RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

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



Posts: 10130
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 17 2009,11:11   

Floyd,
If reality is at odds with your interpretation of a book, then at least one of these is true:

Reality is wrong
Your interpretation is wrong
Your book is wrong

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

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 17 2009,11:12   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 17 2009,11:07)
(1) start educating themselves (and their fellow Christians, and their clergy and teachers and choir memebers and Sunday School and CCIA groups) with the specific details of how evolution is incompatible with Christianity and is eroding and corroding Christian faith.
Like how the Pope really isn't a Christian?

Quote
(2) start supporting positive Science Education Reform by initiating and supporting positive, critical-thinking-oriented changes in State Science Standards such as what Louisiana and Texas have successfully accomplished.   THAT's the way to do things right!

FloydLee
Then explain why Texas and Louisiana are "successful" if their science education programs rank the very worst in the nation.

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 554
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 17 2009,11:27   

Quote
You won't see public claims of:

"Meteorology does not admit conscious anticipation of the future (ie consious forethought)..."

"Physics is a completely mindless process..."

"(Chemistry and the Brain) -- With all deference to religious people, the notion that humans were created in the image of God can be set aside."

"Astronomy rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations."

No.  No sir.   These kinds of public pronouncements are found only within--and are inherently part of-- EVOLUTION.  Evolution is incompatible with Christianity

Non-involvement of supernatural causation isn't an entailment of evolutionary theory any more than it is an entailment of theories of meterology or chemistry.  None of these theories include supernatural causation, because no evidence for such has been found, and because each discipline continues to advance and expand without it (and in the case of biology, repeatedly explaining many that-which-science-cannot-explain questions your intellectual predecessors used in their anti-evolution arguments).  

What you're arguing against is statements by individuals about what they think or believe--statements which I doubt you could find many examples of, had religious activists not spent the last 150 years insisting there must be supernatural involvement in biology (as they generally do not with the other disciplines), and accusing biologists of culpability for everything from bad breath to Hitler for their crime of following wherever the evidence leads.  

You may wish to believe evolution is wrong, or that it is partially correct but your god was involved at some point--go ahead; just admit you're doing so without the kind of evidence you require of any other branch of science.  But either way there's nothing about the science of evolution that says a god couldn't have been involved, so you're really just arguing with the opinions of individuals, not the scientific framework of evolution.  Once you come up with real, verifiable evidence of supernatural involvement, I promise you'll win a Nobel prize and your evidence will be integrated into the theory.  Deal?

--------------
"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. 17 2009,12:47   

Quote
What you're arguing against is statements by individuals about what they think or believe...

Actually, Futuyma's statement of NT-NCF in his evolutionary biology textbook was directly ascribed to "evolutionary theory" itself, NOT to Futuyma's individual or personal opinion:
 
Quote
"Evolutionary theory does not admit...."

Furthermore, there are so many evolutionists saying and teaching "Evolution has no goal"  (for example, Futuyma, Mayr, Coyne's Why Evolution is True, and Biology 391 Online at Univ. of Tenn. at Martin),
that at this point you'd need to show that such a statement was merely a matter of individual opinion instead of the clear solid no-waffling position of evolutionary theory itself.

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 17 2009,12:48   

Quote
Reality is wrong
Your interpretation is wrong
Your book is wrong

....Or perhaps somebody's naturalistic interpretation of reality is wrong?

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10130
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 17 2009,12:58   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 17 2009,12:48)
Quote
Reality is wrong
Your interpretation is wrong
Your book is wrong

....Or perhaps somebody's naturalistic interpretation of reality is wrong?

Hate to break this to you floyd, but if you doubt naturalism, cause and effect, the uniformity of nature etc. then your book is also up for grabs. Infact, better not read it again incase it eats you, which could happen in 'your world'.

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

  
Keelyn



Posts: 40
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 17 2009,13:03   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 17 2009,13:48)
Quote
Reality is wrong
Your interpretation is wrong
Your book is wrong

....Or perhaps somebody's naturalistic interpretation of reality is wrong?


It is just so typical of a YEC to make a ridiculous statement like that.

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

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

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 17 2009,13:34   

Quote
To phrase a coin, that's not even halibut.

You sure about that, Amadan?  Stop by the main debate board and supply some actual reasons (preferably specific reasons) for your assertion there.  Thanks!

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 554
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 17 2009,14:03   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 17 2009,13:47)
     
Quote
What you're arguing against is statements by individuals about what they think or believe...

Actually, Futuyma's statement of NT-NCF in his evolutionary biology textbook was directly ascribed to "evolutionary theory" itself, NOT to Futuyma's individual or personal opinion:
         
Quote
"Evolutionary theory does not admit...."

Furthermore, there are so many evolutionists saying and teaching "Evolution has no goal"  (for example, Futuyma, Mayr, Coyne's Why Evolution is True, and Biology 391 Online at Univ. of Tenn. at Martin),
that at this point you'd need to show that such a statement was merely a matter of individual opinion instead of the clear solid no-waffling position of evolutionary theory itself.

None of this refutes what I said.  "Evolutionary theory does NOT admit conscious anticipation of the future, i.e. conscious forethought" because there is no evidence that it does, just as meterological theories don't admit conscious forethought due to the absence of evidence of that.  Evolutionary theory doesn't deny the possibility that evidence of teleology could be presented, but you certainly haven't presented any.

Like I said, present that evidence and it will be integrated into the theory.  They'll have to change the name of the theory, and maybe it will be named after you, but it will be included. The fact that you can't supply any, and that you and your ilk spend all your time complaining about imaginary shortcomings of evolution and zero actually looking for evidence, speaks volumes.  You would have your superstitions included in what we describe as "science" by fiat, but the fact is you have no real interest in science and would rather destroy knowledge than create it.

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

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4362
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 17 2009,14:07   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 17 2009,13:34)
Quote
To phrase a coin, that's not even halibut.

You sure about that, Amadan?  Stop by the main debate board and supply some actual reasons (preferably specific reasons) for your assertion there.  Thanks!

My money's on the Irish fella.  I think we know a little something about religious wars troubles.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
someotherguy



Posts: 367
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 17 2009,14:16   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 17 2009,10:07)
Quote
doesn't the Bible at times refer to natural weather phenomenon as being under the control of God, yet modern meteorology does not make room for the kinds of teleological processes written about in the Bible.  In what real sense then is meteorology more compatible with Christianity than evolutionary biology?


The big difference is that if you will go to a meteorology textbook, or a physics textbook, or a chemistry science journal article, you will see that they are SILENT on the issue of teleology.  

You will NOT see them denying teleology, instead they just stay silent and stick to whatever they can back up with science.   You won't see public claims of:

"Meteorology does not admit conscious anticipation of the future (ie consious forethought)..."

"Physics is a completely mindless process..."

"(Chemistry and the Brain) -- With all deference to religious people, the notion that humans were created in the image of God can be set aside."

"Astronomy rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations."

No.  No sir.   These kinds of public pronouncements are found only within--and are inherently part of-- EVOLUTION.  Evolution is incompatible with Christianity.

FloydLee

Your comment has already been addressed by others, but I have a question.  

If all the Evolutionary Biology textbooks take out any overt statements about teleology like the ones you listed below (note:  this would not include taking out explanations for how natural selection and mutation work), which would then make the textbooks just as "silent" on the issue of teleology as the other sciences, would you then concede that evolution is compatible with Christianity?  If not, why not?

--------------
Evolander in training

  
SLP



Posts: 136
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 17 2009,14:35   

never mind

  
SLP



Posts: 136
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 17 2009,14:38   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 17 2009,11:07)

Floyd wrotes:
Quote

Nope, the schools should NOT stop teaching those science subjects, not even stop teaching biology, not even stop using the canned Darwin Dogma Dogfood textbooks that they're using right now.



I say to that:

S'mo fo butter layin' to the bone. Jackin' me up. Tightly.
What it is big mamma, my mamma didn't raise no dummy, I dug her rap.

  
Dale_Husband



Posts: 118
Joined: April 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 17 2009,14:45   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 17 2009,10:07)
 
Quote
doesn't the Bible at times refer to natural weather phenomenon as being under the control of God, yet modern meteorology does not make room for the kinds of teleological processes written about in the Bible.  In what real sense then is meteorology more compatible with Christianity than evolutionary biology?


The big difference is that if you will go to a meteorology textbook, or a physics textbook, or a chemistry science journal article, you will see that they are SILENT on the issue of teleology.  

You will NOT see them denying teleology, instead they just stay silent and stick to whatever they can back up with science.   You won't see public claims of:

"Meteorology does not admit conscious anticipation of the future (ie consious forethought)..."

"Physics is a completely mindless process..."

"(Chemistry and the Brain) -- With all deference to religious people, the notion that humans were created in the image of God can be set aside."

"Astronomy rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations."

No.  No sir.   These kinds of public pronouncements are found only within--and are inherently part of-- EVOLUTION.  Evolution is incompatible with Christianity.

FloydLee

Actually, ALL parts of science rely on methological naturalism, not just evolution. It's just that religious fanatics like you keep asserting, without any real evidence, that life could not have arisen without supernatural intervention. In science, the proper answer to that question is, "We do not know yet."  You no longer assert that God controls the weather for two reasons:

1. It makes you look totally rediculous to do so, since the causes of changing weather patterns ARE well known and have been for decades.

2. When storms, droughts, heat waves and floods occur, it makes God look evil to say He is responsible for them.


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

   
Dale_Husband



Posts: 118
Joined: April 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 17 2009,14:55   

When you read the Sermon on the Mount, does it say anything against evolution? Not that I've ever seen. Isn't following its teachings and other statements by Jesus what being a Christian is all about? Isn't being a Christian about following Jesus, not following some particular interpretation that assumes the Genesis creation myths are literally true?

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

   
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 554
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 17 2009,14:56   

Quote
at this point you'd need to show that such a statement was merely a matter of individual opinion instead of the clear solid no-waffling position of evolutionary theory itself
Evolutionary theory doesn't entail the conclusions you claim those scientists ascribe to it, and I don't need to explain why individual people said specific things in order to state that there's nothing about the theory that precludes teleology.  The fact that the theory does not currently contain teleology is a different issue.  

There are an endless number of things one could complain are not included in a given theory, but every single one of those is excluded not by dogma and orthodoxy but because of the lack of evidence for them.  Provide the evidence for teleology, for ID, for whatever you can support with evidence and a falsifiable hyopthesis that withstands vigorous testing, and it will have to be included.  You aren't even trying, and neither are any of your IDC betters.  What's the hypothesis?  You don't have one and I predict you never will.  

I think you can't accept this because you can only think in terms of dogma and orthodoxy (your obsession here with defining who is and is not a True Christian is exhibit #1), and so can only conceive of evolution in those terms.  Your sad Jebus-vs-whatever culture war is the only thing you know, and the only thing you care about, when it comes to your thinking about science and evolution.

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

  
Reed



Posts: 274
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 17 2009,15:33   

I know others have already addressed this, but I feel the need to pile on.
   
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 17 2009,08:07)
The big difference is that if you will go to a meteorology textbook, or a physics textbook, or a chemistry science journal article, you will see that they are SILENT on the issue of teleology.  

Any theory invoking supernatural explanations in any of these fields would be immediately be rejected as unscientific. If you are in a meteorology class, and on your quiz is a question that asks "Describe how thunderstorms form" answering "the wrath of Thor" will get you an F. So will "an unspecified, intelligent and possibly supernatural entity causes them."

IMO, you have completely misunderstood (to be charitable) the point of the comments you've quoted excluding teleology in evolution. They are not about creationism or id. Supernatural causes are already excluded from all science. The point of these statements is to explicitly rule out common misconceptions of how evolution works. Evolution is frequently perceived in the popular consciousness as having direction and foresight. People think of evolution as progressing along some path from "lower" organisms to "higher" ones, generally with humans at the peak. They also tend to think of specific features having evolved due to some kind of foresight (i.e. "whales evolved flippers so they could swim", rather than "the proto whales with the less flipper like appendages were less likely to reproduce"), or a sort of Lamarckism where the need for a particular feature in the ancestors causes it to appear in the descendants.

These are serious misconceptions which need to be addressed for students properly understand how evolution actually works, but they are not specifically related to the supernatural.

  
creeky belly



Posts: 205
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 17 2009,15:53   

Moved to peanut gallery. -cb

  
Wolfhound



Posts: 468
Joined: June 2008

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

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 17 2009,12:07)
(2) start supporting positive Science Education Reform by initiating and supporting positive, critical-thinking-oriented changes in State Science Standards such as what Louisiana and Texas have successfully accomplished.   THAT's the way to do things right!

I always giggle a little bit when religious whackaloons like Floyd bandy about terms like "critical thinking" in conjunction with their belief in a magic man in the sky and his zombie son who is also himself.

--------------
I've found my personality to be an effective form of birth control.

  
nmgirl



Posts: 92
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 17 2009,18:50   

To FL, your allegation that Christianity and evolution are incompatible is patently wrong.  Why? Because I am a christian who believes in evolution.  

Therefore Christianity and evolution are compatible, in me and in millions of other Christians.

God did not give you the right to define what beliefs make a Christian and it is incredibly arrogant to assume you have that right. ("pride goeth before a fall"?)

Ok, i'm done!

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 17 2009,22:18   

some kinda semantic pseudo-ontological silly buggers

--------------
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: 2893
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 17 2009,23:42   

I wonder if we can resurect the AFDave flood meme in FL.

He's almost ready to go from drive by insanity to permanent steady state insanity.

FL what's your timeline for the Earths history and what is your scientific explanation for the Flood?

Any comments on chimpanzees are welcome, I need a good laugh.

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

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1956
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,01:07   

Quote (Wolfhound @ Sep. 17 2009,15:30)
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 17 2009,12:07)
(2) start supporting positive Science Education Reform by initiating and supporting positive, critical-thinking-oriented changes in State Science Standards such as what Louisiana and Texas have successfully accomplished.   THAT's the way to do things right!

I found it very ironic that this year's NAEP Science Achievement Meeting is being held in San Antoniao, Texas. I should take a set of quotes from the creationist whacknuts on the Texas SBE.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Quack



Posts: 1757
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,04:55   

Quote (Dale_Husband @ Sep. 17 2009,14:55)
When you read the Sermon on the Mount, does it say anything against evolution? Not that I've ever seen. Isn't following its teachings and other statements by Jesus what being a Christian is all about? Isn't being a Christian about following Jesus, not following some particular interpretation that assumes the Genesis creation myths are literally true?

Even better than that; not even Jesus or evolution stand between us and heaven:
     
Quote
And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

That's all there is to it, the only problem is identifying the right god; scripture is littered with all kinds of gods.

I am presently reading “Om Gud” by Jonas Gardell. (“About God”) – in Swedish, I wish it would be translated into English.

He is of the right stuff and the kind of person Jesus might have enjoyed mingling with. Gay, standup comedian. After “Om Gud”, he was elected honorary PhD at the theological faculty at Lunds University. He is living in partnership with Mark Levengood

His thorough and intelligent analysis of the OT leaves one with little doubt that you haven’t understood a thing if you believe the literal version touted by the literalists.

An unavoidable stumbling stone for literalists are the fact that the only exhibit they have to present to defend their beliefs is the bible; nothing else!

Which is full of gems like Isaia 37:10  to 37:36  where you will find:      
Quote
Then the angel of the LORD went forth, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians a hundred and fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses.

185.000 killed in one night, by an angel of the LORD?

Let this be a warning; don’t keep your nose too close to the bible!

I think the inerrancy of the bible needs to be firmly established by an independent court before we may declare the end of science as we know it.

(Won't mind if moved to peanut gallery.)

--------------
YEC creationists denigrate science without an inkling of what their lives would be without it. YEC creationism is an enrageous, abominable insult to the the human intellect.
                                                         Me.

  
Dan



Posts: 77
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,05:04   

There are many reasons one might be a Christian -- here are a few I thought of right off hand:  to insure the immortality of one's soul, for social interactions, for the purity of one's soul, to support good works, to expand the good part of one's own personality, to attend confession, to make friends, to make business connections, to insure that you will meet your deceased spouse in the afterlife, in expectation of answered prayer, to provide a moor of stability during difficult times, to make sure you have a place for a nice church wedding, to explain the laws of physics, to explain the origin of life, to explain the diversity of living things, to find a sanctuary of calm in a turbulent world, to support great art and architecture, to immerse oneself -- once a week -- in great art and architecture, to feed one's feeling of the spiritual, to support environmental stewardship, to oppose war, to support social justice, to connect with one's personal history, to connect with one's national heritage, to connect with a world heritage, to be part of a group supporting something larger than one's self.  If you think for a minute or two you can come up with dozens more reasons.

A knowledge of evolution might or might not remove a single one of those reasons: "to explain the diversity of living things".

I imagine that for most people this is a non-reason or very minor reason for being a Christian.  Suppose you handed out a survey to Christians listing all these reasons and more.  How many do you think would check: "I am a Christian because I want to explain the diversity of living things"?

I have not done this, but I can't imagine that more than 0.2% of all Christians hold their faith because they want their faith to explain the diversity of living things.  If my hunch is correct, then only 0.2% of all Christians are at risk of losing their faith due to knowledge of evolution.  Perhaps that's why, even with all his distortions, FL could find only four examples of "loss of faith due to evolution".  (Three of which turned out not to be loss of faith at all.)

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,08:36   

Quote
"No. No sir.   These kinds of public pronouncements are found only within--and are inherently part of-- EVOLUTION.  Evolution is incompatible with Christianity."

This is contradicted by the vast history of science. You don't think that this argument ever came up in physics and astronomy, as the earth being the privileged, center of the universe created 6000 years ago?

So far I haven't said anything about the age of the universe or of the earth.  In fact, ALL of the Big Four Incompatibilities are actually independent of the age of the earth, as you've probably noticed.

So, can you show me exactly how what I said is "contradicted by the vast history of science"?

FloydLee

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,08:48   

Quote
FL what's your timeline for the Earths history and what is your scientific explanation for the Flood?

As suggested to the other poster, the Big Four Incompatibilities are completely independent of age-of-Earth issues, Flood, etc.  
(I do believe in the Bible's account of a literal 6-day creation and a global Noahic Flood, however.)

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,08:54   

Quote
God did not give you the right to define what beliefs make a Christian and it is incredibly arrogant to assume you have that right. ("pride goeth before a fall"?)

Do you believe that certain claims of the Bible define what makes a Christian?  Or do you believe that a Christian is anybody who labels themselves a Christian no matter what they believe or don't believe?

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10130
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,09:13   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 18 2009,08:54)
Do you believe that certain claims of the Bible define what makes a Christian?  

Which ones, Floyd? How does one know?

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

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,09:23   

Btw, here's another guy who lost his Christian faith.  Was evolution the final trigger for that tragic loss?  Nope, apparently not.  (In fact he is very clear on what that final trigger turned out to be.)

On the other hand, you can see where evolution played a clear role, greasing his slide, quietly eroding his beliefs.  No escaping that part of his story.

 
Quote
"....I no longer needed a reason for my existence, just a reason to live."


Does Ricky Gervais' tragic story prove all by itself that evolution is incompatible with Christianity?  Nope---but it does help with pointing out that this issue is NOT just some dry academic hypothetical gig.  

Real people are suffering real spiritual damage becasue of evolution--even to the point of abandoning their Christian faith and becoming real candidates for Hell itself when they pass away from this life.

http://www.rickygervais.com/bestlife.php

FloydLee

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

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


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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