RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (100) < 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... >   
  Topic: FL "Debate Thread", READ FIRST POST BEFORE PARTICIPATING PLZ< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,14:17   

I said it before.

Quote
I'd ask for definitions of three of the five words in the proposition "evolution is incompatible with christianity" before I even ventured an answer.

Possible answers include:

1) Yes

2) Some individuals seem to manage the cognitive dissonance just fine.

3) No

All depends on what you mean by "evolution", or "incompatible", or "christianity". I've yet to see many serious attempts at resolving this (or the large question of science being incompatible with religion) which don't equivocate on terms. In fact most of them equivocate so horrendously as to be vomit worthy.

Louis


And I'll say it again. I'll even modify 2) with an addendum that some people formulate their personal theology in such a way that no discernible dissonance exists.

If FL is not pinned down on what he means, he'll hide behind equivocation as he is trying to do now.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Amadan



Posts: 1244
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,14:26   

Floyd,

Is it premature to suggest that this discussion will not move beyond the position that "evolution" (however defined) is indeed incompatible with Christianity as you understand it, but that your understanding of Christianity is not shared by (a) theists who loiter in this forum* and (b) the large number of sects and religious leaders who have been cited and referred to by all and sundry?

Your four "incompatibilities" involve questions of theology and exegetics that are of no interest to many here who prefer to focus on science and mutual defamation. (They also raise issues of logic and rationality but frankly, mah deah, I don't give a damn, it's your religion, not mine). The emerging pattern in which someone points out that x is a Christian who does not reject evolutionary theory, simply leads to you sniping at their assertion or ignoring it. This will go nowhere unless all agree on a meaning of "Christianity". History suggests that may be difficult.

If you agree, we can then address your second point, namely, whether ID is science. That too, of course, involves questions of definitions, but I think there's rather more solid ground to go on there.

Do you agree?


* Mugging grannies, mostly

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,14:37   

Quote
Yeah, and it was only directed at you 4 days ago.

Hey, you can afford to be patient.  I remind you that you have not yet chosen to directly deal with each of the Big Four Incompatibilities.  I was honestly expecting more from you, but you're not making the effort.  Meanwhile:
Quote
Argument from Consequences.....
Arguing that a proposition is true because belief in it has good consequences, or that it is false because belief in it has bad consequences is ***often*** an irrelevancy.


"Often"---but not always, according to the writer of the piece.  That is really important.

You've been presented with a total of five self-testimonies in which a former Christian has clearly suffered "bad consequences" to their Christian faith (erosion, corrosion, even to the point of dropping their Christian faith and/or continuing in that decision) as a self-confessed partial or indirect result of their belief in evolution.  

I've already suggested that in isolation, none of these cases constitute "proof" that evolution is incompatible with Christianity.  However, they DO show that the incompatibility problem is real and relevant, not hypothetical, not imaginary, and that real people are affected.  

Furthermore, the five examples have been combined with four very clear and documented rational incompatibilities.  These further reinforce the relevancy, and show that the erosion of Christian faith, as demonstrated in the examples, could rationally be based on a very real set of incompatibilities between evolution and Christianity.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10116
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,14:42   

Floyd, you fail or refuse to understand: Arguments to consequences are based on the fact that reality is not contingent on our approval. It's what *is*, not what we'd *like*.

'If X then my version christianity can't be true' does not let you reject x because you really want your version of Christianity to be true. I like donuts. But they make me fat. I can't say 'donuts wont me make fat because they're so nice'.

How about this flip flop:

"Religion causes man to kill man so religion isn't true, because I don't like the concequences."

Why isn't that true?

--------------
"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

  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,14:53   

[quote=FloydLee,Sep. 18 2009,12:58][/quote]
Quote
Quote
1. The Pope is a Christian.

2. The Pope holds that evolution happens.

3. Therefore, Evolution is compatible with Christianity.

A simple three-line proof.

So, let's check out this "proof".  Let's ask a few questions.  Better yet, let's just ask one question.

What exactly does (1) have to do with (2)?

Note carefully:  It is entirely possible, according to your 3-point set-up, that the Pope is affirming that "evolution happens" even though it creates a conflict with his personal belief in Christianity.  That would kinda wreck the claim of "proof."

(After all, you'll notice that nowhere in your e-point set-up did you actually claim that the Pope says that evolution is compatible with Christianity, nor is any evidence provided by the Pope to support such a claim, nor does the Pope offer any specific resolutions of any of the Big Four Incompatibilities.)

FloydLee


It would appear, Floyd, that your claim needs to be reworded since clearly you aren't claiming that evolution is incompatible with Christianity. Evolution is, according to the proof above, absolutely compatible with Christianity (even your conservative take on it). What you have now indicated is that evolution doesn't incorporate a conclusion of literal-based Christianity. That strikes me as a rather different issue.

--------------
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: Sep. 18 2009,15:06   

Quote
You've been presented with a total of five self-testimonies in which a former Christian has clearly suffered "bad consequences" to their Christian faith (erosion, corrosion, even to the point of dropping their Christian faith and/or continuing in that decision) as a self-confessed partial or indirect result of their belief in evolution.


Hold the phone - you haven't yet provided any evidence that the erosion of one's Christian faith is somehow "bad" in any relative sense. As I noted earlier, the data seems to indicate otherwise. That people leaving the Christian Church is bad for the Church might be true, but there's no evidence of which I'm aware that suggests that a diminishing of the Christian Church is bad in any kind of general sense. Until you establish such, the 5 examples remain just an appeal to consequence that has no value to the argument. Even combined with your question begging doesn't raise them to a level of providing correlative implications of an incompatibility between Christianity and evolution. All they indicate is that the 5 people's experiences provided a foundation of understanding about the world such that they no longer needed Christianity to find comfort in the world or their lives.

Seems to me that if anything, your issue should be that Christianity is clearly incompatible with peace of mind with the knowledge of the world the way it is. Feel free to argue that point

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

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 554
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,15:20   

Quote (Dan @ Sep. 18 2009,13:03)
FL claims that evolution is unteleological and Christianity is teleological, hence evolution is incompatible with Christianity.

If this argument were correct, then Newtonian mechanics would also be incompatible with Christianity.

If this argument were correct, reality would be incompatible with Christianity. But FL's basic issue is that he thinks reality is wrong, and is annoyed that anyone is allowed to disagree with him.

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,15:35   

Quote
I'd ask for definitions of three of the five words in the proposition "evolution is incompatible with christianity" before I even ventured an answer.

Well, we've already defined evolution.  I'm using Campbell-Reece's 2005 textbook definition of macroevolution and microevolution, (previously posted earlier), if anybody here has a question about what's being used when.  

(As you know, many evolutionists often use the word "evolution" without even defining the term.)

You already know what compatible/incompatible means, because some of you are tryin' real hard not to accept that evolution is incompatible with Christianity.

And honestly?  You have a pretty good idea already of the beliefs that are involved with biblical Christianity and I've been careful to relate EACH of the four incompatibilities to a specific and important biblical Christian belief (God-as-required-explanation-for-origins, the Image-Of-God, etc.)

A basic definition of Christianity, indeed becoming a Christian, is as easy to do as reading and understanding John 3:16.  So it's no problem doing a basic definition, just look up one of the online dictionaries.

But like I said, I've already shown where each incompatibility corresponds to a foundational biblical Christian belief.

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,15:46   

Quote
....some people formulate their personal theology in such a way that no discernible dissonance exists.


Who are these people, specifically?  Are there any in this forum that would be willing to offer such a theology?  (And does the non-discernable dissonance suddenly show up when a Bible is brought to the table?)

  
ppb



Posts: 325
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,15:47   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 18 2009,16:35)
A basic definition of Christianity, indeed becoming a Christian, is as easy to do as reading and understanding John 3:16.

If becoming a Christian is as easy as reading and understanding John 3:16, then where is the conflict with Evolution?  There is nothing in that passage that mentions anything about origins.

--------------
"[A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd."
- Richard P. Feynman

  
Reed



Posts: 274
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,15:56   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 18 2009,12:37)
You've been presented with a total of five self-testimonies in which a former Christian has clearly suffered "bad consequences" to their Christian faith (erosion, corrosion, even to the point of dropping their Christian faith and/or continuing in that decision) as a self-confessed partial or indirect result of their belief in evolution.  

So what ? You can find people who will testify that to many different things eroded their faith. A few examples
- Careful reading of the bible.
- Witnessing suffering and loss of life.
- Witnessing hypocrisy in their church.
- Noticing contradiction between various doctrines and the real world.

Are all these things "incompatible" with Christianity ?

Yes, some people have found evolution to be incompatible with their particular brand of christian faith. This does not provide evidence that evolution is inherently incompatible with any form of Christianity.
 
Quote

You already know what compatible/incompatible means, because some of you are tryin' real hard not to accept that evolution is incompatible with Christianity.

No, we don't know what you mean by incompatible. It's clear that you aren't using the definition most of us would expect (outlined by dan in http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....t=6313; st=30#entry153334 ), because if you were, the simple existence of Christians who accept evolution would disprove your point. Since you say this is not so, we can only assume you are using some different definition.

So go ahead, tell us exactly what you mean by "incompatible"

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,16:10   

Quote
What you have now indicated is that evolution doesn't incorporate a conclusion of literal-based Christianity. That strikes me as a rather different issue.


That's not what was said in the 3-point set-up.  There was no qualifier of "literal-based" given in the alleged "proof."

The problem with that set-up that breaks down the claim of "a proof" is that just because the Pope says "evolution happened", there is no automatic rational linkage there with the statement "the Pope is a Christian."  THAT line, is maybe what should have been worded differently if the idea was to "prove" compatibility.

  
Sealawr



Posts: 54
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,16:33   

Floyd Lee equivocates as prophesied:

"...biblical Christianity..."

As opposed to other kinds of Christianity?  [See e.g., Catholic position above]

Can we just define "Biblical Christianity" as "Floyd's personal beliefs?"  and "Non- biblical christianity" as Catholic, Methodist, Episcopalian, Lutheran and Orthodox?"

Unless you restrict yourself to "typical" "orthodox" Christianity as distinguished from yoru uh-"unique" beliefs, you have simply invoked the "No True Scotsman" fallacy and meaningful conversation must end.

--------------
DS: "The explantory filter is as robust as the data that is used with it."
David Klinghoffer: ""I'm an IDiot"

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4238
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,16:42   

A persistent source of confusion arises from the conflation of the question of whether "Christianity is consistent with evolution" with the question of whether "belief in Christianity is consistent with belief in evolution."

It is beyond dispute that some persons who have thought very deeply about the issues believe both the main assertions of Christianity and the main facts of evolution. The assertion "belief in Christianity is not consistent with belief in evolution," which is primarily a question of contingent individual psychology, is therefore refuted. That discussion is over.

What remains is the question, one level down, of whether the main assertions of Christianity are compatible with the main facts of natural history.

FL: Given your commitment to the fundamental incompatibility of these two viewpoints, your only remaining moves are to dispute the scientific consensus regarding natural history, or revise or jettison your construal of Christianity. You choose the former.

That makes you yet one more tiresome science denier.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 554
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,16:46   

Quote (Sealawr @ Sep. 18 2009,17:33)
Floyd Lee equivocates as prophesied:

"...biblical Christianity..."

As opposed to other kinds of Christianity?  [See e.g., Catholic position above]

Can we just define "Biblical Christianity" as "Floyd's personal beliefs?"  and "Non- biblical christianity" as Catholic, Methodist, Episcopalian, Lutheran and Orthodox?"

Unless you restrict yourself to "typical" "orthodox" Christianity as distinguished from yoru uh-"unique" beliefs, you have simply invoked the "No True Scotsman" fallacy and meaningful conversation must end.

Can you point me to where it started?  I'm lost.

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 554
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,16:51   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 18 2009,16:46)
Quote
....some people formulate their personal theology in such a way that no discernible dissonance exists.


Who are these people, specifically?  Are there any in this forum that would be willing to offer such a theology?  (And does the non-discernable dissonance suddenly show up when a Bible is brought to the table?)

Floyd's throwing down the gauntlet.  He's 100% sure that you can't give an example of a Christian who accepts evolution, whom he cannot dismiss as being not-a-True FL-Approved Christian™*

---

*All rights reserved, the Floyd Lee Boring Fundy Apologetics Co. Inc.

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
Dan



Posts: 77
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,17:13   

Quote (JohnW @ Sep. 18 2009,13:28)
   
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 18 2009,10:58)
     
Quote
1. The Pope is a Christian.

2. The Pope holds that evolution happens.

3. Therefore, Evolution is compatible with Christianity.

A simple three-line proof.

So, let's check out this "proof".  Let's ask a few questions.  Better yet, let's just ask one question.

What exactly does (1) have to do with (2)?

Note carefully:  It is entirely possible, according to your 3-point set-up, that the Pope is affirming that "evolution happens" even though it creates a conflict with his personal belief in Christianity.  That would kinda wreck the claim of "proof."

(After all, you'll notice that nowhere in your e-point set-up did you actually claim that the Pope says that evolution is compatible with Christianity, nor is any evidence provided by the Pope to support such a claim, nor does the Pope offer any specific resolutions of any of the Big Four Incompatibilities.)

FloydLee

(1) doesn't have to have anything to do with (2).  Your argument is whether the two are compatible, not whether they offer support to each other.

Consider, hypothetically:

1. The Pope is a Christian.
2. The Pope plays football.
3. Therefore, football is compatible with Christianity.

This does not imply that there is anything about football in the bible*, or that playing football is a religious act.  It simply means it's possible to be a Christian and a footballer.



* Although, since Jesus saves, we can infer that he's a goalkeeper.


Thanks, JohnW.  That's very similar to what I would have said, but you said it better than I would have.

The counterfactual that FL casually mentions doesn't "kinda wreck the proof".  In fact, would be kind of irrelevant even if it were true.  (It's not.)

I repeat:  FL has said a lot of things about his opinions, but he has not yet addressed the topic of this debate, which concerns the fact that evolution is compatible with Christianity.

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,17:41   

Quote
If becoming a Christian is as easy as reading and understanding John 3:16, then where is the conflict with Evolution?  There is nothing in that passage that mentions anything about origins.

I suspected somebody might try to respond in that manner.  Here is the issue:  there are Christian beliefs that are foundational even to John 3:16, even.  They're quite important and can't be blown off.

For example, you know that John 3:16 presumes theism.  There's no way an ATHEIST can do John 3:16 without first giving up atheism.  Theism is foundational to John 3:16, even if a person doesn't even know how to spell the word theism.  Theism is foundational to Christianity.  

Well, there's some OTHER biblical beliefs that are foundational to Christianity too.  Deny these other biblical beliefs--and as we've seen already in four areas, evolution DOES deny them--and you are effectively eroding, corroding, undercutting Christian belief.  

Doesn't mean necessarily that you're not a Christian, but goodness, look at that danger and damage, that potential to erode and corrode important beliefs---and look at the people who are no longer holding on to the Christian faith you're holding on to, people for whom the damage is already done.

And that's happening right now.

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,17:53   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 18 2009,17:41)
Well, there's some OTHER biblical beliefs that are foundational to Christianity too.  Deny these other biblical beliefs--and as we've seen already in four areas, evolution DOES deny them--and you are effectively eroding, corroding, undercutting Christian belief.  

Doesn't mean necessarily that you're not a Christian, but goodness, look at that danger and damage, that potential to erode and corrode important beliefs---and look at the people who are no longer holding on to the Christian faith you're holding on to, people for whom the damage is already done.

And that's happening right now.

Please explain to us how acceptance of evolution has eroded and corroded Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul.

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,17:56   

Quote
(prior statement)
"....some people formulate their personal theology in such a way that no discernible dissonance exists."

(my response)
"Who are these people, specifically?  Are there any in this forum that would be willing to offer such a theology?"

I'm repeating this snippet for you, Occam.  Notice:  a specific claim was made by a poster.  Very clear.

I'm just asking who are those "some people" the poster had in mind, that happens to fit that very specific wording.  

I'm ALSO asking if there are any Christians in THIS forum who fit that specific wording and would like to demonstrate it by sharing their own personal theology.  

How about you, Nmgirl?  I think you said that you were a Christian.   Would you be willing to share your personal theology so we can examine and see if there's "no discernable dissonance" between evolution and Christianity within your chosen theology?  

(Btw, any other Christians in this forum want to join her in that effort?)

FloydLee

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 554
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,18:06   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 18 2009,18:56)
Quote
(prior statement)
"....some people formulate their personal theology in such a way that no discernible dissonance exists."

(my response)
"Who are these people, specifically?  Are there any in this forum that would be willing to offer such a theology?"

I'm repeating this snippet for you, Occam.  Notice:  a specific claim was made by a poster.  Very clear.

I'm just asking who are those "some people" the poster had in mind, that happens to fit that very specific wording.  

I'm ALSO asking if there are any Christians in THIS forum who fit that specific wording and would like to demonstrate it by sharing their own personal theology.  

How about you, Nmgirl?  I think you said that you were a Christian.   Would you be willing to share your personal theology so we can examine and see if there's "no discernable dissonance" between evolution and Christianity within your chosen theology?  

(Btw, any other Christians in this forum want to join her in that effort?)

FloydLee

Once again, Floyd is confident that there's no Christian he cannot dismiss from that faith if it suits him, since in his mind Christianity consists of exactly what he says it consists of, nothing more, nothing less, nothing else. He's challenging people to claim they're Christians, but he'll be the judge of that.

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
ppb



Posts: 325
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,18:06   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 18 2009,18:41)
Quote
If becoming a Christian is as easy as reading and understanding John 3:16, then where is the conflict with Evolution?  There is nothing in that passage that mentions anything about origins.

I suspected somebody might try to respond in that manner.  Here is the issue:  there are Christian beliefs that are foundational even to John 3:16, even.  They're quite important and can't be blown off.

For example, you know that John 3:16 presumes theism.  There's no way an ATHEIST can do John 3:16 without first giving up atheism.  Theism is foundational to John 3:16, even if a person doesn't even know how to spell the word theism.  Theism is foundational to Christianity.  

Well, there's some OTHER biblical beliefs that are foundational to Christianity too.  Deny these other biblical beliefs--and as we've seen already in four areas, evolution DOES deny them--and you are effectively eroding, corroding, undercutting Christian belief.  

Doesn't mean necessarily that you're not a Christian, but goodness, look at that danger and damage, that potential to erode and corrode important beliefs---and look at the people who are no longer holding on to the Christian faith you're holding on to, people for whom the damage is already done.

And that's happening right now.

OK, so now you're saying it's not quite so simple.  I agree with what Louis said, that without defining the terms "Christian" and "Evolution" there is not much point in debating.  I think any definition you come up with is going to be open to dispute.  As I stated early on, I have no interest in getting into a discussion of theology.  I'll wait around for the science, should it ever come up.

--------------
"[A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd."
- Richard P. Feynman

  
nmgirl



Posts: 92
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,19:01   

FL. here is my belief.  I think your YEC literalist beliefs limit God to what I call a "poof moment": God got bored and made the universe.  

I believe that 12 + billion years ago God made the universe and all the processes in it.  When the earth cooled and was conducive to life, life appeared in microbes and then continued to expand and change.  God created this marvelous process so that no matter the conditions, life has survived all the changes in the planet.  Whether snowball earth in the pre cambrian, the swamps of the carboniferous or the red deserts of the permian and triassic, there was always life.  Despite meteorites, earthquakes, volcanoes, floods (not THE flood you believe in)there is always life.  We have ecosystems that don't even depend on oxygen and sunlight to survive.

Why God decided to bless our species with a soul, I don't know. Maybe it's the opposable thumbs that mean we can write.  Maybe its our ability to communicate with each other.   I believe he sent his son to us and that Jesus died for us.  that belief has nothing to do with how our bodies came to be.

I'm not a theologian and no debater.  I can't quote scripture by the page.  I just believe in God . . . and evolution.

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1005
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,21:21   

Hey, FL!

Long time, no mock!

How about that Noah's Flood water?  Figured out where it came from and where it went?

I'm dying to know!

(Not getting any younger, if you get my continental drift.)

  
csadams



Posts: 124
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,22:29   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 18 2009,17:56)
(Btw, any other Christians in this forum want to join her in that effort?)

FloydLee

F*** off, FL.  You know damn good and well there are Christians who're 'here' and who accept evolution.  And, as you're not my husband, my minister, or a close friend, I don't intend to discuss this with you, even more so since you're so prone to deliberately misrepresenting the words and actions of others.

--------------
Stand Up For REAL Science!

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,22:58   

Quote (k.e.. @ Sep. 18 2009,11:54)
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 18 2009,18:13)
Actually, another way of looking at Ricky Gervais' story (in a more chronological fashion) is that (if he received no exposure at all to evolution prior to losing his faith) is that he made an immature (8 years old), irrational decision.
(After all, exactly how does one's brother asking 'why do you believe in God' followed by Mom's shushing up said brother, rationally add up to a warrant for believing in atheism?)

In this case, a child made a tragic, unsupported decision to disbelieve in God.  Yet, as Gervais himself makes clear, that decision to jump into atheism did NOT rationally satisfy him -- he was aware that his atheism wasn't by itself providing any reason for his existence.

He could have said (in age-appropriate language), "My athiesm has failed to offer me a reason for being, for my existence, therefore I honestly don't have a rational warrant for hanging on to such a belief."  No intellectual fulfillment was being provided.

But nope.  EVOLUTION becomes his savior.  Evolution becomes the glue that reinforces his atheism in place, blinding him to his need to abandon it.

Btw, just like atheism, evolution didn't give him any reason for existence either -- but as you see from his remarks, NOW he's been anesthestized (via evolution) and no longer cares about that question which used to be important to find an answer to.

He's slid so far down via his comforting evolution-belief that he "no longer need a reason for his existence, only a reason to live."  

Evolution has thus robbed him of his motivation to move past his tragic irrational decision made when he was merely 8 years old, a decision which has placed his soul in jeopardy.

So here you can see that same sort of evolution-greases-the-slide action taking place in yet another life.  
Again, by itself, that doesn't prove evolution's incompatibility with Christianity.  

But added up with all the others, it shows that Christians have a REAL problem (affecting real people) on their hands with that incompability issue, and that it's necessarily to consider the issue very seriously.

And yet another way of looking at it is that FL is a talentless twit and mentioning Gervais somehow makes FL in his own mind less of one.

Face it FL as a shoe salesman you suck.

You, Sir, are no Al Bundy.

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

  
k.e..



Posts: 2883
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2009,01:20   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 19 2009,06:58)
Quote (k.e.. @ Sep. 18 2009,11:54)
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 18 2009,18:13)
Actually, another way of looking at Ricky Gervais' story (in a more chronological fashion) is that (if he received no exposure at all to evolution prior to losing his faith) is that he made an immature (8 years old), irrational decision.
(After all, exactly how does one's brother asking 'why do you believe in God' followed by Mom's shushing up said brother, rationally add up to a warrant for believing in atheism?)

In this case, a child made a tragic, unsupported decision to disbelieve in God.  Yet, as Gervais himself makes clear, that decision to jump into atheism did NOT rationally satisfy him -- he was aware that his atheism wasn't by itself providing any reason for his existence.

He could have said (in age-appropriate language), "My athiesm has failed to offer me a reason for being, for my existence, therefore I honestly don't have a rational warrant for hanging on to such a belief."  No intellectual fulfillment was being provided.

But nope.  EVOLUTION becomes his savior.  Evolution becomes the glue that reinforces his atheism in place, blinding him to his need to abandon it.

Btw, just like atheism, evolution didn't give him any reason for existence either -- but as you see from his remarks, NOW he's been anesthestized (via evolution) and no longer cares about that question which used to be important to find an answer to.

He's slid so far down via his comforting evolution-belief that he "no longer need a reason for his existence, only a reason to live."  

Evolution has thus robbed him of his motivation to move past his tragic irrational decision made when he was merely 8 years old, a decision which has placed his soul in jeopardy.

So here you can see that same sort of evolution-greases-the-slide action taking place in yet another life.  
Again, by itself, that doesn't prove evolution's incompatibility with Christianity.  

But added up with all the others, it shows that Christians have a REAL problem (affecting real people) on their hands with that incompability issue, and that it's necessarily to consider the issue very seriously.

And yet another way of looking at it is that FL is a talentless twit and mentioning Gervais somehow makes FL in his own mind less of one.

Face it FL as a shoe salesman you suck.

You, Sir, are no Al Bundy.

No?

I think I'll wait for Heddles report after his next phone call to god.


BTW WTF is Heddle?

He was just getting warmed up to goose FL and just fizzed out.

Bloddy Calvanists they just can't be relied on for a good roasting after their last outing.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2009,07:09   

Reciprocating Bill gets it.

FL doesn't.

Colour me shocked.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
heddle



Posts: 124
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2009,07:31   

Quote (k.e.. @ Sep. 19 2009,01:20)

BTW WTF is Heddle?

He was just getting warmed up to goose FL and just fizzed out.

Bloddy Calvanists they just can't be relied on for a good roasting after their last outing.

He hasn't yet responded to my criticism, unless I missed it. Geez, k.e., before you expressed a "yawn" at the prospect of a theological debate, and now you are accusing me of a Dembski-like Sir Robining. Make up that drug-addled, alcohol-saturated, tropical-disease infected  organ that you call a mind! POMO!

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

  
k.e..



Posts: 2883
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2009,07:57   

Quote (heddle @ Sep. 19 2009,15:31)
Quote (k.e.. @ Sep. 19 2009,01:20)

BTW WTF is Heddle?

He was just getting warmed up to goose FL and just fizzed out.

Bloddy Calvanists they just can't be relied on for a good roasting after their last outing.

He hasn't yet responded to my criticism, unless I missed it. Geez, k.e., before you expressed a "yawn" at the prospect of a theological debate, and now you are accusing me of a Dembski-like Sir Robining. Make up that drug-addled, alcohol-saturated, tropical-disease infected  organ that you call a mind! POMO!

THAT'S MORE LIKE IT!

I'LL EVEN OFFER A NOTPOLOGY. I'D GIVE YOU BOOK ODDS ON FAVORITE TO WIN AGAINST FL ANY DAY CONSIDERING THE BIG CHEESE HIMSELF IS ON YOUR SIDE.

AS FAR AS THE ADDLED BRAIN IS CONCERNED ....NOTHING DRUGS CAN'T CURE.
AND LEAVE MY ORGAN OUT OF IT, IT'S PINING FOR AFRICA.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

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

Pages: (100) < 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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