we see that it is quite logical for a True Christian, a devout and passionate Christian, to simultaneously accept both Christian Doctrine and evolutionary theory.

Since I am such a Christian, we have shown Floyd to be wrong in his assertions.

Floyd, please indicate precisely and clearly, with yes/no answers supported by accurate Biblical exegesis and citations of actual evolutionary theory where you dispute this analysis, otherwise I shall accept your concession.

Thanks.

Floyd, here is my post which proves that Christianity and evolution are compatible.  Address it, please.

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2009,01:58   

About Oldroyd, first a few details about The (Australian) Weekend Review:

Country:
Australia
Language:
English
Content description:
Books, Arts, Film and TV supplement of the Australian Weekend

link

Not exactly either a scientific or religious, or even remotely serious source.

Second, when you make a basic search for The Australian Weekend review + Oldroyd, you only find 6 results, one of which is this very forum. The other 5 sites are all YEC forums and sites.

link

I would bet a lot that this Oldroyd "article" is yet another fabrication by the lying-for-jebus AIG folks...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Dan



Posts: 77
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2009,03:11   

Summary of "debate":

1. FL posts his first alleged incompatibility in a particularly clear form:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y156155

2. Schroedinger's Dog uses that particularly clarity of expression to detail exactly where FL went wrong:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y156158

3. Deadman uses that particularly clarity of expression to detail exactly where FL went wrong:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y156162

4. Constant Mews uses that particularly clarity of expression to detail exactly where FL went wrong:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y156165

5. Dan uses that particularly clarity of expression to detail exactly where FL went wrong:

]http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....156208]

6. didymos uses that particularly clarity of expression to detail exactly where FL went wrong:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y156209

7. FL merely restates his original contention, without any supporting logic or reasoning, claiming "So, we have the First  Incompatibility there.  No way to escape it.":

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y156219

In fact, FL has been shown five ways to escape it.  According to FL, these five posters have all performed a task that cannot be performed!

Thank you, FL, for considering the five of us to be superhumans who can perform amazing feats of reasoning!

  
Quack



Posts: 1805
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2009,07:34   

I am making certain I don't read any of FL's posts, but using the links here, I took a look at the controversy and while all of them said the same thing clearly enough, I found Dan's entry as lucid clarification of the issue as anyone could ask for. Except for FL, that is, but isn't it obvious by now that he is suffering a veritable comprehension problem?

Stealing from Dan:
Quote
Just as plumbing neither requires nor excludes a role played by God. †Maybe God makes the water flow. †Maybe God doesn't. †This is irrelevant to plumbing: I'll use quarter-inch pipes in either case.

Now FL, please show us the incompatibility between the two statements as used in Dan's approach to plumbing.

It is like when I am sitting down to dinner: The use of salt is neither required or excluded - it is an option left entirely up to me whether I think I need some salt on my plate, or if I will exclude it. Heck, I'm not even required to eat, I can exclude it or not.

I believe what we are doing her is using analogies. They are useful when attempting to understand concepts beyond our comprehension.

The missing "y" is intentional.

--------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself ‚ÄĒ and you are the easiest person to fool.
¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬†¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬† ¬†         Richard Feynman

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2009,08:29   

Quote
I am making certain I don't read any of FL's posts,

Then why make silly comments about "veritable comprehension problems"? †Honestly now dude. †Either read all sides of the discussion, or just sit on the sidelines quietly.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2009,08:32   

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 13 2009,09:29)
Quote
I am making certain I don't read any of FL's posts,

Then why make silly comments about "veritable comprehension problems"?  Honestly now dude.  Either read all sides of the discussion, or just sit on the sidelines quietly.

oh yeah that reminds me

Quote
why is god not part of the required explanation for why water runs downhill, when he is part of the required explanation for the EXISTENCE OF WATER?


--------------
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: Oct. 13 2009,08:38   

The theory of evolution says nothing about God.  Nothing.  God might be involved, God might not, but the theory does not EXCLUDE the possibility that God might be required.

Yes.  It does.  For two reasons, Futuyma's EB3 textbook pointed out.  

First, evolution does not admit conscious anticipation of the future (and before you respond, consider the fact that nobody has offered an evolutionist refutation for THAT one in all 39 pages of this debate), and with the God of Genesis you definitely get 100 percent conscious anticipation of the future.  

Second, you would automatically eliminate the claim that supernatural processes cannot be the subject of science, and with that, you open the legal door for teaching creationism in public school.  

(Which is all right by me, but I think you have a problem with it, eh?).

  
SLP



Posts: 136
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2009,08:44   

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 12 2009,19:02)

Here's your question: †Exactly how does this extended quote by the late evolutionist John Oro (Schopf 2002, "Life's Origins")....
† †
Quote
In the mid-1800s, Darwin showed how the concept of evolution by natural selection applies to living systems. But evolution also operates in the inanimate world, not only Earth but the universe as a whole, including all cosmic bodies (galaxies, stars, circumstellar and interstellar clouds, interstellar molecules, planetary systems, planets, comets, asteroids, meteorites) and all chemical elements. Comets transported organic molecules and water to the primitive Earth early in the planet's history, presumably over a period of several hundred million years. In the oceans that then formed, both cometary and terrestrial (those synthesized directly in the environment) organic molecules evolved by natural selection, ultimately giving rise to life - possibly in the "warm little pond" that Darwin envisioned in his famous letter to Joseph Hooker (see chapter 3). The linkage from cosmic elements to cometary molecules to primitive Earth to biological evolution ties cosmochemical evolution to the origin of life.

....disprove or even disagree what I said earlier about the short version of Oro's quote?


By 'short' you mean doctored, for you never indicate that you lop off half a sentence when you quote it and go so far as to capitalize the O in organic to make it appear as though it is the first word in the sentence. †That is, you take an active rople in deceiving your readers.
 
Quote

† †  
Quote
Notice that evolutionists posit the very same driving force for both prebiotic evolution and postbiotic evolutionĖnatural selection. Hence prebiotic evolution is part and parcel of the overall theory of evolution.

******
Good luck answering that one, SLP. †But honestly, you can't answer it, and you know it. †Oro simply made clear that abiogenesis is part and parcel of evolution.


Actually, I've answered it before.

Actually, about 6 other people agreed with my answer, and NONE, not even other YECs agreed with yours.

But first, I have to ask why you had always doctored the quote?

I thought you folks were supposed to be honest for fear of Yahweh's wrath? †I thought journalists would at least not rely on chopped quotes for fear of being found out and discredited.

Guess not.

I suspect you only used the doctored quote because the context showed how wild and unwarranted your extrapolations are.

The short answer is twofold:
1. "Linking" things together does not imply or necessitate relaince.
2. Even if it did, that is one person's opinion, not the concensus view

If you think relying on one person's non-consensus view proves your position true, then surely we can quote Hugh Ross as demonstrating that Creationists think the earth is old...

The longer answer:

YOU are the ONLY person who interprets the quote to indicate that abiogenesis is part of ToE. As is clear to EVERYONE but you, Oro is talking about 'evolution' as such, NOT the Theory of Evolution ala Darwin. Evolution by natural selection as in change through time molded by the environment, be that here on earth or in deep space. Why is that so hard for you to fathom?

Do you really think that refusing to budge on this makes you right or something?

Let me put this in perspective -


You and I are both citizens of the U.S. We are 'tied together' by this. Larry Moran is a Canadian citizen. Despite the fact that he is a citizen in his country and we are citizens in ours - all of us 'tied together' by the concept of citizenshp - we are no more 'dependant' upon Larry as a citizen of Canada for us to engage in our citizenship duties than biological evolution is dependant upon stellar or even abiotic evolution to produce new species.



It is interesting to note, however, that your 'take home message' from that quote has changed a bit since I presented it in context and pointed out that you've been parading around a doctored version.

Why can't you even at least admit that? Why are YEC cultists so darned afraid of being honest now and then? Is your "faith" really so fragile that admitting that you've basically lied about this going to destroy it?

And you claim a journalism background!?!


How do you think an editor would look upon you turning in a story in which had taken a quote from someone, lopped off half of it without indicating that you had done so, and presenting it to mean something that the author did not intend?


And I know you 'stand by' what you've written. W. Bush 'stood by' his claims that Iraq sought out uranium from Niger, too. That didn't make it true.

The evolutionist Oro does not REQUIRE that abiogenesis be part of the Theory of Evolution, as you have erroneously "interpreted" from the doctored quote from him that you've been parading around.

Acknowledging that the CONCEPT/PHENOMENON of "evolution" was involved in both both the origin of species and the origin of life (as well as the origins of stars, etc.) cannot, by any rational person, truly be interpreted to mean that the THEORY of biological evolution ala Darwin et al. thus CONTAINS abiogenesis as one of its foundational hypotheses.

You have had this explained to you before - I found this explanation written plainly to you a year ago on the MSNBC board (as well as PT), yet here you are, a year later, trotting out the same claim that you 'stand by', as if your confidence makes an error of interpretation not an error.

So, I guess I will just have to trot out the claims of creationist PhD Kurt Wise who not only acknowledges that there are transitional forms and that the fossil record provides good evidence for evolution, but that those who say otherwise are more or less lying.

Hey - a quote from a creationist himself - and one with a PhD no less - MUST be the truth!

[quote]
Furthermore, one of your comrades came up with a very recent De Duve quotation, which only serves to reinforce what Oro said.
† †  
Quote
Nobel laureate Christian de Duve summarized the plenary session: "The participants unanimously accepted as indisputable the affirmation that the Universe, as well as life within it, are the products of long evolutionary histories...."

---Nmgirl's post, Oct 6th, 11:58, "International General 2009 (Conference)"


You must be one horrible journalist.

Please look up the words "linkage" and "concept."


linkage:
factor or relationship that connects or ties one thing to another; link: Administration officials sought to establish linkage between grain sales and relaxed immigration laws.

concept:
a general notion or idea; conception.

The problem with you people seems to be that if the word 'evolution' is used in any way, you immediately conclude that it refers back to biological evolution, regardless of the context.

I should have thought that a journalist would at the very least have a better handle on basic language.


And..

You seem to want to ignore the bulk of Oro's passage and hone in solely on a few terms and phrases. And that is your main problem.

And also basic understanding - look at the sentence you just quoted again:

"The linkage from cosmic elements to cometary molecules to primitive Earth to biological evolution ties cosmochemical evolution to the origin of life. "

He is tying cosmochemical evolution to the origin of life. He is NOT tying the origin of life to bioloigical evolution, excpet in the sense that 'evolutiopn' is the overarching concpet that they share. The concepts are tied together by a common phenomenon.

Just like how gravity ties together falling, diving, dropping bombs, and planetary orbits. But diving is not a part of planetary orbiting.


Note that in the first sentence and into the second (the part you never quote) he wrote:

"In the mid-1800s, Darwin showed how the concept of evolution by natural selection applies to living systems. But evolution also operates in the inanimate world..."

Darwin showed how the concept of evolution by natural selection applies to living things. But Oro goes to explain that the CONCEPT also applies to other things.

Why oh why is that beyond your comprehension?

Also note how I produced the quote - I indicated via ellipses that the quote is not complete. You should understand that.



Anyone agree with your interpretation yet?

Oh, I forgot - you've never answered my questions re: your use of sources. Why do you think Oro's take on this, even if your twisted misinterpretation were correct, is the 'right' one? Why do you present his position as the ultimate, all-encompassing 'evo' position on this matter?

In fact, why do you do that with ALL of your sources? It does not matter the topic or who the person is - if they've said or written something that you interpret as being favorable to your position, you present them as beyond reproach and their claims as set in stone. Why do you do that? You also have the annoying, odd, and foolish habit of simply ignoring individual words in sentences that you do not like. I recently reviewed an old thread on vestigials, for example, in which you took part you insisted that the definition that you had gleaned from a textbook was the ultimate no-questions-asked defitnion of vestigial and you, as you've done with the Oro quote, only presented the part that indicated that vestigials had no function, yet when someone presented more of the quote indicating that reduced or different function (from the original) also counted, you just re-posted the now more complete quote and bolded the word "functionless" and insisted that your point was proved.

What sort of person does that and actually thinks that their point is made?

It is as if I claimed that the U.S. flag were only red and white and to 'prove' this, presented this quote:


"The flag of the United States consists of thirteen equal horizontal stripes of red (top and bottom) alternating with white."

Then, someone who felt the flag were red, white and blue, found the source of my quote, and presented the rest of it:


The flag of the United States consists of thirteen equal horizontal stripes of red (top and bottom) alternating with white, with a blue rectangle in the canton bearing fifty small, white, five-pointed stars arranged in nine offset horizontal rows of six stars (top and bottom) alternating with rows of five stars.The flag of the United States consists of thirteen equal horizontal stripes of red (top and bottom) alternating with white, with a blue rectangle in the canton bearing fifty small, white, five-pointed stars arranged in nine offset horizontal rows of six stars (top and bottom) alternating with rows of five stars."

And I then thanked them for proving my point and to 'prove' this, did this:


The flag of the United States consists of thirteen equal horizontal stripes of red (top and bottom) alternating with white, with a blue rectangle in the canton bearing fifty small, white, five-pointed stars arranged in nine offset horizontal rows of six stars (top and bottom) alternating with rows of five stars.


And just sort of blew off the rest?

That is what YOU'VE done re: this quote.

I have to ask, and I do so sincerely- are you medicated?

http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v....oststop

And then you ran away....

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

Pages: (100) < ... 34 35 36 37 38 [39] 40 41 42 43 44 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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