RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (100) < ... 35 36 37 38 39 [40] 41 42 43 44 45 ... >   
  Topic: FL "Debate Thread", READ FIRST POST BEFORE PARTICIPATING PLZ< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2009,08:46   

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 13 2009,09:38)
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?).

speaking of admitting things and explanation...

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?



heeeeeeere pussy pussy pussy pussy

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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2009,08:47   

Just as a quick aside... if you somehow "open the door" to teach creationism in public schools, then you also "open to the door" to teach every other creation myth that exists.  In fact, by the laws of the United States of America (cannot promote one religion over another), then I would be required to teach ALL creation myths.  With, given about 15 minutes for each, would require about 3 school years to do.  (Yes, that's just an estimate.)  

I have no problem with that, but I bet you do.

On the other hand, you keep saying these things.  I don't think they mean, what you think they mean.  

So you admit that the theory of evolution says nothing about God.  Good, I'm glad we agree on that.

science = natural
super natural /= natural
therefore:
 science /= supernatural

What about this aren't you getting?

Please describe in some detail a test whereby we could determine whether God has had a hand in anything in the natural world.

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

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

   
didymos



Posts: 1807
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2009,08:59   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 12 2009,23:58)
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...

Yeah, I did some digging too.  Oldroyd is a known historian of science, especially geology, and he has written on evolution and such before (especially since Darwin relied on Lyell's work).  He contributed to a book callled "Darwinism and Philosophy" in 2005 and has both edited and written other texts on the general subject over the years.  My guess is that this quote is either from a book review or an interview associated with a book release.  Given that it ends with ellipses, my other guess is that it probably reads differently in its full context.  For reference, here's his faculty page at UNSW:

http://hist-phil.arts.unsw.edu.au/staff....Oldroyd

I suppose someone could email him and ask.  He might be interested in the fact that he's being used by creationists, and possibly quotemined.  Here's what Google Scholar has as well:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=David+Oldroyd

ETA: And, just to reiterate, even if the quote is wholly accurate and reads exactly the same in context, it still won't matter.  It'll still just be Oldroyd's personal opinion which no one is at all obligated to pay the least attention to.

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

  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2009,10:08   

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,13:22)

Quote
Quote
Ummm...having coconuts and herbs for food means death before the fall.

Nope, nope.  Coconuts and herbs do not have a "Nephesh."  Only animals and humans.   You are not killing the kiwifruit when you eat it.


LOL! You can believe whatever silliness you wish, but the moment you pull and apple from a tree, you are in fact causing death. When you can objectively demonstrate this "nephesh" I'll go along with you. Until then, I'll stick with the physiological definitions we have.

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

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2009,11:08   

Wow, so there's a different definition between "life" in animals and "life" in plants?  Where does fungi, bacterium, etc, fit in?

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2009,11:17   

As I have no edit ability.  Here's a few questions:

1:  There are 6 Kingdoms of life.  Then there are Viruses and Prions.  Where do they all fit into the "Tree of Life" from a Creationist POV?

2:  How are the cells of plants (and the other non-animal cells) different from animal cells?

Those are two but I will think of more.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
Constant Mews



Posts: 323
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2009,11:17   

Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 13 2009,11:08)
Wow, so there's a different definition between "life" in animals and "life" in plants?  Where does fungi, bacterium, etc, fit in?

Having no nostrils within which the breath of life may be found, they are not living, of course.

You must keep up with your ancient Hebrew.

  
Constant Mews



Posts: 323
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2009,11:20   

Quote (Henry J @ 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

In my case it's two-fold: primarily, I am trying to save his soul - he is a Christian gone astray who has set up a false idol in this life, which damns him to hell; second, he's an interesting psychological study, just as AFDave was.

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2009,11:25   

Okay, let's see if we can do one more 4th incompatibility response to Heddle.
Quote
("Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned")...states absolutely nothing, with certainty, about animal death.

There is no logic by which Romans 5:12 absolutely precludes the possibility that, prior to Adam's sin, an elephant crushed an ant. The verse is at least arguably, if not most likely, by its construction, concerned only with humans. Even when taking about sin, it is talking about man's sin, not about sin first appearing on the earth. Why? Because Christian theology would state that Satan was already on the earth, sinning, before man’s fall.


Quite honestly, this is incorrect.  There is a key phrase in 5:12 that is impossible to sidestep on any level.
Quote
sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin


There is literally NO translation of the Bible (check 'em!) in which this order is reversed or either clause eliminated.  Sin enters this world first (via the Fall), and ONLY THEN does death--specifically, "MUT" in Genesis -- enter this world.  

("Mut" applies only to biological objects that have God's "breath of life" in them---animals & humans.)

Because of this, the correct biblical answer is
"No the Edenic pre-Fall elephant doesn't get to step on the ant, and the ant-eater doesn't get to slurp up the ants, and the ants don't get to gang up on the caterpillar and drag him home for supper" (I actually saw that happen one time in my teens.)  

Why not?  Because "Mut" only entered this world after Adam and Eve's sin.  Not before.  As you would say, it's the "construction of the sentence."  And it's only constructed ONE way.

Furthermore, you are directly contradicting Romans 5 (and Romans 8, btw) when you claim that sin was in the world prior to Adam and Eve's sin.  The text clearly states the opposite.  

Now if you wanna say that Romans 5 is incorrect because Satan was plopping around somewhere, that's fine, but understand that you automatically RE-AFFIRM the Fourth Incompatibility by doing so, because falsifying Romans 5:12-17 doesn't just mean falsifying Adam and his historical deed, but also means falsifying Christ and his historical deed too.

(Besides, Christ did NOT die for Satan's sins, did he?  So that effectively means that Satan's sins don't count for Romans 5:12-17).  

Pretty steep price tag there!

******

Now let's go to ICR's James Stambaugh, whom thou despisest or something.
Quote
(ICR Yahoo) We are told in Hebrews 9:22, "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin." So a blood sacrifice is only necessary if there is sin. The rest of the Old Testament has similar treatment of sacrifice for atonement.

If there was animal death before the fall of man, then God and all those who followed His pattern did useless acts.

One must observe that in the atonement the animal loses its life in the place of the human. If animal death existed before the fall, then the object lesson represented by the atoning sacrifice is in reality a cruel joke.

Again, biblically, Stambaugh is totally correct.  The first animal sacrifice took place in Eden itself, when the Lord was forced to kill an animal to provide a covering for the shamed Adam and Eve.

Then there was Abel---God honored his sacrifice of a lamb, instead of his brother's veggie sacrifice, because the lamb's blood provided cover for sin (remember Hebrews says that without blood there is no remission for sin.)  

This is no light thing.  God instituted an animal sacrifice system for the people of Israel, and ultimately God would sacrifice the very best He had -- his own Son, Jesus Christ -- to give up his blood for all of humanity.
All of the previous animal sacrifices foreshadowed that world-changing event.  ("The animal loses his life in place of the human", Stambaugh wrote.)  

That's why Christians sometimes call Jesus "the Lamb", btw.

But now think about it.  What if animals were ALREADY dying prior to the Sin of Adam and Eve?  Then something has gone wrong.  What are they dying for, when Adam and Eve haven't even sinned yet?  How does this avoid wrecking Romans 5 and Romans 8?  Moreover their worth as even a temporary covering for human sin drops to zero.  

Moreover, if animals are dying before the Fall, that means you got not just elephant sqooshing ants, but flatout Nature Red In Tooth and Claw.  Automatically brings up the 5th Incom.

Gotta stop there for now, but you clearly see the problems involved in your statements.

FloydLee

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2009,11:27   

Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 13 2009,11:17)
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 13 2009,11:08)
Wow, so there's a different definition between "life" in animals and "life" in plants?  Where does fungi, bacterium, etc, fit in?

Having no nostrils within which the breath of life may be found, they are not living, of course.

You must keep up with your ancient Hebrew.

Fish do not breath from their nostrils.  Sponges and jellyfish, animals last time I checked, have no nostrils.  Also, please correct me if I'm wrong) but I seem to remember that there are a few animals that breath through their skin as well.  Are they in the same category as plants?

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
didymos



Posts: 1807
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2009,11:53   

Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 13 2009,09:27)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 13 2009,11:17)
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 13 2009,11:08)
Wow, so there's a different definition between "life" in animals and "life" in plants?  Where does fungi, bacterium, etc, fit in?

Having no nostrils within which the breath of life may be found, they are not living, of course.

You must keep up with your ancient Hebrew.

Fish do not breath from their nostrils.  Sponges and jellyfish, animals last time I checked, have no nostrils.  Also, please correct me if I'm wrong) but I seem to remember that there are a few animals that breath through their skin as well.  Are they in the same category as plants?

And what about stomata?  Don't those count?

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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2009,11:53   

Floyd, a quick lesson in basic ecology.  

All the energy for life on Earth comes from the sun (we'll ignore the chemoautotrophs for now because they are rarely involved in the large ecosystems that most people are familiar with).
Plants use chlorophyll to convert that solar radiation to chemically available energy in the form of ATP, which is then used to build sugars.
Herbivores (obligate plant eaters) then consume the plants to get energy and raw materials to increase size, have babies, etc.
Carnivores (obligate meat eaters) then consume the herbivores to get the energy and raw materials they need to increase size, have babies, etc.
Omnivores (everything eaters) have the options to consume whatever food sources is available.
Decomposers consume dead things in order to recycle the material back into the ecosystem so that plants have a source of raw materials (not energy).

So, by your logic...
 1) There were no carnivores before the fall.  Many of these species are obligate meat-eaters.  That means that they must eat large amounts of animal protein in order to live.  Substitutes will not allow them to live.

 2) There were no decomposers, since they only consume dead things.

Your hypothesis REQUIRES, that we do not find any meat-eaters in the fossil record before 6000 years ago. (They wouldn't have anything to eat.)
Your hypothesis REQUIRES, that we do not find fossils (because nothing died) before 6000 years ago.
Your hypothesis REQUIRES, that even if something died, we should find it completly intact (all organs, soft tissue, etc) because there were no decomposers. (Decomposers would have had nothing to eat.)

Therefore: either fossils do not exist (especially the meat-eating fossils) or there is something wrong with your hypothesis.

It's demonstratable that fossil meat eating animals do exist.  
It's demonstratable that these fossilized animals did not exist during historical times (I think a smilodon would be a pretty obvious animal to mention in the historical records).

I could go on, but what's the point?

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

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

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2009,11:56   

Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 13 2009,11:27)
Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 13 2009,11:17)
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 13 2009,11:08)
Wow, so there's a different definition between "life" in animals and "life" in plants?  Where does fungi, bacterium, etc, fit in?

Having no nostrils within which the breath of life may be found, they are not living, of course.

You must keep up with your ancient Hebrew.

Fish do not breath from their nostrils.  Sponges and jellyfish, animals last time I checked, have no nostrils.  Also, please correct me if I'm wrong) but I seem to remember that there are a few animals that breath through their skin as well.  Are they in the same category as plants?

Some salamanders retain external gills throughout their life.

Is the nostril thing supposed to mean 'consumes oxygen for respiration'?  Cause plants do that too.

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

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

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2009,12:16   

and an entire family of salamanders doesn't even have lungs.

floyd you are a pretty stupid person if you think the bullshit you drag out of the bible has anything to do with reality.

why don't you answer the question now?

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

  
jswilkins



Posts: 50
Joined: June 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2009,12:28   

I don't know what Oldroyd is being used for, as I haven't been following this thread while on the road, but he's an echt historian of philosophy and science,, knows his Darwin very well indeed, and wrote the best history of philosophy to have ever died stillborn (AoK):

Oldroyd, David R. 1983. Darwinian impacts: an introduction to the Darwinian revolution. 2nd rev. ed. Kensington, N.S.W.: University of New South Wales Press.
———. 1986. The Arch of Knowledge: An introductory study of the history of the philosophy and methodology of science. Kensington, NSW: New South Wales University Press.

--------------
Boldly staying where no man has stayed before.

   
didymos



Posts: 1807
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2009,12:56   

Quote (jswilkins @ Oct. 13 2009,10:28)
I don't know what Oldroyd is being used for, as I haven't been following this thread while on the road, but he's an echt historian of philosophy and science,, knows his Darwin very well indeed, and wrote the best history of philosophy to have ever died stillborn (AoK):

Oldroyd, David R. 1983. Darwinian impacts: an introduction to the Darwinian revolution. 2nd rev. ed. Kensington, N.S.W.: University of New South Wales Press.
———. 1986. The Arch of Knowledge: An introductory study of the history of the philosophy and methodology of science. Kensington, NSW: New South Wales University Press.

He was a "Quotable Quote[mine]" in a 1993 issue of the magazine Creation (though Floyd found it by way of AiG, who used to distribute the magazine in the US before they started up Answers and the rest of AiG started calling itself Creation Minisitries International), and Floyd has copypasted it as "evidence" for one of his "Big Five Incompatibilities" between Christianity and Evolution.

--------------
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. 13 2009,13:03   

Quote
floyd you are a pretty stupid person if you think the bullshit you drag out of the bible has anything to do with reality.

Hmm.  Sounds like a person who used to believe in Jesus Christ and the Bible but has now rejected both (and that right strongly).

Nevertheless some of us still believe that Jesus Christ and the Bible speaks the truth about reality (including historical reality), all the same.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

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

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 13 2009,14:03)
Quote
floyd you are a pretty stupid person if you think the bullshit you drag out of the bible has anything to do with reality.

Hmm.  Sounds like a person who used to believe in Jesus Christ and the Bible but has now rejected both (and that right strongly).

Nevertheless some of us still believe that Jesus Christ and the Bible speaks the truth about reality (including historical reality), all the same.

is that right?  in what reality do you have the answer for this question?

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

  
didymos



Posts: 1807
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2009,13:15   

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 13 2009,11:03)
Quote
floyd you are a pretty stupid person if you think the bullshit you drag out of the bible has anything to do with reality.

Hmm.  Sounds like a person who used to believe in Jesus Christ and the Bible but has now rejected both (and that right strongly).

Nevertheless some of us still believe that Jesus Christ and the Bible speaks the truth about reality (including historical reality), all the same.

Oh, sure. He responds to that.

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

  
Chayanov



Posts: 289
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2009,13:47   

Quote (didymos @ Oct. 13 2009,13:15)
 
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 13 2009,11:03)
 
Quote
floyd you are a pretty stupid person if you think the bullshit you drag out of the bible has anything to do with reality.

Hmm.  Sounds like a person who used to believe in Jesus Christ and the Bible but has now rejected both (and that right strongly).

Nevertheless some of us still believe that Jesus Christ and the Bible speaks the truth about reality (including historical reality), all the same.

Oh, sure. He responds to that.

Of course. Such comments are part of his missionary work.

--------------
Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5375
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2009,13:53   

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 13 2009,14:03)
Quote
floyd you are a pretty stupid person if you think the bullshit you drag out of the bible has anything to do with reality.

Hmm.  Sounds like a person who used to believe in Jesus Christ and the Bible but has now rejected both (and that right strongly).

Nevertheless some of us still believe that Jesus Christ and the Bible speaks the truth about reality (including historical reality), all the same.

Rabbits.

Cud.

Dipshit.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1237
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2009,14:17   

Quote (Constant Mews @ Oct. 13 2009,11:17)
   
Quote (FrankH @ Oct. 13 2009,11:08)
Wow, so there's a different definition between "life" in animals and "life" in plants?  Where does fungi, bacterium, etc, fit in?

Having no nostrils within which the breath of life may be found, they are not living, of course.

You must keep up with your ancient Hebrew.

Stomata don't count as nostrils?  Not nephish enough, I guess.

Edited to add:  Damn you, Didymos!

Edited again: You stole my sig, which I stole from olegt!  :angry:   Back to the old one.

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1237
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2009,14:27   

Quote (Robin @ Oct. 13 2009,10:08)
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,13:22)

 
Quote
   
Quote
Ummm...having coconuts and herbs for food means death before the fall.

Nope, nope.  Coconuts and herbs do not have a "Nephesh."  Only animals and humans.   You are not killing the kiwifruit when you eat it.


LOL! You can believe whatever silliness you wish, but the moment you pull and apple from a tree, you are in fact causing death. When you can objectively demonstrate this "nephesh" I'll go along with you. Until then, I'll stick with the physiological definitions we have.

A man noticed a farmer walking with three-legged pig on a leash. It looked very odd. He said, "Farmer, why are you walking a three-legged pig?"

"Why, stranger, this is no ordinary pig," the farmer replied. "One night our barn caught on fire, and before my wife and I even woke up, the pig had called the fire department, and herded all the other animals out of the barn. The next week, a burglar got into the house, and the pig had him tied up and the police were on their way before I even realized what had happened. Then just last week, I fell into the duck pond and was like to drown, except this pig jumped in and pulled me out. Like I say, this is no ordinary pig."

"Well, that truly is a remarkable pig. But tell me, how did he come to have only three legs?" "Are you kidding? A pig this good, you don't eat all at once."

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2009,14:38   

When are we gonna get to Biblical biology and the talking donkeys* and snakes?
(*I know, I know, we already have Floyd...but he's not Biblical, just hysterical)

I can foresee the future: when questioned, Floyd will say "it was a miracle, each and every time"

ETA: And poor, poor Erasmus will never get his question answered about gods and water running downhill. Also, water will continue to be wet.

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

  
Constant Mews



Posts: 323
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2009,15:29   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Oct. 13 2009,14:38)
When are we gonna get to Biblical biology and the talking donkeys* and snakes?
(*I know, I know, we already have Floyd...but he's not Biblical, just hysterical)

I can foresee the future: when questioned, Floyd will say "it was a miracle, each and every time"

ETA: And poor, poor Erasmus will never get his question answered about gods and water running downhill. Also, water will continue to be wet.

Floyd cannot answer that question, since it categorically disproves his first "incompatible".

Again, Floyd, you have already conceded your first "incompatible" by acknowledging that God may be responsible for (necessary and sufficient) the process of evolution, without intervening directing at any particular point.

Moreover, the theory of evolution as you have presented it does not preclude God.  It makes no mention of God.  It cannot exclude God (the point the Pope was making and with which you agree).

  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2009,15:47   

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 13 2009,13:03)

Quote
Quote
floyd you are a pretty stupid person if you think the bullshit you drag out of the bible has anything to do with reality.

Hmm.  Sounds like a person who used to believe in Jesus Christ and the Bible but has now rejected both (and that right strongly).

Nevertheless some of us still believe that Jesus Christ and the Bible speaks the truth about reality (including historical reality), all the same.


Hmmm...yet another indication that you don't know of what youe speak, Floyd. Last time I checked (within the month, so it hasn't been that long) the bible is silent on the subject of reality. In fact, it's silent on EVERY subject. Go ahead and check - hold one up to your ear and listen; there isn't bible out there that is going to say anything itself. No, a bible, like all books, speaks not a word, but rather the authors of the bible make statements in texts. Those texts are read and the reader comes away with an impression of what the authors wrote. Of course with the bible, there are all sorts of competing impressions of what the authors were trying to get across. You can insist your understanding is correct there Floyd, but given your track record on claims, so far there isn't any good reason to go along with you. I'll take the multitude of actual biblical scholars (my sister included) work on the subject of your obviously erroneous interpretations. Thanks.

--------------
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: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2009,15:50   

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Oct. 13 2009,14:27)

Quote
Quote (Robin @ Oct. 13 2009,10:08)
 
Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 09 2009,13:22)

   
Quote
   
Quote
Ummm...having coconuts and herbs for food means death before the fall.

Nope, nope.  Coconuts and herbs do not have a "Nephesh."  Only animals and humans.   You are not killing the kiwifruit when you eat it.


LOL! You can believe whatever silliness you wish, but the moment you pull and apple from a tree, you are in fact causing death. When you can objectively demonstrate this "nephesh" I'll go along with you. Until then, I'll stick with the physiological definitions we have.

A man noticed a farmer walking with three-legged pig on a leash. It looked very odd. He said, "Farmer, why are you walking a three-legged pig?"

"Why, stranger, this is no ordinary pig," the farmer replied. "One night our barn caught on fire, and before my wife and I even woke up, the pig had called the fire department, and herded all the other animals out of the barn. The next week, a burglar got into the house, and the pig had him tied up and the police were on their way before I even realized what had happened. Then just last week, I fell into the duck pond and was like to drown, except this pig jumped in and pulled me out. Like I say, this is no ordinary pig."

"Well, that truly is a remarkable pig. But tell me, how did he come to have only three legs?" "Are you kidding? A pig this good, you don't eat all at once."


LMAO! Well played! Now that is a great story!

--------------
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: Oct. 13 2009,16:16   

Sure Erasmus.  A bright person like you has been keeping up with the order which I previously stated for replies, so you know that DHeddle has been replied to and that you're next up on the list.  (
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?

Simply put, because you evolutionists don't accept that.  
Let's bring in Futuyma's evo-bio textbook---he's got a good example.
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. -- EB3

Yes, God is the required explanation for the origin of water.  Likewise for the origin of gravity.  So yes, God is indirectly, ultimately, the required explanation for water running downhill.

BUT....you evolutionists don't accept that.  For you, God is NOT the required explanation, not even indirectly or ultimately, for water running downhill, or water erosion producing the Grand Canyon.

Why not?  Because if you DO suddenly decide to announce that God is indirectly, ultimately, a required explanation for water running downhill, you immediately run into the Futuyma textbook-taught roadblock:  
Supernatural causes cannot be the subject of science
...which so many of you (including yourself) have agreed to.

So if you were somehow hoping to draw up some kind of analogy with evolution using the water-running-downhill thing as God-as-indirect-ultimate-explanation., that's BLOCKED at this time.  

Unless you are ready to admit supernatural causation as a legitimate subject of science, that is.  And teleology a la mode.  (And God knows what else!).

FloydLee

  
Reed



Posts: 274
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2009,16:21   

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 13 2009,06:38)
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.  

Wrong. It has been pointed out many times that this objection is based on your failure to understand the how science works. The supernatural isn't addressed in science, so you wouldn't expect definitions of scientific theories to refer to supernatural. Adding "except for any possible supernatural meddling" to the definition of any scientific theory would be extraneous. If such an addendum was required for evolution, it would be required for all other scientific theories, e.g.
E=mc2 *
* except in the event of supernatural meddling
Quote

Second, you would automatically eliminate the claim that supernatural processes cannot be the subject of science,

Uh no, that does not follow at all. The fact that science cannot address the supernatural clearly means that the supernatural doesn't belong in science class. In any case the establishment clause clearly prevents favoring any one supernatural explanation.

I notice you ignored my post here which previously addressed most of this: http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y156228

So please is explain, if god is ominipotent how can he be excluded from anything ? Doesn't the definition of omnipotent meant that he could change anything, anywhere, any time ? Or is your god not omnipotent ?

  
Constant Mews



Posts: 323
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2009,16:26   

Quote (FloydLee @ Oct. 13 2009,16:16)
Sure Erasmus.  A bright person like you has been keeping up with the order which I previously stated for replies, so you know that DHeddle has been replied to and that you're next up on the list.  (
 
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?

Simply put, because you evolutionists don't accept that.  
Let's bring in Futuyma's evo-bio textbook---he's got a good example.
 
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. -- EB3

Yes, God is the required explanation for the origin of water.  Likewise for the origin of gravity.  So yes, God is indirectly, ultimately, the required explanation for water running downhill.

BUT....you evolutionists don't accept that.  For you, God is NOT the required explanation, not even indirectly or ultimately, for water running downhill, or water erosion producing the Grand Canyon.

Why not?  Because if you DO suddenly decide to announce that God is indirectly, ultimately, a required explanation for water running downhill, you immediately run into the Futuyma textbook-taught roadblock:  
Supernatural causes cannot be the subject of science
...which so many of you (including yourself) have agreed to.

So if you were somehow hoping to draw up some kind of analogy with evolution using the water-running-downhill thing as God-as-indirect-ultimate-explanation., that's BLOCKED at this time.  

Unless you are ready to admit supernatural causation as a legitimate subject of science, that is.  And teleology a la mode.  (And God knows what else!).

FloydLee

Floyd, you are projecting again, and lying about people you don't even know.  That is a sin.

You have, once again, made our point for us - and disproved your point 1.  Let's examine what you said:

Quote
Yes, God is the required explanation for the origin of water.  Likewise for the origin of gravity.  So yes, God is indirectly, ultimately, the required explanation for water running downhill.
And God is, at least in my opinion, ultimately responsible for evolution.  It is exactly the same case.

Quote
BUT....you evolutionists don't accept that.  For you, God is NOT the required explanation, not even indirectly or ultimately, for water running downhill, or water erosion producing the Grand Canyon.

But why does that matter?  Once again, you are showing no grasp of logic.  Let me show you how simple this is:

1. Evolutionary theory is silent on the question of God.

2. Some people who accept evolutionary theory are atheists, they do not see God as the ultimate cause.

3. Some people who accept evolutionary theory are theists, we do see God as the ultimate cause.

The beliefs of the person who accepts the theory are not relevant to the accuracy or utility of the theory, nor to it's compatibility with God.

You have already conceded this point with your comments about water running downhill.

I am a Christian; I see no incompatibility between evolutionary theory and Christian doctrine.

You have been unable to demonstrate any such incompatibility; you are merely pointing out that atheists don't believe God is the ultimate cause of evolution.  We knew that to start with.

Not everyone who accepts evolutionary theory is an atheist.  Do you see that, Floyd?

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

Pages: (100) < ... 35 36 37 38 39 [40] 41 42 43 44 45 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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