RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (100) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: FL "Debate Thread", READ FIRST POST BEFORE PARTICIPATING PLZ< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 12 2009,22:15   

This is the  "FL DEBATE" Thread


Here, people can make raise issues concerning the tentatively-agreed-on "FL Debate" topics which FL has stated he'll be dealing with below:

     
Quote
FL Wrote  ( From PT thread HERE )

"I’ve been thinking this evening about how best to do the AtBC offer, and here’s how I will do it. Sincere thanks to all who provided input regarding topics. Will start on Sun Sept 13, will end on Sun Nov. 1.

(1.)  First, I’m going to combine “Evolution is incompatible with Christianity” and “The Biblical Perspective on Biology” and write about BOTH items under the overall topic “Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity.”

[snip]

(2.) After a few weeks, I’ll stop posting on that topic, and begin the also-important “ID-is-Science-so-let’s-teach-ID-in-Science-Classrooms” discussion for a few weeks. That will take us to Nov. 1.  

(my emphases & other changes  -- DM_932)


Anyone wishing to take part in the "FL Debate" thread should check in the "FL Debate Peanut Gallery" thread for any relevant points they might want to include in posts.

NOTE TO AtBC USERS:

It'd be useful to only have 1 or 2  "anticreationist" posts on any given day.

Please use the "Peanut Gallery" thread as much as possible, rather than posting here. That being said, anyone is free to post, of course. Let's just try to exercise a little self-policing. Also, try to keep the posts within the realm of genuine civility. PLEASE.

I'll be checking in at 10 AM PST daily. If people need changes made to their posts, or anything moved to "The Bathroom Wall," contact me by PM, or let me know in the Peanut Gallery Thread and I'll notify a mod, since I was (shamefully) responsible.

Thanks for your cooperation. Cheers.

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

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2009,02:44   

Okay, I think I get it now.  There's a "FL debate thread" AND an "FL peanut gallery thread."  (Good grief!!)

Well, I've already started posting on the peanut gallery thread, (and probably will do some more posting there too, btw!), but I will use this thread for the main focus and debate.  

In this main debate thread, I will focus on civility and such.  In the peanut thread, I reserve the right to go freestyle and say inflammatory and impolite (but non-profane and not-too-insulting) statements on occasion.

FL  (Floyd Lee, aka Mellotron)

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2009,02:49   

So, why should we start off with an honest, extended discussion/debate of "Evolution Is Incompatible With Christianity"?

Because, first and foremost, that's the truth, as we shall see.  

Secondly, because of the damage that evolution is doing to the faith of Christians (in some cases, former faith, as it has already been lost).  

Evolution erodes and corrodes Christian faith.  Poisonously so.  Daniel Dennett was right: evolution is "The Universal Acid."

No, evolution is not always the entire gig of why people lose their faith (after all, you're talking about an entire constellation of causes there).

But evolution clearly seems to grease that overall slide downward.  It's a contributing corrosive factor, and it keeps on popping up in various personal testimonies.  Here's two examples.

       
Quote
"As were many persons from Alabama, I was a born-again Christian.  When I was fifteen, I entered the Southern Baptist Church with great fervor and interest in the fundamentalist religion.  I left at seventeen when I got to the University of Alabama and heard about evolutionary theory."

---E.O. Wilson, The Humanist magazine, Sept. 1982


       
Quote
"Evolution played an even more central role in torpedoing (Richard) Dawkins' Anglican when he was 15.  Dawkins says he had always assumed that the intricacy of living things meant God must have designed them, just as the English philosopher William Paley argued in his 1802 book "Natural Theology."

Then Dawkins began to learn about evolution, and he realized that biology could explain life's apparent design without the need for a deity.

"So finally it was Darwinism that did it for my religious faith," Dawkins said in an interview at Oxford University.

---Jeremy Manier, "The New Theology,", Chicago Tribune Online, Jan. 20, 2008


By the way, Manier's article also contains the sad story of Christian college professor (and theistic evolutionist)  Howard Van Till's fall from Christianity.  Might as well check that horror story out too:

       
Quote
"If your faith requires supernaturalism, or a God who wields overpowering control over nature, then yes, evolution will challenge that," says Van Till, who took early retirement from Calvin College in 1999.
 

So since belief in the biblical Jesus automatically entails belief in supernaturalism (you know, supernatural miracles, including "overpowering control" of stormy winds and waves, and little things like, umm, rising from the dead), Van Till is effectively denying what the Bible clearly and foundationally said about Jesus himself.    

At that point, you droppin' out of Christianity, folks.  A very serious, very tragic, situation.  And more than likely, your decisions and actions are influencing somebody else to follow in your footsteps.

And then there's the ultimate tragic back-sliding evolution example, Big Daddy Chuck Darwin himself.

         
Quote
"That evolution erodes religious belief seems almost too obvious to require argument.

It destroyed the faith of Darwin himself, who moved from Christianity to agnosticism as a result of his discoveries and was immediately recognized as a huge threat by his reverent contemporaries."

---Jacob Weisberg, Slate.com, Aug. 10, 2005


The details of evolution's tragic erosion and destruction of Charles Darwin's faith can be found here:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/darwin.html

******

So people, we gotta get serious, I don't care what label you wear or don't wear.  

Evolutionists from Eugenie Scott and her NCSE gang to the Freeman-Herron evolutionary biology textbook Evolutionary Analysis 4th edition, are busy trying to sell the snake-oiled scam that evolution is somehow compatible with Christianity, even though you can clearly see from the above examples that it is simply NOT compatible.

So that's why we have to talk about it.  Some of YOU, sitting right there, already know that evolution has done some serious corroding and eroding on YOUR personal or former Christian beliefs too.  In fact, some of you used to be Christians but now are NO longer Christians---and evolution is a factor in there somewhere.  

(How do I know this?  From reading years of your posts at Pandasthumb and other forums, that's how.  It just kinda pops up on occasion, it seems.)

This is a tragedy.  This is an emergency.  And it's happening to science-loving, God-loving youth and young adults right now.  We gotta at least talk about it, assuming you got the cajones for such discussion.

My next post will offer a short list of the primary reasons why evolution is not compatible with Christianity.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2009,05:07   

I'm not going to bother much with your claims about Dawkins, E.O. Wilson or Darwin, FL -- Except to point out that E.O.Wilson remains very much a believer (see his introduction in  his 1998 book "Consilience" (Borzoi Books:N.Y., p.6)
     
Quote
" I’m not an atheist...I have called myself a provisional deist. That is to say I’m willing to consider the possibility of an ultimate cause. But we haven’t really come close to grasping what that might be."
From interview here


Wilson -- like Darwin did -- merely discarded those bits of dogma and Biblical literalism that were incompatible with reality. Pity you can't manage that.
See, Darwin wrote in his autobiography that a man can undoubtedly be an "ardent Theist & an evolutionist" (he mentions Kingsley and Asa Gray as examples of such).
     
Quote
"It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist & an evolutionist. — You are right about Kingsley. Asa Gray, the eminent botanist, is another case in point— What my own views may be is a question of no consequence to any one except myself.— But as you ask, I may state that my judgment often fluctuates. Moreover whether a man deserves to be called a theist depends on the definition of the term: which is much too large a subject for a note. In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God ." Darwin Project Letter 12041 — to John Fordyce, 7 May 1879


One small aside : The AIG link you gave barely gives the full story on Captain Robert FitzRoy.

AIG mentions that he "was a deeply religious man who believed every word in the Bible and personally conducted divine service every Sunday, at which attendance by all on board was compulsory."

It fails to mention that this "deeply religious man" showed up at the Wilberforce-Huxley debate, denouncing Darwin. Years later, in his Christian piety, he decided to cut his own throat with a razor. Nice Christian!  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860_Oxford_evolution_debate

-------------------------------------------
My main focus will remain on the following points, FL -- regardless of what bogus self-serving claims you make about "Biblical Correctness"  and "TRUE EXEGESIS/INTERPRETATION" :

The view that evolution is inherently antireligious is simply false. For many Christians, in fact, MOST Christians, science is not antireligious -- evolutionary is merely a natural process compatible with belief in a God.

Christian denominations have indicated that an evolutionary perspective is generally compatible with their interpretations of Christianity. *Some* of these denominations include :

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormon Church); Disciples of Christ Church;  Eastern Orthodox Churches; Episcopal Church U.S.A.; Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; Reformed Church in America (Dutch Reformed Church); Roman Catholic Church; United Church of Christ; United Methodist Church; United Presbyterian Church.

Here's some statements about the compatibility of Christianity and evolution, from not one or three people, but churches/church leaders representing entire groups of millions upon millions of Christians:

---------------------------------------------------
ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH : EVOLUTION & GOD DO MIX: POPE BENEDICT XVI (2007)

     
Quote
"Speaking  to  a  group  of  Italian  priests  on  July  24,  2007, Pope Benedict XVI again addressed the topic of evolution. Referring to debates over creationism in Germany and the United States, he observed that evolution and belief in God the  creator  are presented  “as  if  they were alternatives  that are  exclusive —whoever  believes  in  the  creator  could  not believe in evolution, and whoever asserts belief in evolution would  have  to  disbelieve  in God,”  as  the New York Post’s article  (July  26,  2007)  translated  it.  “This  contrast is  an absurdity,” he continued, “because there are many scientific tests in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and enriches our understanding of life and being..."
http://www.nypost.com/p....Xm2pWKL


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


EPISCOPAL CHURCH, General Convention (2006)
     
Quote

the theory of evolution provides a fruitful and unifying scientific explanation for the emergence of life on earth, that many theological interpretations of origins can readily embrace an evolutionary outlook, and that an acceptance of  evolution is entirely compatible with  an  authentic  and  living Christian  faith.
http://www.episcopalarchives.org/e-archives/bluebook/29.html


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

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH (1967) General Assembly-approved theological statement on the subject:
     
Quote
"Neither Scripture, our Confession of Faith, nor our Catechisms, teach the Creation of man by the direct and immediate acts of God so as to exclude the possibility of evolution as a scientific theory...Our responsibility as Christians is to deal seriously with the theories and findings of all scientific endeavors, evolution included...We conclude that the true relation between the evolutionary theory and the Bible is that of non-contradiction ." http://www.pcusa.org/theologyandworship/science/evolution.htm


PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH (2002) General Assembly statement:

     
Quote
" a natural explanation of the history of nature [i.e. evolution] is fully compatible with the afirmation of God as Creator,” http://www.pcusa.org/ga214/business/09-education.pdf


-----------------------------------
THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH (2008)
Amendment to "The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church."
     
Quote
" We recognize science as a legitimate interpretation of God’s natural world. We affirm the validity of the claims of science in describing the natural world and in determining what is scientific... We find that science’s descriptions of cosmological, geological, and biological evolution are not in conflict with theology... Science and theology are complementary rather than mutually incompatible. We therefore encourage dialogue between the scientific and theological communities and seek the kind of participation that will enable humanity to sustain life on earth and, by God’s grace, increase the quality of our common lives together." http://calms.umc.org/2008/Text.aspx?mode=Petition&Number=50

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

Now that you have seen the official statements from various Christian Groups, it becomes silly for you to claim that Christianity and evolution are incompatible. Illogical, in fact.

On that note, I'm going to post the syllogistic argument Dan set forward in the "Peanut Gallery" :

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.

FL now has only five options:

A -- Contend that statement 1 is false.

B -- Contend that statement 2 is false.

C -- Contend that the reasoning deriving statement 3 from statements 1 and 2 is wrong.

D -- Accept that statement 3 is true.

OR

E -- Change the subject by saying something irrelevant like "Some of you boys have already experienced either the LOSS of your Christian faith, or at least a SERIOUS EROSION of your Christian faith. And your slide (your back-slide, that is) is partly or indirectly due to the impact of evolution-claims on your own beliefs."

Which will it be, FL? Keep in mind that debate is dialogue, not monologue, and that civility (well, to a decent, ethical person)  would require *directly* addressing the points of your opponent (as I have with you).

Respond directly and thoroughly to the points above, keeping in mind that you've already lost.

My money is that you'll merely try to use a combination of "A" and "E" then launch into a Gish Gallop while ignoring actually facing the reality of your instant loss.

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

  
Dale_Husband



Posts: 118
Joined: April 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2009,17:23   

If FL truly beleives that evolution is incompatible with Christianity, why not do the obvious thing and abandon Christianity? Because there is a LOT more evidence for evolution than there ever has been for the historical claims of Christianity.

And furthermore:
It's not just evolution that discredits Genesis.

Facts do not lie, but people, including those who write what they claim are sacred scriptures, often do.

--------------
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.

   
Dan



Posts: 77
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2009,17:51   

Charles Darwin was a loving husband for 43 years, and the adoring and adored father of 10 children (he also helped to rear his grandson Bernard).  In the biographies of Darwin I have read, his contemporaries call him kind, shy, retiring, and thoughtful.  He maintained correspondence with scientists like Hooker for decades, and there's good reason to think Hooker considered Darwin to be a dear friend.  Darwin was an early and ardent opponent of slavery.

In this thread, FL says he will "focus on civility," yet he calls this gentle and thoughtful man "Big Daddy Chuck Darwin".  FL, is this your idea of civility?  Do you really think you're giving a good name to Christianity by behaving this way?

  
Reed



Posts: 274
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2009,20:20   

FloydLee, you have attributed various effects "evolution" but you have not specified what you mean by the term. Evolution is commonly defined as (ref)
 
Quote
... any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.

If you are actually talking about something else, such as universal common descent, abiogenesis or speciation you should say so.

  
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2009,16:02   

This is the response from the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, on my enquiry about how they stand in the so called evolution debate. I spoke to Stephen Lynas, the church's press officer at Church house in Belfast. This respose was also confirmed by a YEC Presbyterian minister with whome I had a long conversation:

http://www.acpc.co.uk/ivan_neish.htm

 
Quote
So long as a Christian believes that God created the heavens and the Earth, it is for you to decide how and when he did it


Rev. Neish again confirmed this was the official position. This means (in my opinion anyway) that a member can be anything from a flatearther, all the way to a TE (my own position). I asked if there was a position within the church for a person with views such as myself i.e. I accept both an ancient Earth/Universe, and Bilogical evolution (i.e. science in other words) and he replied yes.

However, this is in direct conflict with AiG and CMI, who appear to have infiltrated the denomination.

  
Dan



Posts: 77
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2009,18:23   

FL lists exactly four cases of "corrosion of Christian faith" due to knowledge of evolution: E.O. Wilson, Richard Dawkins, Howard Van Till, and Charles Darwin.

E.O. Wilson:  I have spoken with Wilson concerning this very topic.  My impression is that Wilson abandoned fundamentalist Christianity because his vision of god was grander than that of fundamentalist Christianity.  That is, he saw fundamentalism as constraining the idea of god.

Richard Dawkins:  I think FL got it right on this one.

Howard Van Till: The article

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008....onjan20

that FL quotes is clear.  It was not knowledge of evolution that "corroded" the faith of Howard Van Till, it was the actions of inflexible Christians at the conservative Calvin College, who insisted on a "monthly interrogation where he struggled to reassure college officials that his scientific teachings fit within their creed.  Van Till’s career survived the ordeal, but his Calvinist faith did not."

Charles Darwin:  Most biographers attribute Darwin's change from clergy-in-training to agnostic to the death of his daughter Annie when she was ten years old.  Darwin did not write extensively about this change, but the dates are telling:  Darwin conceived his theory of evolution by natural selection in 1838.  Annie died 1851.  Darwin became agnostic in 1851.

Let's be clear about the point of logic: Even if all of FL's examples were valid, that still wouldn't show that "evolution is incompatible with Christianity".  But it's still noteworthy that only one of FL's four examples is valid.

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2009,23:30   

Okay, gentlemen, good to be back.  Forgive my delay, wanted to be here yesterday but family and sickness interrupted.  I'll be here (the main debate thread) for about a couple of hours.   Also plan on doing so tomorrow as well.   Let's go to Deadman right now:

 
Quote
I'm not going to bother much with your claims about Dawkins, E.O. Wilson or Darwin, FL -- Except to point out that E.O.Wilson remains very much a believer (see his introduction in  his 1998 book "Consilience" (Borzoi Books:N.Y., p.6)


A "believer"?  In what?  Oh no no no---most certainly Wilson is NOT a believer, if you are using that word to denote any sort of Christian believer.  Unless otherwise specified, that is the ONLY sense in which I myself will be using that term "believer", because again the topic to be defended is "Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity."

Let's go to Wilson's book Consilience, shall we?

 
Quote
...But most of all, Baptist theology made no provision for evolution.  The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all!

Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?  Might the pastors of my childhood, good and loving men though they were, be mistaken?
It was all too much, and freedom was ever so sweet.

I drifted away from the church, not definitively agnostic nor atheistic, just Baptist no more.


Please notice:  EVOLUTION was the belief that clearly caused him to drop Christianity.  
And carefully notice something else:  Wilson didn't just drop "fundamentalist Christianity", Dan.  Wilson dropped all of Christianity, even theism itself.

 
Quote
(Wilson) "So I am not a theist, but I'll be a provisional deist...."

(Steve Paulson, Slate.com interviewer)  "It's fascinating because everything you've said up until now suggests that you should be an atheist. Why hold out the specter that maybe there was some divine presence that got the whole thing going?"

(Wilson)  "Well, because there's a possibility that a god or gods -- I don't think it would resemble anything of the Judeo-Christian variety -- or a super-intelligent force came along and started the universe with a big bang and moved on to the next universe. I can't discount that."  

--Slate.com, May 21, 2006


My guess Dan, is that if you speak with him again, you'll see that THAT is his actual position.  Second only to Richard Dawkins, perhaps, EO Wilson is the standout evolutionist example that evolution is incompatible with Christianity.  Listen to part of evolutionist Michael Ruse's review of Consilience:

 
Quote
Moreover, never a man to let a problem or an obstacle deter him, having lost the supports of Christianity, (Wilson) is determined to find religious supports elsewhere.

Indeed he has found them elsewhere, namely in evolution – a fact which Wilson proclaims here as before in many places (notably in On Human Nature). Wilson finds evolution to be the "myth" that he needs to build his new religion.  

---Ruse, "The Global Spiral" online, Metanexus.net


Doesn't get much clearer than that, does it folks?

******

Okay, let's move on from Wilson.  But be clear:  Wilson's tragic (but very instructive) example of ruined Christian faith via evolution's incompatibility is beyond argument.

FloydLee

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,00:30   

Let us continue with Deadman:

 
Quote
See, Darwin wrote in his autobiography that a man can undoubtedly be an "ardent Theist & an evolutionist" (he mentions Kingsley and Asa Gray as examples of such).


And yet, Darwin unfortunately couldn't cite himself in support of that claim, could he?  Oh, no no.  He dropped out of Christianity AND theism and wound up, AFAIK, dying as an agnostic.  
And as his own words from the christianity.net link made very clear, that dropping out was directly related to his evolution beliefs and their implications, which caused him to first drop the Old Testament historical claims, and then the New Testament historical claims (including those about Jesus Christ), and then theism itself.

(And of course, we've already seen Wilson dropping out of Christianity and theism by his own admission, not to mention Dawkins of course.)

Oh sure sure, evolution-beliefs don't cause everybody to drop out of Christianity and become deists/agnostics/atheists.
By the sheer grace and power of God, many Christians are spared from that fate.  But NOT because evolution is compatible with Christianity, as we shall see.     

Most importantly, as we've already seen, people ARE slipping through the cracks, losing their faith because evolution is incompatible with Christianity---and if you lose your Christian faith, if like Darwin you can't even believe in Jesus Christ and what He did for you on the Cross anymore, what will happen to you after you die???

So, we must needs continue examining this issue.  Too much at stake, honestly.  After all, you and I can't hide behind Asa Gray's skirts on Judgment Day!

******

Therefore, Deadman, let us proceed to the main incompatibilities and hash them out.  You said,

 
Quote
The view that evolution is inherently antireligious is simply false.


However, I did not say that our topic would be "Evolution is Incompatible with Religion."

After all, if you are a deist, or an agnostic, or an atheist, (yes the 7th circuit court of appeals made clear that atheism is a religion too), you'll have LOADS of fun with evolution.  Those three belief-systems are right up the ole evo-alley for sure..

But I said that "Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity."  That's the difference.  THAT stark reality is what ain't goin' away anytime soon.

******

And now, let's start off with FOUR very serious, very documented, reasons why evolution is incompatible with Christianity.

1.  In biblical Christianity, God is the REQUIRED explanation for the origins and existence of all biological objects (plants, animals, humans, etc) on earth, and He is the REQUIRED explanation for the origins and existence of the stars, the planets, the sun, the moon, and all other cosmological objects -- indeed, the entire universe.  The Bible is very clear on this point.

(See Genesis 1:1, Genesis chapters 1 and 2, and see Colossians 1:16, for example.  Also see John chapter 1:3 ---  "All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made.")

In contrast, evolution specifically denies that God is the REQUIRED explanation for said origins.

Quote
"People seem to think that Christianity and evolution do or can go together.  But I suggest this is only possible for the intellectually schizophrenic.

Biological theory does not require or allow any sort of divine guidance for the evolutionary process..."

---David Olroyd, professor, School of Science and Technology Studies, University of New South Wales in Australia, speaking to The Weekend Review (Aus), Mar. 20-21, 1993.


 
Quote
"First, Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically.

"It no longer requires God as creator or designer (although one is certainly still free to believe in God even if one accepts evolution)."

---evolutionist Ernst Mayr, "Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought", SciAm July 2000.
http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/e36_2/darwin_influence.htm


******

Okay, let's stop there for a moment.  There are three more very serious incompatibilities between evolution and Christianity.  The next post will display them.

FloydLee

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,00:37   

Um... Does what is above equate to a real "response?"

What the hell does this mean?;

"And yet, Darwin unfortunately couldn't cite himself in support of that claim, could he?  Oh, no no.  He dropped out of Christianity AND theism and wound up, AFAIK, dying as an agnostic.  "

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

  
Dale_Husband



Posts: 118
Joined: April 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,01:01   

Did you notice that FL completely ignored my comment?
:D

--------------
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.

   
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,01:08   

As I said, there are FOUR very serious, very specific, very documented, incompatibilities between evolution and Christianity.  
(There may be more than four; but let's just start with these biggies for now.)

The first one has been put on the table already.  Let's go to the next one.

******

2.   Evolution directly preaches and teaches the doctrine of NT-NCF (No-Teleology-No-Conscious-Forethought), which is clearly diametrically opposed to what biblical Christianity teaches about biological origins.

What does evolution's doctrine of NT-NCF look like?  It looks (and smells) like THIS:

 
Quote
"Teleological statements are those that invoke goals, or ends (Greek teleos, "end"), as causes (eg, "He went to the store in order to get milk.")

But evolutionary theory does not admit anticipation of the future (i.e. conscious forethought),
either in the process of evolution of an adaptive characteristic or in the development of or behavior of an individual organism."

---Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology 3rd edition, p. 342  


Now read that again, folks.  Carefully.  It's important.

He's saying that according to evolutionary theory itself, the process of evolution that resulted in the origination of the first humans on Earth DOES NOT ADMIT any conscious forethought, any purposefulness or any goal-directedness at ANY point of said evolutionary process, including the point where humans appear.  NO EXCEPTIONS.

Listen again to the textbook-taught NT-NCF of evolution:

 
Quote
"Thus the adaptations of organisms have indeed been 'designed', but by a completely mindless process.  

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, pg 342.  


Do you see this, people?  DO you?  
This is a direct head-on CRASH with Bible verses like Genesis 1:26-27, Matthew 19:4-6 (Jesus's own words), and Colossians 1:16, all of which speak not only of God's teleology in creation, but Jesus's teleology in creation.  All creation.  Including humans!!!

(Remember, Col. 1:16 not only says that everything was created BY Jesus, but that everything was created FOR him---that's a direct inescapable claim of teleology right there folks!!).

So now you see the existence of another huge incompatiblity between evolution and Christianity.   And just like Item #1, evolutionists have NEVER been able to resolve it.  Never.  The chasm is just that monstrous.

 
Quote
"Evolution has no goal." --- Jerry Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, 2009

"Evolution has no goal." -- Online Lecture Notes for Biology 391, Organic Evolution, at the University of Tennessee-Martin.  


Can you hear what you guys are actually SAYING here?

FloydLee

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,01:18   

I want to point out some things concerning the situation

1) Notice how FL ignores the actual reason that caused Charles Darwin's crisis of faith: the death of his daughter due to disease.

2) Notice also how FL ignores deadman's inquiry concerning the Pope being a Christian who has had absolutely no qualms about accepting Jesus as his savior, as well as accepting evolution as a fact.

3) And notice how FL never advocates abandoning the use of the numerous products made possible through evolution or through any sciences that utilize evolutionary biology and or its offshoots, products like antibiotics, vaccines, petroleum products, dinosaur-themed products, food made from domesticated plants and animals, or the keeping, raising and breeding of domesticated plants and animals.  The last time I brought this to FL's attention, he had the moronic, hypocritical gall to claim that because these things were actually the products of microevolution, it was perfectly okay to reject evolution while still using such products without fearing for their immortal souls.

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,01:26   

Quote
Um... Does what is above equate to a real "response?"


Ohhh yes it does, Deadman.  And we're but gettin' started.

Let's face it....With Darwin's own Christian faith clearly getting flushed down the toilent, piece by biblical piece, by his own handwritten admissions to friends and acquaintances, that honestly makes any "hey look at ardent theist Asa Gray" pronouncements on Darwin's part ring very hollow.

If evolution is compatible with Christianity, then what are YOU doing bogged down in the swamp of agnosticism, Mr. Charles Darwin?  Why aren't you following Asa Gray's example of hanging on to the Christian faith, why aren't you living what you yourself are claiming?

******

Quote
Gray, considered by Darwin to be his friend and "best advocate", also attempted to convince Darwin in these letters that design was inherent in all forms of life, and to return to his faith.  ---  Wikipedia


Ahhh, but notice something else--Gray tried to defend the concept of intelligent design WRT origins.  Gray apparently took a stand against NT-NCF evolution as taught by evolutionists today.

FloydLee

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,01:33   

Quote (Dale_Husband @ Sep. 16 2009,01:01)
Did you notice that FL completely ignored my comment?
:D

That is because the sole purpose of FL being here is to preach at us, not to discuss anything, not to debate anything, and most definitely not to speak the truth about anything.

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,01:42   

Quote
In this thread, FL says he will "focus on civility," yet he calls this gentle and thoughtful man "Big Daddy Chuck Darwin".  FL, is this your idea of civility?


Won't lie to you, Dan---Mr. Darwin AIN'T my patron saint, and you should not look for me to speak reverently of him at all times, not even in this main debate thread where I'm committed to civility.  
Besides, the promised civility applies to you and all the posters/readers here.   Didn't promise anything to Darwin.

Now, I won't do any blatant insults on him, but for me "Big Daddy Chuck Darwin" is within the boundaries.  
I do not owe him any reverence---and quite frankly, given what he said about black folks in The Descent Of Man, I honestly think I'm being too lenient on his butt anyway.  

But having said that, I'll go no farther than the occasional "B-D-C-D".  Fair enough, yes?

FloydLee

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,01:52   

Quote
Did you notice that FL completely ignored my comment?


What, you think I'm gonna let YOU off the hook, dude?  Pfffft!!  

(And wott is Stanton doin' in this saloon?  Don't he know that LIVE AMMO is permitted in this joint??)

Okay, let's first lay down the final two incompatibilites Dale,
then I'll do your question there.    :)

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,03:02   

Okay, to recap, you've seen the existence of two killer incompatibilities between evolution and Christianity that are taking place right here and right now.

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

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

******

Okay, now let's present the last two incompatibilities.

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

         
Quote
"With all deference to the sensibilities of religious people, the idea that man was created in the image of God can surely be put aside."

---"Evolution and the Brain", Nature science journal, June 14, 2007


 
Quote
"The image-of-God thesis does NOT go along with just any theistic view.  It requires a theism that sees God as actively designing man and the world as a home for man."

--- pro-evolution philosopher James Rachels, Created From Animals, c1990.


Okay, so you can see that evolution is NOT compatible with Christianity on that one.  Don't even try to fix it.
Let's go to the final killer incompatibility.

******

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

This one is the worst of all, because it directly crashes into the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  There is no way to escape the broken-glass impact of this one.

Evolutionary theory teaches that death has ALWAYS been present on this planet. No exceptions.

This is a direct negation of Romans 5:12-17, which says that death historically entered this world only AFTER Adam and Eve sinned (this event is called "The Fall.")

That particular negation is very bad, because if Romans 5:12-17 is historically false, then it's NO longer possible for Christians to tell anybody the meaning of what Christ accomplished or didn't accomplish on the Cross.  

Because of the direct unavoidable historical parallels drawn between Adam and Jesus in Rom. 5:12-17, a non-historical Genesis necessarily means a non-historical Gospel.  A historically inaccurate Creation (and Fall) account necessarily means a historically inaccurate Cross (and Atonement) account.  Then you Christians out there got NOTHING to offer this planet anymore.  

BTW, both Christians and non-Christians have pointed out this stunning situation.  (For example, the Native American activist Vine Deloria Jr. in his book God is Red. calls attention to it)  

Here, check out this evolutionist example---this guy knows the score:
         
Quote
"Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god.

"Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins--and this is what evolution means--then Christianity is nothing!"


---- evolutionist G. Richard Bozarth, “The Meaning of Evolution,” The American Atheist, Feb. 1978, p. 30.


Quite clear, yes?  You see that, Deadman?  How about you, Dale?  You, Stanton?  You see what evolution REALLY means, yes?

******

So there you go.  Four Incompatibilities between Evolution and Christianity.  Each one a killer, each one massive and huge, each one long-standing and intractable, each one clearly documented by evolutionists themselves.  

Please review them and think them over during the course of this discussion.  Sincere thanks if you choose  to do so.

FloydLee

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,03:22   

Okay, let's start winding down for the night.  Let's address posts by Reed and by Dale:

For Reed:  You're right, we do need to start defining what is meant by the term "evolution", although you can see from some of the quotations that evolutionists themselves do not always do so.

Evolution comes in two flavors, micro-evolution and macro-evolution.  So if there is any question about things, I will be using the definitions given by the standard (and currently used) high-school and university textbook "Biology" by Campbell and Reece, 7th edition, c2005.

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

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


Campbell-Reece's definition of macroevolution is consistent with what Scott Freeman-Jon Herron offers in their Evolutionary Analysis textbook, so I will include that definition as well:

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


FloydLee

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,03:37   

Quote
If FL truly beleives that evolution is incompatible with Christianity, why not do the obvious thing and abandon Christianity? Because there is a LOT more evidence for evolution than there ever has been for the historical claims of Christianity.


Well, you may want to read that paragraph again Dale.  What you're writing there--whether I agree with it or not (and I don't)--is actually REINFORCING the truth claim that I'm seeking to defend in this main debate thread:  "Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity."

What you're saying there is NOT causing evolution to become compatible with Christianity.  Instead you're recommending a course of action (abandonment of Christianity) that apparently assumes that indeed there does exists a real incompatibility somewhere, and that abandoning Christianity is the most rational way (as you see it) to respond to that real incompatibility.

Nice reinforcement of incompatibility there.  Also your suggestion that Genesis is "discredited", and that the writers of the Scriptures may be lying, likewise doesn't create any reconciliations between evolution and Christianity.

FloydLee

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,03:50   

Okay, to recap:

-----------------------------------------
Floyd Lee: False on each and every belief!!! Yay

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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,03:57   

Thanks, Floyd, all that was needed was you to admit that Fundamentalism/Literalism wasn't needed. Thanks.

Hundreds of millions agree with you.

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

  
dheddle



Posts: 530
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,04:25   

FL’s coup de grâce, reason number four, is vintage Henry Morris and is actually an objection to old earth creationism, not evolution per se. The objection is, to paraphrase:

If there was death before the fall, then the gospel is destroyed.

I have posted on this many times—it is the “no dead mouse problem.” It paints a picture of God’s redemptive plan being at the mercy of an elephant not stepping on a mouse prior to the Fall, as indicated by the java program:

Code Sample

if (beforeTheFall.nothingAtAllDiedNotEvenAMouse()) {
 jesus.goRedeemTheWorld();
}
else {
 jesus.stayHome();
}


But enough of that. The exegetical analysis is problematic in a number of ways. FL refers us to Paul’s letter to the Romans:

 
Quote

12Therefore, 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— 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

The first objection is not the more important one—but rather just a note on precision. Verse 12 informs us that death came to all men. It says nothing about animals.

However—that is for amusement purposes only. The real issue is taking death in the Romans passage to refer to physical death as opposed to spiritual death—i.e., as in “dead in our sins” (Eph. 2:1).

Even within the passage itself it is tortuous to interpret this death as mundane physical death. For in v. 14 Paul tells us that death reigned from Adam to Moses. But there was no change in the pattern of physical death at the arrival of Moses (or Jesus for that matter.) People died in the same manner. Clearly Paul is referring to a spiritual change with the arrival of Moses—manifested, obviously, by the giving of the Law. But physical death? No—man had his three score and ten before Moses and the same after Moses.

Things get worse, fatally, when this passage is tied to Genesis. There we have God’s promise to Adam:

 
Quote
but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." (Gen 2:17)

As we know, Adam did eat. And on that day he surely did not stop breathing. In fact, according Gen. 5:5, Adam lived to the age of 930.  The literalist is left with some unpleasant choices:

1) God was only blowing smoke—like the bad parent: I swear if you touch that one more time I’ll spank you so hard your eyes’ll pop out!

2) God changed his mind—repudiating the doctrine of God’s immutability and leaving us with the unpleasant possibility that he’ll change his mind about other things too. (No way am I sending Jesus back—what was I thinking when I made that promise?)

3) Here “death” actually means “to start the process of dying.” Say goodbye to literality.

Some famous top-ten early church theologians recognized this problem and became the first non-literalists, arguing that “a day is like a thousand years” to God, so that each Genesis day was a thousand years—and Adam did not live to be 1000—problem solved.

But again the obvious solution, the only real solution that makes sense out of both Genesis 2:17 and the Romans passage, is that the death referred to in each was spiritual death—i.e. spiritual death (our inability for us to please God  or seek God in any manner) and not physical death was the result of the Fall.

That not only makes sense there--but for interpreting the rest of the bible as well--for from the third chapter of Genesis on the bible is all about spiritual redemption.

I understand how many of my fellow Christians are YECs. While I disagree with the YEC position it doesn’t bother me nor prevent fellowship.  But this particular extension of the argument—i.e., that “we have studied this problem have concluded that death before the fall would render the gospel impotent and the creator of the universe powerless to redeem his people” is so arrogant (and also intractable —a bad combination—like the basketball player who is small but slow) that it makes my blood boil. But as I said—F.L. is too liberal for my tastes.

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

   
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,04:35   

Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 16 2009,04:25)
this particular extension of the argument—i.e., that “we have studied this problem have concluded that death before the fall would render the gospel impotent and the creator of the universe powerless to redeem his people” is so arrogant (and also intractable —a bad combination—like the basketball player who is small but slow) that it makes my blood boil. But as I said—F.L. is too liberal for my tastes.

HaHa. That's what you get for being a Calvinist. Blood boiling.


Excuse me for saying you guys are weird

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

  
Dan



Posts: 77
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,05:52   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 16 2009,01:42)
 
Quote
In this thread, FL says he will "focus on civility," yet he calls this gentle and thoughtful man "Big Daddy Chuck Darwin".  FL, is this your idea of civility?


Won't lie to you, Dan---Mr. Darwin AIN'T my patron saint, and you should not look for me to speak reverently of him at all times, not even in this main debate thread where I'm committed to civility.  
Besides, the promised civility applies to you and all the posters/readers here.   Didn't promise anything to Darwin.

Now, I won't do any blatant insults on him, but for me "Big Daddy Chuck Darwin" is within the boundaries.  
I do not owe him any reverence---and quite frankly, given what he said about black folks in The Descent Of Man, I honestly think I'm being too lenient on his butt anyway.  

But having said that, I'll go no farther than the occasional "B-D-C-D".  Fair enough, yes?

FloydLee


Charles Darwin is not my patron saint, either.  Darwin never wished to be sainted by anyone and never has been.  No one owes Darwin "reverence" nor does anyone treat him reverently.  No one worships at his shrine.  How could they?  He doesn't have a shrine!

We are asking only for civility.

  
Pompous Bore



Posts: 3
Joined: June 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,07:33   

Dear FloydLee - could I perhaps ask for some clarification? When you say that 'Evolution is incompatible with Christianity' do you mean that

1) Evolution is incompatible with Christianity as generally understood by those who describe themselves as Christians

or more specifically that

2) Evolution is incompatible with Christianity as you define it?

I would have thought that Deadman's example of the Pope, among others, is enough to refute (1) - clearly, some (in fact many) people who consider themselves to be Christians find Evolution to be compatible with their Christianity. So I suspect that you are arguing for (2) - with the implication that those who call themselves Christian but accept evolution are, in your view, not truly Christians (or are at least mistaken about the true nature of Christianity and its compatibility with evolution). Have I interpreted you correctly?

  
SLP



Posts: 136
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,08:02   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 16 2009,01:52)
Quote
Did you notice that FL completely ignored my comment?


What, you think I'm gonna let YOU off the hook, dude?  Pfffft!!  

(And wott is Stanton doin' in this saloon?  Don't he know that LIVE AMMO is permitted in this joint??)

Okay, let's first lay down the final two incompatibilites Dale,
then I'll do your question there.    :)

Unless you are a 14 year old with dreams of living like the bling-dripping talentless "musicians" you see on MTV reality shows, stop writing and acting as if you are, Floyd.

  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,08:36   

I do so love Floyd's appeal to selective reading as a basis for his argument as in, "look Darwin gave up Christianity as he embraced his understanding of Evolution, ergo he gave up Christianity because it was incompatible with his new understanding!". Nevermind that this type of thinking is a logical fallacy (a la fallacy of the general rule), it holds no value because it is anecdotal at best and misrepresentative at worst. Yo Floyd - do you have any actual statistics showing that...say...60% of those who've abandoned Christianity did so because they found their beliefs incompatible with evolution? In other words, do you have something other than your opinion and speculation?

Oh, and btw, you need stop repeating bogus claims from the likes of the World Nut Daily or the equivalent. The 7th Circuit Court of Wisconsin did not rule that atheism is a religion. Here's the case law:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/041914p.pdf

What they said was that for the purposes of holding of a belief, even a non-belief, about the purpose of life, any such concept, even if founded in "secular philosophy" is protected by the second amendment and cannot be infringed upon by the State. So yet again, your understanding of issues is demonstrated to be incorrect and your sources to be less than credible.

In any event, my definition and practice of Christianity is perfectly compatible with evolution as it requires no belief in any kind of miracles or special creation whatsoever. That your particular take on "Christianity" is incompatible with your particular misunderstanding of evolution isn't cause for any kind of concern on the part of rational people as far as I can tell.

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

  
KCdgw



Posts: 368
Joined: Sep. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,09:20   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 16 2009,03:22)
Okay, let's start winding down for the night.  Let's address posts by Reed and by Dale:

For Reed:  You're right, we do need to start defining what is meant by the term "evolution", although you can see from some of the quotations that evolutionists themselves do not always do so.

Evolution comes in two flavors, micro-evolution and macro-evolution.  So if there is any question about things, I will be using the definitions given by the standard (and currently used) high-school and university textbook "Biology" by Campbell and Reece, 7th edition, c2005.

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

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


Campbell-Reece's definition of macroevolution is consistent with what Scott Freeman-Jon Herron offers in their Evolutionary Analysis textbook, so I will include that definition as well:

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


FloydLee

Interestingly, neither definition Floyd cited implied different underlying mechanisms for microevolution and macroevolution.

KC

Edited by KCdgw on Sep. 16 2009,09:21

--------------
Those who know the truth are not equal to those who love it-- Confucius

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1954
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,11:13   

Darwin's religious beliefs were of great interest to many people following the publication of "The Origin of Species." Here are the most relevant comments I have found from his Autobiography. This short book was written privately, intended only for his family to read. In several of Darwin's letters written late in life, he used portions of the "Autobiography" or perhaps later reused these letters in the "Autobiography."

From Darwin's "Autobiography"  
Quote
"AFTER HAVING spent two sessions in Edinburgh, my father perceived or he heard from my sisters, that I did not like the thought of being a physician, so he proposed that I should become a clergyman. He was very properly vehement against my turning an idle sporting man, which then seemed my probable destination. I asked for some time to consider, as from what little I had heard and thought on the subject I had scruples about declaring my belief in all the dogmas of the Church of England; though otherwise I liked the thought of being a country clergyman. Accordingly I read with care Pearson on the Creed and a few other books on divinity; and as I did not then in the least doubt the strict and literal truth of every word in the Bible, I soon persuaded myself that our Creed must be fully accepted. It never struck me how illogical it was to say that I believed in what I could not understand and what is in fact unintelligible. I might have said with entire truth that I had no wish to dispute any dogma; but I never was such a fool as to feel and say 'credo quia incredibile'.

Considering how fiercely I have been attacked by the orthodox it seems ludicrous that I once intended to be a clergyman. Nor was this intention and my father's wish ever formally given up, but died a natural death when on leaving Cambridge I joined the Beagle as Naturalist."pg. 56-58


Quote
Religious Belief (pg.s 85-87)

DURING THESE two years (Oct. 1836 to Jan. 1839) I was led to think much about religion. Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused them. But I had gradually come, by this time, to see that the Old Testament from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow as a sign, etc., etc., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian. The question then continually rose before my mind and would not be banished,—is it credible that if God were now to make a revelation to the Hindoos, would he permit it to be connected with the belief in Vishnu, Siva, &c., as Christianity is connected with the Old Testament. This appeared to me utterly incredible.

By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported,—that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become,—that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us,—that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events,—that they differ in many important details, far too important as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye-witnesses;—by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation. The fact that many false religions have spread over large portions of the earth like wild-fire had some weight with me. Beautiful as is the morality of the New Testament, it can hardly be denied that its perfection depends in part on the interpretation which we now put on metaphors and allegories.

But I was very unwilling to give up my belief;—I feel sure of this for I can well remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans and manuscripts being discovered at Pompeii or elsewhere which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct. I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished.

And this is a damnable doctrine.

Although I did not think much about the existence of a personal God until a considerably later period of my life, I will here give the vague conclusions to which I have been driven. The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows. Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws.



(pg. 92-94)  
Quote
Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.

This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the Origin of Species; and it is since that time that it has very gradually with many fluctuations become weaker. But then arises the doubt—can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animal, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions? May not these be the result of the connection between cause and effect which strikes us as a necessary one, but probably depends merely on inherited experience? Nor must we overlook the probability of the constant inculcation in a belief in God on the minds of children producing so strong and perhaps an inherited effect on their brains not yet fully developed, that it would be as difficult for them to throw off their belief in God, as for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake.

I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic.



In reading the letters Darwin wrote that mentioned the death of their daughter Annie, I found no mention of God, religion or that this event actually altered his view of the same. He did often mention that the existence of suffering was an independent argument against the existence of a benign god. But, the suffering of animals was in his view as significant as the suffering of humans - even more so as to the nature of a god.

To address the argument that "evolution is incompatible with Christianity," I would point out that Darwin's religious beliefs have no bearing on the question at any rate. It is clear that his loss of faith preceded the formulation of his theory of the origin of species.

Edited by Dr.GH on Sep. 16 2009,09:14

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

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

   
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,12:27   

Quicknote:  I did see your post DHeddle.  I want to respond to that one in detail.  Along with my promise to check on GMorton WRT the Big Four, I will very probably need from now through Friday, maybe Saturday, to get that all in.

FloydLee

  
dheddle



Posts: 530
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,12:41   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 16 2009,12:27)
Quicknote:  I did see your post DHeddle.  I want to respond to that one in detail.  Along with my promise to check on GMorton WRT the Big Four, I will very probably need from now through Friday, maybe Saturday, to get that all in.

FloydLee

Fair enough.

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

   
someotherguy



Posts: 367
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,13:31   

Here's an (unoriginal) thought:  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?

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

  
Dale_Husband



Posts: 118
Joined: April 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,15:06   

Earlier, I said:
   
Quote
If FL truly beleives that evolution is incompatible with Christianity, why not do the obvious thing and abandon Christianity? Because there is a LOT more evidence for evolution than there ever has been for the historical claims of Christianity.
 
Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 16 2009,03:37)


Well, you may want to read that paragraph again Dale.  What you're writing there--whether I agree with it or not (and I don't)--is actually REINFORCING the truth claim that I'm seeking to defend in this main debate thread:  "Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity."

What you're saying there is NOT causing evolution to become compatible with Christianity.  Instead you're recommending a course of action (abandonment of Christianity) that apparently assumes that indeed there does exists a real incompatibility somewhere, and that abandoning Christianity is the most rational way (as you see it) to respond to that real incompatibility.

Nice reinforcement of incompatibility there.  Also your suggestion that Genesis is "discredited", and that the writers of the Scriptures may be lying, likewise doesn't create any reconciliations between evolution and Christianity.

FloydLee

FL, I merely took your assumptions and followed them to its logical conclusion. And in response, you totally failed to refute my statement that the historical case for Christianity is far weaker than the scientific case for evolution.

I have no problem with people accepting evolution and also being Christians, because I do not assume that all religious people have to be idiotic. And the historical case for the existence of Jesus doesn't even depend on whether or not evolution happens.  You, on the other hand, seem to have a lower opinion of most religious  people than I do. Ironic, isn't it?

--------------
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. 16 2009,15:19   

And now for an explanation of how one can beleive in God and Jesus and not blindly assume, as FL does, that every claim written in the Bible thousands of years ago by non-scientists must be true.
Quote

http://circleh.wordpress.com/2007....asphemy

2000 years ago, Jesus warned his early followers: “Not everyone who calls to me, ‘Lord, Lord!’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Only those who actually do my Father’s will may enter. On the Judgement Day many will say to me, ‘Lord, didn’t we prophesy, cast out demons, and do many miracles in your name?’ But I will say to them, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you that do evil!’ ” (Matthew 7:21-23)

I would suggest that the thing which will condemn someone to hell, even though they profess to believe in Jesus, will be the person’s placing the Bible above God Himself. Fundamentalists have claimed for over a century that the Bible is the Word of God and is therefore infallible. This claim has no support whatsoever. Attempts to support it by references to the Bible are circular reasoning. Only God Himself should ever be seen as infallible, and since we have no direct contact with Him, we have nothing that may be considered infallible. The Bible, the Quran, and other religious books may be inspired by faith in God, but they are still human products, and are thus prone to error like all other human products. The Quran itself condemns the tendency of man to make partners with Allah, so should it be acceptable for any Muslim to make the Quran a partner with Allah?

In this physical world, there is NOTHING and NO ONE that may rightfully be called infallible!


 
Quote

http://circleh.wordpress.com/2009....-of-god

One of the great tragedies of the Protestant Reformation, in addition to destroying forever the unity of the Christians in western Europe, was that it enshrined the Bible as the sole source of dogma among Protestants. Now, I will grant that the incredible corruption and tyranny of the Roman Catholic Church during the Middle Ages made the Reformation both necessary and inevitable, but the way it was done by most Protestants made spiritual tyranny inevitable among them as well. This was because they simply replaced the Catholic papacy and church councils with the Bible itself, or rather, how Protestant leaders read the Bible. Calling the Word of God what is actually your INTERPRETATION of words of men writing in the name of God is stretching things beyond any bounds of logic you can imagine, which is why Christians constantly emphasize faith as their standard.


When you read the Bible, you are not reading the original Word of God at all, but something that was written by various authors (in many cases, unknown), copied many times, translated, printed and published in various languages and editions over thousands of years. After all this time, there is really no way we can tell what the real Word of God may be, and instead we are left with something that gives a dim view of God at best. It is like someone telling a long and complex story to a friend, who then repeats that story to another friend, and so on until eventually the story has been repeated about 30 or 40 times and finally the original storyteller hears the story again….and realizes how inaccurate his story has become, even with details added or omitted that he never intended, maybe even with different character names and a different outcome made by people who didn’t like the story as it had been told originally. Nowhere does this analogy become more apt than with the four Gospels in the New Testament, with their own contradictions and altered, added and omitted details. None of them were written by Jesus himself, and they were written decades after the events they describe, as even fundamentalists admit in their own propaganda.

The conflict between Creationism and evolution in the life of creation “scientist” Kurt Wise illustrates the absurdity of Biblical dogmatism clearly. He was unable to let go of his assumption that the Bible was infallible, so he declared, despite his scientific training (even studying under Stephen Jay Gould), that the teachings of the Bible trumped any physical evidence from the universe that supported evolution. This is illogical, since the Bible itself says that God created the universe and mankind, thus one would expect what we find when we study the universe to be the tool by which we can confirm whether or not the Bible is God’s Word. And the intelligence that God supposedly gave us must also be used as a tool to determine what is true or even acceptable, or God wouldn’t have given us brains in the first place.

But the Biblical dogmatist says that without the Bible, most of us would not know of God at all. That may be true, but that would not justify adhereing to absurdities or even outright lies for the sake of beleiving in God. We know that the story of George Washington chopping down the cherry tree as a boy was made up to illustrate the moral value of honesty (how ironic), but that doesn’t mean that he didn’t exist, since all the other historical records of his military achievements and Presidency are beyond dispute. We need to use science and reason to find out what is valid and reject what is rediculous, or we will doom ourselves.

Jesus himself said that the Jews of his time erred by “teaching as doctrines (of God) that teachings of men.” And that is true whether you believe in Catholic or Eastern Orthodox church traditions or the Protestant dogma of sola scriptura. Either way, you will be led into tyranny. Truth can only be found via science, never dogma of any kind. Science unifies people by showing what is true via objective study of the universe and everything in it, while religion with its baseless assertions divides people.

It must be noted that my statement is just as applicable to Islam, the Quran, and the Prophet Muhammad. The Quran cannot be the Word of Allah, though it contains much wisdom. It also contains much evil and must be regarded critically by science and reason just as much as the Bible.


--------------
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.

   
csadams



Posts: 124
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,16:08   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 16 2009,03:22)
Evolution comes in two flavors, micro-evolution and macro-evolution.  So if there is any question about things, I will be using the definitions given by the standard (and currently used) high-school and university textbook "Biology" by Campbell and Reece, 7th edition, c2005.

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

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


Campbell-Reece's definition of macroevolution is consistent with what Scott Freeman-Jon Herron offers in their Evolutionary Analysis textbook, so I will include that definition as well:

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


FloydLee

Have any of you checked FL's quotes for accuracy?  Not that FL has a history of, um, needing checking on or anything . . .

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

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,17:01   

Quote (Dale_Husband @ Sep. 16 2009,15:19)
And now for an explanation of how one can beleive in God and Jesus and not blindly assume, as FL does, that every claim written in the Bible thousands of years ago by non-scientists must be true.
     
Quote

http://circleh.wordpress.com/2007....asphemy

2000 years ago, Jesus warned his early followers: “Not everyone who calls to me, ‘Lord, Lord!’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Only those who actually do my Father’s will may enter. On the Judgement Day many will say to me, ‘Lord, didn’t we prophesy, cast out demons, and do many miracles in your name?’ But I will say to them, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you that do evil!’ ” (Matthew 7:21-23)

I would suggest that the thing which will condemn someone to hell, even though they profess to believe in Jesus, will be the person’s placing the Bible above God Himself.
Fundamentalists have claimed for over a century that the Bible is the Word of God and is therefore infallible. This claim has no support whatsoever. Attempts to support it by references to the Bible are circular reasoning. Only God Himself should ever be seen as infallible, and since we have no direct contact with Him, we have nothing that may be considered infallible. The Bible, the Quran, and other religious books may be inspired by faith in God, but they are still human products, and are thus prone to error like all other human products. The Quran itself condemns the tendency of man to make partners with Allah, so should it be acceptable for any Muslim to make the Quran a partner with Allah?

In this physical world, there is NOTHING and NO ONE that may rightfully be called infallible!


     
Quote

http://circleh.wordpress.com/2009....-of-god

One of the great tragedies of the Protestant Reformation, in addition to destroying forever the unity of the Christians in western Europe, was that it enshrined the Bible as the sole source of dogma among Protestants. Now, I will grant that the incredible corruption and tyranny of the Roman Catholic Church during the Middle Ages made the Reformation both necessary and inevitable, but the way it was done by most Protestants made spiritual tyranny inevitable among them as well. This was because they simply replaced the Catholic papacy and church councils with the Bible itself, or rather, how Protestant leaders read the Bible. Calling the Word of God what is actually your INTERPRETATION of words of men writing in the name of God is stretching things beyond any bounds of logic you can imagine, which is why Christians constantly emphasize faith as their standard.


When you read the Bible, you are not reading the original Word of God at all, but something that was written by various authors (in many cases, unknown), copied many times, translated, printed and published in various languages and editions over thousands of years. After all this time, there is really no way we can tell what the real Word of God may be, and instead we are left with something that gives a dim view of God at best. It is like someone telling a long and complex story to a friend, who then repeats that story to another friend, and so on until eventually the story has been repeated about 30 or 40 times and finally the original storyteller hears the story again….and realizes how inaccurate his story has become, even with details added or omitted that he never intended, maybe even with different character names and a different outcome made by people who didn’t like the story as it had been told originally. Nowhere does this analogy become more apt than with the four Gospels in the New Testament, with their own contradictions and altered, added and omitted details. None of them were written by Jesus himself, and they were written decades after the events they describe, as even fundamentalists admit in their own propaganda.

The conflict between Creationism and evolution in the life of creation “scientist” Kurt Wise illustrates the absurdity of Biblical dogmatism clearly. He was unable to let go of his assumption that the Bible was infallible, so he declared, despite his scientific training (even studying under Stephen Jay Gould), that the teachings of the Bible trumped any physical evidence from the universe that supported evolution. This is illogical, since the Bible itself says that God created the universe and mankind, thus one would expect what we find when we study the universe to be the tool by which we can confirm whether or not the Bible is God’s Word. And the intelligence that God supposedly gave us must also be used as a tool to determine what is true or even acceptable, or God wouldn’t have given us brains in the first place.

But the Biblical dogmatist says that without the Bible, most of us would not know of God at all. That may be true, but that would not justify adhereing to absurdities or even outright lies for the sake of beleiving in God.
We know that the story of George Washington chopping down the cherry tree as a boy was made up to illustrate the moral value of honesty (how ironic), but that doesn’t mean that he didn’t exist, since all the other historical records of his military achievements and Presidency are beyond dispute. We need to use science and reason to find out what is valid and reject what is rediculous, or we will doom ourselves.

Jesus himself said that the Jews of his time erred by “teaching as doctrines (of God) that teachings of men.” And that is true whether you believe in Catholic or Eastern Orthodox church traditions or the Protestant dogma of sola scriptura. Either way, you will be led into tyranny. Truth can only be found via science, never dogma of any kind. Science unifies people by showing what is true via objective study of the universe and everything in it, while religion with its baseless assertions divides people.

It must be noted that my statement is just as applicable to Islam, the Quran, and the Prophet Muhammad. The Quran cannot be the Word of Allah, though it contains much wisdom. It also contains much evil and must be regarded critically by science and reason just as much as the Bible.

Good o'l Lenny Flank used to point out that fundies worship the Bible rather than God.

Agh! I wanted to post this on the peanut thread. Could someone move it there please?   Sorry!   :(

  
nmgirl



Posts: 92
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,17:44   

FL, what about the nearly 12000 christian pastors who signed up in the Clergy Letter Project? Are they all wrong?

  
nmgirl



Posts: 92
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,17:54   

http://community.berea.edu/scienceandfaith

I found the essays at this site very useful for understanding where FL and his ilk get their ideas and how they manipulate real science to deny evolution.

A couple of beliefs I found very interesting are:

That God deliberately made some rocks look really really old,Billions of years old, even though they are really only 6000 years old.  So God produces fraudulent rocks just like a modern con will produce fake documents or artwork?

Also, god has changed the rates of decay in radioactive minerals since Genesis so our calculations will produce erroneous data.  

What kind of God is this?

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1954
Joined: May 2002

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

Quote (nmgirl @ Sep. 16 2009,15:44)
FL, what about the nearly 12000 christian pastors who signed up in the Clergy Letter Project? Are they all wrong?

I'll ask FL if he would even grant they are Christian? He has the direct line to Heaven.

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

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

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4238
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,18:49   

What a strange discussion.

The bald fact is that some Christians have no difficulty reconciling their Christian faith with the facts of evolution (Heddle and Wesley, among others, on this board come to mind), while others do. Is there any doubt that there are countless persons who find the two systems compatible, countless others who embrace one view and dismiss the other, and some number who have switched teams due to felt dissonance?

Individual instances of persons finding the facts of evolution incompatible with their Christian faith (or not), and therefore loosing or abandoning that faith (or not) need only reflect contingent psychological facts, not logical or absolute incompatibility, accounting for this variation, and have no bearing upon the question of absolute incompatibility. Nothing about the logical compatibility between the assertions of Christianity and the facts of evolution may be established by examining individual cases, even those of considerable notoriety.

So, why not take the other tack, and focus upon the supposed inherent logical/absolute incompatibility of your interpretations of these viewpoints and skip the pointless hashing over Darwin, Wilson, and others?

To FL: I agree with you in many respects. But it is not 'evolution as competing belief system' that presents the many of main assertions of Christianity with a severe challenge. It is the indisputable main facts of natural history, including the clear absence of teleology in that history (as you point out), that present that challenge. So far as I am concerned, to the extent there is such a conflict then so much the worst for Christianity. In my view*, many of the most important assertions of Christianity are utterly and ridiculously untenable in light of current scientific world picture generally and the facts of natural history specifically. Although your aim here seems to be a demonstration of absolute incompatibility so that those asserting otherwise will question their "allegiance" to current evolutionary thinking, IMHO the opposite result is compelled to the extent that you are successful.

*Some very, very smart people disagree with me, as noted above.

BTW, please, PLEASE do us all a favor and drop the use of boldface for emphasis. You are hurting my backward retinas.

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

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,19:02   

Quote (nmgirl @ Sep. 16 2009,17:44)
FL, what about the nearly 12000 christian pastors who signed up in the Clergy Letter Project? Are they all wrong?

You notice how FL has also refused to touch the point about how the Pope has no problems reconciling his faith with the fact of evolution, too?

  
The Wayward Hammer



Posts: 64
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,19:59   

May I suggest that this thread become more of a Heddle / FL match?

For FL, this is a theological issue and most of us have no patience for that dancing on the end of the pin.

Dr. Heddle appears to be both able, and most shocking, actually interested in responding.

A mostly pointless aside: today I was in meeting with someone from my company's extensive trading division and she was mentioning difficulty with trading the possibility of creating even a temporary monopoly on a commodity with a large trade.  Another colleague said, "Like Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice?"

She did not get the reference.  Some of you will.  

My point: Jesus and Paul both most likely used referential comments that meant something to them and something very different 2,000 years later.  We probably don't get the joke.

  
Dan



Posts: 77
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,20:38   

What does compatible mean?

The phrase "MrSID LizardTech image decoder is compatible with Windows but incompatible with MacOS", means that it can run under Windows but it can't run under MacOS.  It doesn't mean that MrSID LizardTech is actually running on every Windows computer.  Many folks have no need for it, so they don't install it.  But if MrSID LizardTech is able to run on any Windows computer, even if it's only a single computer, then it's compatible with Windows.

"Compatible" means the same thing in the question "Is evolution compatible with Christianity?"  If evolution is held by a single Christian, then the two ideas are compatible.

FL has been going on and on about why he, as a Christian, does not hold evolution.  That's all fine and good, and I support his right to reject evolution (or atomic theory, or the spherical earth theory, or the idea that paper money has value).  But it simply doesn't address the question of whether evolution and Christianity are compatible.

The facts are these:
the Pope is a Christian who holds that evolution occurred.
Ken Miller is a Christian who holds that evolution occurred.
Michael Behe is a Christian who holds that evolution occurred.
William Dembski is a Christian who holds that evolution occurred.
There are statements (cited by deadman et al.) by Christian religions holding that evolution occurred.
There is a statement (cited earlier) signed by 3% of all American Christian clergy holding that evolution occurred.

And so on.  It is a FACT that evolution is compatible with Christianity.

FL has stated his OPINION that he wishes this fact were not true.  But "[f]acts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." (John Adams)

FL has not yet addressed the topic of this debate.  He is behaving as if he didn't bother to install MrSID LizardTech image decoder on his Windows computer, and claims that therefor MrSID LizardTech is incompatible with Windows.

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,20:58   

Quote (Dan @ Sep. 16 2009,20:38)
FL has not yet addressed the topic of this debate.  He is behaving as if he didn't bother to install MrSID LizardTech image decoder on his Windows computer, and claims that therefor MrSID LizardTech is incompatible with Windows.

FL refuses to address the actual topic of this debate specifically because he is not here to debate: he is here to preach at us so he can convert us to his own peculiar sect of Christianity, whereupon he will then return to his own flock so he can strut about how he entered a (cyber)den of evil pagans and single-handedly vanquished the lot of them in order to score more brownie points for Jesus.

  
Keelyn



Posts: 40
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,22:58   

[quote=FloydLee,Sep. 14 2009,03:49][/quote]
I would have posted this in the “Peanut Gallery,” but the thread seems to have taken a turn towards …well, to something or other that I don’t understand. It will self-correct eventually.

In the meantime, I have a couple of issues I hope FL will address. First, assuming for the moment that your argument has merit, it seems to me, Floyd, that if you are going to apply your “Incompatibility …theory? hypothesis? idea? opinion?” to biology (specifically evolutionary biology), then you must equally apply it to geology, cosmology, chemistry, and quite possibly a good piece of physics. Yes or no? Second, do you think schools should teaching those subjects, or just stop teaching that they are compatible with Christianity? If you think schools should stop teaching these subjects, what would you replace them with (if anything)? I ask because, quite frankly, I agree with you – I don’t think schools should be trying to convince anyone that evolution, or geology, chemistry, cosmology, or that any other science is compatible, or not compatible, with Christianity or any other religion – religion of any kind should not be addressed in any manner in a science class. Would you agree with 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

  
Reed



Posts: 274
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,23:27   

Quote (Keelyn @ Sep. 16 2009,20:58)
In the meantime, I have a couple of issues I hope FL will address. First, assuming for the moment that your argument has merit, it seems to me, Floyd, that if you are going to apply your “Incompatibility …theory? hypothesis? idea? opinion?” to biology (specifically evolutionary biology), then you must equally apply it to geology, cosmology, chemistry, and quite possibly a good piece of physics. Yes or no?

I agree. Despite quoting some definitions for evolution, his arguments do not relate specifically to them. His actual beef appears to be with methodological naturalism.

  
Keelyn



Posts: 40
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 17 2009,01:21   

Quote (Reed @ Sep. 17 2009,00:27)
 
Quote (Keelyn @ Sep. 16 2009,20:58)
In the meantime, I have a couple of issues I hope FL will address. First, assuming for the moment that your argument has merit, it seems to me, Floyd, that if you are going to apply your “Incompatibility …theory? hypothesis? idea? opinion?” to biology (specifically evolutionary biology), then you must equally apply it to geology, cosmology, chemistry, and quite possibly a good piece of physics. Yes or no?

I agree. Despite quoting some definitions for evolution, his arguments do not relate specifically to them. His actual beef appears to be with methodological naturalism.


If by "beef" you mean complaint, Reed, perhaps. Floyd definitely has a complaint, but if you really read what he says you will see that it is actually a fear. Floyd is so afraid.

--------------
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 2009,09:08   

Quote
And in response, you totally failed to refute my statement that the historical case for Christianity is far weaker than the scientific case for evolution.

Simply put, Dale, that's a separate topic for debate.  Could spend the entire time just on hashing out that one topic.  

But that's not what I've chosen to debate.  There will be no attempt, at least not by me, at refuting your statement.

It is honestly sufficient, imo, just to say "I disagree" while noting that your response, to whatever degree, would apparently help reinforce rather than refute the chosen topic.

FloydLee

  
k.e..



Posts: 2873
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 17 2009,09:51   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 17 2009,01:01)
Quote (Dale_Husband @ Sep. 16 2009,15:19)
And now for an explanation of how one can beleive in God and Jesus and not blindly assume, as FL does, that every claim written in the Bible thousands of years ago by non-scientists must be true.
     
Quote

http://circleh.wordpress.com/2007....asphemy

2000 years ago, Jesus warned his early followers: “Not everyone who calls to me, ‘Lord, Lord!’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Only those who actually do my Father’s will may enter. On the Judgement Day many will say to me, ‘Lord, didn’t we prophesy, cast out demons, and do many miracles in your name?’ But I will say to them, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you that do evil!’ ” (Matthew 7:21-23)

I would suggest that the thing which will condemn someone to hell, even though they profess to believe in Jesus, will be the person’s placing the Bible above God Himself.
Fundamentalists have claimed for over a century that the Bible is the Word of God and is therefore infallible. This claim has no support whatsoever. Attempts to support it by references to the Bible are circular reasoning. Only God Himself should ever be seen as infallible, and since we have no direct contact with Him, we have nothing that may be considered infallible. The Bible, the Quran, and other religious books may be inspired by faith in God, but they are still human products, and are thus prone to error like all other human products. The Quran itself condemns the tendency of man to make partners with Allah, so should it be acceptable for any Muslim to make the Quran a partner with Allah?

In this physical world, there is NOTHING and NO ONE that may rightfully be called infallible!


       
Quote

http://circleh.wordpress.com/2009....-of-god

One of the great tragedies of the Protestant Reformation, in addition to destroying forever the unity of the Christians in western Europe, was that it enshrined the Bible as the sole source of dogma among Protestants. Now, I will grant that the incredible corruption and tyranny of the Roman Catholic Church during the Middle Ages made the Reformation both necessary and inevitable, but the way it was done by most Protestants made spiritual tyranny inevitable among them as well. This was because they simply replaced the Catholic papacy and church councils with the Bible itself, or rather, how Protestant leaders read the Bible. Calling the Word of God what is actually your INTERPRETATION of words of men writing in the name of God is stretching things beyond any bounds of logic you can imagine, which is why Christians constantly emphasize faith as their standard.


When you read the Bible, you are not reading the original Word of God at all, but something that was written by various authors (in many cases, unknown), copied many times, translated, printed and published in various languages and editions over thousands of years. After all this time, there is really no way we can tell what the real Word of God may be, and instead we are left with something that gives a dim view of God at best. It is like someone telling a long and complex story to a friend, who then repeats that story to another friend, and so on until eventually the story has been repeated about 30 or 40 times and finally the original storyteller hears the story again….and realizes how inaccurate his story has become, even with details added or omitted that he never intended, maybe even with different character names and a different outcome made by people who didn’t like the story as it had been told originally. Nowhere does this analogy become more apt than with the four Gospels in the New Testament, with their own contradictions and altered, added and omitted details. None of them were written by Jesus himself, and they were written decades after the events they describe, as even fundamentalists admit in their own propaganda.

The conflict between Creationism and evolution in the life of creation “scientist” Kurt Wise illustrates the absurdity of Biblical dogmatism clearly. He was unable to let go of his assumption that the Bible was infallible, so he declared, despite his scientific training (even studying under Stephen Jay Gould), that the teachings of the Bible trumped any physical evidence from the universe that supported evolution. This is illogical, since the Bible itself says that God created the universe and mankind, thus one would expect what we find when we study the universe to be the tool by which we can confirm whether or not the Bible is God’s Word. And the intelligence that God supposedly gave us must also be used as a tool to determine what is true or even acceptable, or God wouldn’t have given us brains in the first place.

But the Biblical dogmatist says that without the Bible, most of us would not know of God at all. That may be true, but that would not justify adhereing to absurdities or even outright lies for the sake of beleiving in God.
We know that the story of George Washington chopping down the cherry tree as a boy was made up to illustrate the moral value of honesty (how ironic), but that doesn’t mean that he didn’t exist, since all the other historical records of his military achievements and Presidency are beyond dispute. We need to use science and reason to find out what is valid and reject what is rediculous, or we will doom ourselves.

Jesus himself said that the Jews of his time erred by “teaching as doctrines (of God) that teachings of men.” And that is true whether you believe in Catholic or Eastern Orthodox church traditions or the Protestant dogma of sola scriptura. Either way, you will be led into tyranny. Truth can only be found via science, never dogma of any kind. Science unifies people by showing what is true via objective study of the universe and everything in it, while religion with its baseless assertions divides people.

It must be noted that my statement is just as applicable to Islam, the Quran, and the Prophet Muhammad. The Quran cannot be the Word of Allah, though it contains much wisdom. It also contains much evil and must be regarded critically by science and reason just as much as the Bible.

Good o'l Lenny Flank used to point out that fundies worship the Bible rather than God.

Agh! I wanted to post this on the peanut thread. Could someone move it there please?   Sorry!   :(

Indeed.

Now is the time to  ask FL if he believes in ghosts or witches, what his views on miracles, devils, demons etc are and finish off with Lenny's 20 questions a carbernet, cigar and the sound of crickets chirping.

FL is just a pathetic god bothering time waster.

I expect the most interesting conversation will be a theological spat between him an Heddle which will be something like two dudes in fat suits in separate rooms trying to shove different colored jello through the same wire mesh window with the winner being the most trenchant jello thrower.

It would be mildly amusing if we were able to see it in live action without the tedium of seeing the nonsense that passes for theology and with a Japanese game show host yapping excitedly as they hurl jello into each others mind spaces.

Yawn.

Oh and by the way FL I've always been an atheist so your aguement that evolution makes you one ...erm needs work.

And good luck on judgement day I expect that should be around the time Jesus gets back from were ever the pioneer spacecraft is perhaps you could give us all a precise time that will happen?

Second thoughts don't bother dicks like you eventually just die and rot anyway.

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

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: 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

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 17 2009,10:21   

Quote
FL, what about the nearly 12000 christian pastors who signed up in the Clergy Letter Project? Are they all wrong?

Yes.  They are.  (Gosh, that was an easy question!)

Actually, I'm hoping you'll re-check out their "Clergy Letter" gig in light of the Big Four Incompatibilities that's being presented and discussed.  Exactly HOW do they offer to reconcile those Killer Four issues?

My answer for you is:  They Don't.  They honestly have no biblically supportable solutions on this gig.  They don't have any solution other than waving white flags and surrendering to Darwinism, surrendering to the erosion and the corrosion we discussed and documented earlier.

Doesn't mean they are bad guys.  They're not 'enemies."  They're clergy.  Good people.

BUT......we gotta huge problem here and their answer is no answer at all, I'm sorry to say.  

FloydLee

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 17 2009,10:43   

Quote
Floyd, that if you are going to apply your “Incompatibility …theory? hypothesis? idea? opinion?” to biology (specifically evolutionary biology), then you must equally apply it to geology, cosmology, chemistry, and quite possibly a good piece of physics. Yes or no?

See my response to Someotherguy's question,

(It's just a couple posts previously, see "Posted on Sep. 17 2009, 10:07".)

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 17 2009,10:53   

Quote
May I suggest that this thread become more of a Heddle / FL match?

Nope.  I wouldn't have to be doing all this typing if Heddle was the only person contributing responses, questions, challenges, links, extended quotations, etc.

Clearly some people around here are interested in this particular topic.   In fact, I'm workin' seriously on trying to review and organize all the different responses so that I don't miss replying to anybody's question or response.  I appreciate all those who are responding.

FloydLee

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10094
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 17 2009,10:54   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 17 2009,10:21)
Quote
FL, what about the nearly 12000 christian pastors who signed up in the Clergy Letter Project? Are they all wrong?

Yes.  They are.  (Gosh, that was an easy question!)

*snip*

Are they Christians?

--------------
"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 2009,10:58   

Let us recap, shall we?

FL's argument is that evolution is incompatible with Christianity because the description/explanation of evolution's mechanism specifically excludes direct intervention from God.  Of course, FL then fails to explain why all other sciences, which, too, do not involve the direct intervention of God as descriptions/explanations, are not incompatible with Christianity, nor does he explain why, if evolution and evolutionary biology are incompatible with his version of Christianity, he also insists on using products of evolutionary biology on a daily basis.  And, more importantly, there is the fact that FL's dilemma is false, given as how the vast majority of Christians have no problems reconciling the fact of evolution with their faith: after all, FL refuses to explain on this thread how the Pope can be a Christian while still accept the facts of evolution.

I'm also morbidly curious to see what halfbaked excuse FL will dredge up to justify the teaching of Intelligent Design in science classrooms, even though Intelligent Design proponents have already confessed that it was never intended to be any sort of science or even alternative explanation, AND that it's been legally ruled as being nothing more than religious propaganda.

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 17 2009,11:07   

Quote
Second, do you think schools should teaching those subjects, or just stop teaching that they are compatible with Christianity?

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.

Instead, what is needed is for Christians to

(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.

(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

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 17 2009,11:09   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 17 2009,10:43)
Quote
Floyd, that if you are going to apply your “Incompatibility …theory? hypothesis? idea? opinion?” to biology (specifically evolutionary biology), then you must equally apply it to geology, cosmology, chemistry, and quite possibly a good piece of physics. Yes or no?

See my response to Someotherguy's question,

(It's just a couple posts previously, see "Posted on Sep. 17 2009, 10:07".)

The words "hypocritical" and "inconsistent" come to mind to describe your response to Someotherguy's question, actually.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10094
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: 10094
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: 4361
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: 2873
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: 1954
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: 1751
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: 10094
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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10094
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,09:30   

Floyd, disregarding evidence because it conflicts with your beliefs is an abdication of epistemological responsibility. The truth is not contingent on what you would like, but what is. If you need a myth, create a kinder one than Christianity, or take the real opium of the masses, opium.

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

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4238
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,09:39   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 18 2009,10:23)
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.

So, given that you argue that the main facts of human natural history compel this result (I agree, although others here disagree), and given that those facts are beyond reasonable dispute, are you arguing that people should be prevented from learning those facts, or lied to about those facts?

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

  
nmgirl



Posts: 92
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,09:40   

Quote (FloydLee @ 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.)

why don't you answer the question?  

how do you explain all the tests that support a 4.5 billion year old earth?

I reported earlier about a yec belief that God deliberately made some rocks look really really old, but he was only kidding. Is that what you believe?

  
George



Posts: 312
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,09:46   

Floyd, you have yet to address Dan's argument (via Deadman @ his second post on this thread), which is directly relevant to what you consider a Christian to be:

 
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 14 2009,05:07)
On that note, I'm going to post the syllogistic argument Dan set forward in the "Peanut Gallery" :

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.

FL now has only five options:

A -- Contend that statement 1 is false.

B -- Contend that statement 2 is false.

C -- Contend that the reasoning deriving statement 3 from statements 1 and 2 is wrong.

D -- Accept that statement 3 is true.

OR

E -- Change the subject by saying something irrelevant like "Some of you boys have already experienced either the LOSS of your Christian faith, or at least a SERIOUS EROSION of your Christian faith. And your slide (your back-slide, that is) is partly or indirectly due to the impact of evolution-claims on your own beliefs."


I think all of us here would like to hear your answer to this problem, which seems to cut straight through the haze of your big four arguments.

  
Amadan



Posts: 1244
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,09:57   

Floyd, on a point of protocol, I’d point out that the purpose of a peanut gallery is to give Onlookers* a place to snicker comment on the interchanges of the dramatis personae of the main debate. Sophocles tends not to call on members of the chorus to debate with Oedipus the pros and cons of marriage. But as you wish.

The purpose of my remark, as I suspect you understand, is that your assertion is not even ‘not even wrong’.  Your statements about the contents of science textbooks indicate that you are not attempting to understand science but failing. They indicate that you do not even understand what those books are for.

Textbooks in meteorology, physics, “chemistry and the brain” or astronomy do not make the claims you list because they don’t need to. In fact, the claims you list are largely interchangeable as between the disciplines you mention. That is because science is generally concerned with empirical observations and with making logical inferences, deductions and predictions based on them. None of them states a teleological position for much the same reason that they avoid criticism of late mediaeval hairdressing. Have you encountered this idea of methodological naturalism? Regardless of whether you agree with its utility, do you understand what it means and why it is used?

The comments that I mocked in the peanut gallery suggest to me that you wouldn’t disapprove of methodological naturalism in physics or meteorology. Why do you require it in biology? Is there a distinction between biology and other sciences that demands a teleological dimension that is excluded from other disciplines? How do you know? And why is it binding upon us?

Your comments about the “incompatibility of Christianity and evolution” not only indicate that you fail to understand what evolution is, but also that your perception of Christianity is entirely idiosyncratic. Why that perception should have any bearing on the truth or falsity of the theory of evolution is quite simply beyond me.

* A comprehensive definition of this term is available from the Caribbean

--------------
"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.

   
k.e..



Posts: 2873
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,10:08   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 18 2009,17:23)
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

Terrific an expert on Hell itself

Lets have your scientific or if you like your personal opinion on what Hell itself is.

Lets start with a geographic location and does it have a time zone?

Any details on the temperature and the location of the thermometers would be nice too if you can manage that.

Who are the inhabitants and some testimonials would be good too.

Is there racial segration there and any people who didn't expect to end up there do they have to hang around with ....erm people who were actually hanged?

Since some people claim that they are in a living hell while they are still alive, do the people in Hell itself actually live or is there just a big pile of dead bodies?

When was Hell itself created and does it include any of the early hominids?

Since no one has actually claimed to have been to Hell itself and documented his or her visit your reply should be a world first.

wanker.

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

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,10:13   

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.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10094
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,10:14   

Do you know what "arguing to (perceived) consequences" is, Floyd?

--------------
"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 2009,10:25   

Quote
So, given that you argue that the main facts of human natural history compel this result (I agree, although others here disagree), and given that those facts are beyond reasonable dispute, are you arguing that people should be prevented from learning those facts, or lied to about those facts?

Nope.  This is similar to another poster asking me if I wanted to stop teaching physics, chemistry, biology, evolution, etc in the schools because of the incompatibility issue.
The only rational answer is nope.   Don't stop teaching 'em.

Instead, it's time for Christians and churchgoers to start educating themselves (and their pastors and priests and teachers and choir directors and youth ministers) on this incompability issue.
 
It's also time to support positive, critical-thinking-oriented, science education reform efforts such as the successful changes in Texas and Louisiana.  

It's time to remind science students that there's a big difference between data and interpretation, and that those same science kids have a serious responsibility to check out evolutionist claims (and their possible weaknesses, unproven assumptions, etc) instead of uncritically swallowing those claims from a canned textbook and refusing to listen to all sides of the science story.

We can make huge differences in the lives of youth and young adults like Gervais, Wilson, etc etc, if we can reach them with the two approaches mentioned above.  We can slow down some of these tragedies.

FloydLee

  
nmgirl



Posts: 92
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,10:33   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 18 2009,10:13)
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.

Talk about a fire engine red herring.  How does one person or 10 million people who claim evolution destroyed their faith, support your case.l  I say their faith wasn't very strong to begin with,.  

There are still 10s of millions of christians who do support evolution.

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,10:34   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 18 2009,10:13)

So, FL, are you saying that the Pope is a spiritually damaged atheist because he accepts evolution as a fact and sees no problems reconciling such fact with his faith?

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,10:40   

Quote
I think all of us here would like to hear your answer to this problem, which seems to cut straight through the haze of your big four arguments.

Really?  Indeed we shall seeeeee if your faith in Dan's ditty carries rational warrant.  Will start on that one, beginning around 12:30 CST.

FloydLee

  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,10:48   

Quote
In this case, a child made a tragic, unsupported decision to disbelieve in God.


LOL! I would say that he made a tragic, unsupported decision to believe in some god in the first place and then just came to his senses. You've not yet established a rational basis for any belief in god or gods, let alone your particular belief.

Quote
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.


Oddly, you've yet to provide any evidence to suggest that people are better off with some security blanket reason for being rather than (as Gervais notes) the rational foundation to accept that there is no need for such a reason. Seems you are at odds with Gervais' statements, not that Gervais' statements are incomplete or irrational. But this goes back to your question begging - you assume the answer that such a reason is needed by assuming Christianity is the answer to some emptiness, yet you've provided no objective evidence to support such an assertion.

By way of refuting your circular claims, I'll just note that repeated polls note that there is a higher rate of divorce among conservative Christians than among those outside such circles in the US. While I won't claim this is direct evidence of less happiness among conservative Christians than non, it does indicate some kind of issue. What could that be, Floyd?

Of course that's neither here nor there since none of what Gervais notes in anyway supports your claim that evolution is incompatible with Christianity, though it does indicate that for some folks, some concepts of Christianity are incompatible with rational thinking.

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

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,10:54   

[quote=FloydLee,Sep. 18 2009,10:25]
Quote

The only rational answer is nope.   Don't stop teaching 'em.
It would help if Creationists started teaching their children something other than lies or a demand for fanatical obedience.
Quote
Instead, it's time for Christians and churchgoers to start educating themselves (and their pastors and priests and teachers and choir directors and youth ministers) on this incompability issue.
Like teaching that the Pope is really an evil, spiritually damaged atheist?
 
Quote
It's also time to support positive, critical-thinking-oriented, science education reform efforts such as the successful changes in Texas and Louisiana.

Yet, you still don't explain how exposing children to the very worst science education programs in the country will help strengthen them spiritually.

I mean, you have to be aware that Texas and Louisiana have the poorest test scores specifically because their educational programs were made more Creationist-friendly.

  
k.e..



Posts: 2873
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,10:54   

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.

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

  
Dan



Posts: 77
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,12:03   

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.

  
creeky belly



Posts: 205
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,12:10   

Quote (FloydLee @ 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

You made the claim that physics or astronomy didn't make such pronouncements. My claim was that it HAS before, that heliocentrism WAS incompatible with Christianity (see Galelei, Galileo). I guess you don't see heresy as being incompatible with Christianity.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remember Ecclesiastes 1:5?
The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.

The story of Joshua?

Psalm 104: 5?
[God] (w)ho laid the foundations of the Earth, that it should not be removed for ever.

Isaiah 66:1?
Thus saith the Lord: Heaven is my throne, and the earth my footstool.

I Chronicles 16:30?
Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.

Psalm 96:10?
the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Save it, Augustine had this wrapped up in the 4th century:
 
Quote
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. (1 Timothy 1.7)

  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,12:20   

Quote (Dan @ Sep. 18 2009,12:03)
If this argument were correct, then Newtonian mechanics would also be incompatible with Christianity.

Quote
FL claims that evolution is unteleological and Christianity is teleological, hence evolution is incompatible with Christianity.


Actually I think that FL is claiming that evolution is antiteleological. The problem is that he hasn't provided any evidence that this is so.

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

  
sledgehammer



Posts: 531
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,12:27   

Quote (creeky belly @ Sep. 18 2009,10:10)
<snip>
Save it, Augustine had this wrapped up in the 4th century:
     
Quote
... Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books..... (1 Timothy 1.7)

An apt description of Floyd's forays into these fora.

--------------
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

  
sledgehammer



Posts: 531
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,12:28   

(deleted double post)

--------------
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,12:30   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 18 2009,10:40)
Quote
I think all of us here would like to hear your answer to this problem, which seems to cut straight through the haze of your big four arguments.

Really?  Indeed we shall seeeeee if your faith in Dan's ditty carries rational warrant.  Will start on that one, beginning around 12:30 CST.

FloydLee

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

Richardthughes' s point that you were "arguing to consequences" Should have at least given you pause -- had you wished for readers to believe that you were arguing in good faith, Floyd. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adconseq.html

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

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,12:58   

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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,13:03   

This far, Floyd Lee's arguments have been that ;
1. Evolution led some people to agnosticism or atheism.
2. Evolution denies teleology.

As for the first claim, this is denied by the list of Christians that believe evolution is compatible with and non-contradictory to evolution. Some is not all. "Some have also been led to a belief" that rises above literalist fundamentalist know-nothingism. This is in direct contradiction to FloydLee-ism

As for the second, OT summarizes succinctly:
 
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Sep. 17 2009,14:03)
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.


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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,13:05   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 18 2009,12:58)
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

Notice that my summary above, Floyd Lee thus far has no argument at all.

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

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,13:06   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 18 2009,12:58)
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

Pope Benedict would beg to differ with your claims, FL

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961/

Or, are you saying that the Pope is lying?

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

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

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 18 2009,13:05)
...Floyd Lee thus far has no argument at all.

That is because FL is not here to present an argument, and he is not here to debate: he is here to preach at us in a vain attempt to convert us horrible pagan heathen atheist sorcerers to his version of Christianity.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,13:12   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 18 2009,12:58)
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

The "proof" is against your claim, FloydLee. Your claim was  “Evolution is incompatible with Christianity.”

Try to keep up.

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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,13:19   

P.S. It took you four days to address this point that was presented to you immediately, FLoyd Lee.

It has also been show that your claim that "nowhere in your e-point set-up did you actually claim that the Pope says that evolution is compatible with Christianity" is false.

The Pope said exactly that.

Now all you can do is what? Claim that you're the messiah?

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

  
JohnW



Posts: 2226
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
Sealawr



Posts: 54
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,13:49   

One official Catholic Church position on evolution is set out in a document called "Imago Dei"  (Man in the image of God).  This document was sent to, and approved by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict.  It is pretty much as "official" church teaching as it can be.

The money paragraph very succinctly summarizes common descent and common ancestry.  For non-biologists it's quite good.

Text:offical Vatican Website

Here's the Catholic understanding of evolution, from the document:

"According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the “Big Bang” and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens."

A pretty good "layman's" description--So Floyd cannot argue that the Pope is somehow confused by evolution.  Maybe he wants to argue that the Pope is not Catholic and maybe bears shit in special Yellowstone outhouses and not in the woods.

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

  
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: 10094
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: 2873
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: 2873
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

  
Dale_Husband



Posts: 118
Joined: April 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2009,17:05   

Gee, it seems that I already debunked FL's claim that evolution is incompatible with Christianity by showing that one may believe in God and Jesus and not be blind followers of everything the Bible says as literally true. Why? Because the Bible was written by fallible, sinful men, not any God, and it would be insulting God Himself to claim otherwise.

Quote

If FL truly beleives that evolution is incompatible with Christianity, why not do the obvious thing and abandon Christianity? Because there is a LOT more evidence for evolution than there ever has been for the historical claims of Christianity.

And furthermore:
http://circleh.wordpress.com/2009....genesis

Facts do not lie, but people, including those who write what they claim are sacred scriptures, often do.


Quote
I have no problem with people accepting evolution and also being Christians, because I do not assume that all religious people have to be idiotic. And the historical case for the existence of Jesus doesn't even depend on whether or not evolution happens.  You, on the other hand, seem to have a lower opinion of most religious  people than I do. Ironic, isn't it?


Quote
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y153310  


Did he ever address my arguments there? Appearantly not!

--------------
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.

   
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2009,21:19   

Quote (Dale_Husband @ Sep. 19 2009,17:05)
Quote
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y153310  


Did he ever address my arguments there? Appearantly not!

Given as how FL is reluctant and or unwilling to back up his claim that accepting evolution corrodes/erodes one's faith by explaining how the faith of the current and previous Popes eroded/corroded because they accepted evolution, FL will never attempt to address your arguments, Dale.

  
Keelyn



Posts: 40
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2009,01:54   

Yes, well the current premise on the table is “Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity.” So, let’s recap one more time.

 1. Floyd is a Young Earth Creationist (He says so in a Sept 18 post – 09:48)
 2. At no time (so far) has Floyd offered up any evidence that any part of evolutionary theory is invalid. (He has only made some disparaging remarks without any examples to support them)
 3. The last poll I read stated that only about 38% of Americans accept evolution as fact (I’m not sure what the danger and emergency is that Floyd refers to so emphatically – well, maybe I do …it’s at the end of this post)


So, recapping your four claims of incompatibility, Floyd:

FLOYD CLAIM 1 - In biblical Christianity, God is the REQUIRED explanation for the origins and existence of all biological objects (plants, animals, humans, etc) on earth, and He is the REQUIRED explanation for the origins and existence of the stars, the planets, the sun, the moon, and all other cosmological objects -- indeed, the entire universe.  The Bible is very clear on this point.

FLOYD EVO-CLAIM 1 - In contrast, evolution specifically denies that God is the REQUIRED explanation for said origins.

REALITY 1 – Absolutely false. Biological evolution does not address origins (especially cosmic origins – and that is the end of that). It also does not specifically deny anything. You are more than welcome to offer up a supernatural explanation of origins and objects (biological and\or cosmological) if you wish. Simply provide a hypothesis that can be tested. Do you have one, Floyd?


FLOYD CLAIM 2 - Evolution directly preaches and teaches the doctrine of NT-NCF (No-Teleology-No-Conscious-Forethought), which is clearly diametrically opposed to what biblical Christianity teaches about biological origins.

REALITY 2 – True and false. First, evolution doesn’t preach anything. True, evolution has no teleology, but then neither does any other scientific discipline. It is a weak argument at best and could be applied to any science. Floyd is saying that evolution is not goal oriented (neither is plate tectonics) – in particular, not goal oriented about humans. But, a lack of teleology in essence applies to all sciences – hence, science is incompatible with Christianity (or Floyd’s interpretation of it). In fact, however, it is a false claim – Floyd is once again invited to provide a hypothesis that can be tested to demonstrate that evolution (or any other discipline of science) does have a goal and that that goal is guided by supernatural entity. Nothing in evolutionary theory stops you, Floyd. Do you have one? (Misrepresented quotes are very unconvincing)


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

REALITY 3 – Another absurd claim. Evolution makes no such claim. Again, misrepresenting a few quotes is unconvincing. Are you are implying that God is a hominid, Floyd? Pathetic. Only a biblical literalist would confuse the physical with the spiritual.


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

This one is the worst of all, because it directly crashes into the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  There is no way to escape the broken-glass impact of this one.

Evolutionary theory teaches that death has ALWAYS been present on this planet. No exceptions.

This is a direct negation of Romans 5:12-17, which says that death historically entered this world only AFTER Adam and Eve sinned (this event is called "The Fall.")

REALITY 4 – Dheddle has already addressed this false assertion very adequately. The claim is absurd and, again, only a biblical literalist would be so dumb.


So, to recap Floyd, all four of your claims have been refuted without any need to misquote or misrepresent any famous scientists.

There is one thing, however, that is very clear in everything Floyd writes. He is a like a very frightened little boy – all alone in the dark of the 21st century. It is summed up very well right here (Floyd won’t read it, of course – but maybe some other posters or lurkers will):


http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/09/stanley_the_barnacle.php


Yes, Floyd, you really are a little barnacle. If I were you, I would be very upset with my god. Here you are a frightened child in the technological world of the 21st century when you could have been a contented man at any time between the 8th and 14th centuries. It’s a shame that you missed out by as much as 1300 years.

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

  
Chayanov



Posts: 289
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2009,14:09   

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

REALITY 3 – Another absurd claim. Evolution makes no such claim. Again, misrepresenting a few quotes is unconvincing. Are you are implying that God is a hominid, Floyd? Pathetic. Only a biblical literalist would confuse the physical with the spiritual.

Claim 3 really is unbelievably stupid. Taken literally it assumes that God is an actual, physical person because we're actual, physical people. Never mind, as you pointed out, that there are other, equally valid possibilities for being "made in God's image". If literally true, then Christianity is also incompatible with rocket science, since we've sent telescopes, probes, and even people into space, and nobody has seen God on his heavenly throne or St. Peter at the pearly gates.

And fundagelicals like FL really do see it as being literally true, with their fantasies of having barbecues and going RVing with Jesus after they die. So are Mir and the Hubble telescope also incompatible with Christianity?

(Rhetorical question. If anything, FL will equivocate on what it means to be made in God's image.)

Although I find the idea of God as a hominin to be rather amusing. Homo erectus was around a lot longer than Homo sapiens (so far). Maybe God is still using Acheulian tools?

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

  
Dan



Posts: 77
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2009,14:42   

Richard Dawkins wrote in a recent "Wall Street Journal" article

http://online.wsj.com/article....24.html

that abiogenesis and evolution "leaves him [God] with nothing to do".

My immediate reaction was "What rubbish!"  Here are some things for God to do other than to create and diversify life:

create peace
make souls immortal
inspire art, architecture, music, science, and philosophy
expand the good in people's personalities
expand the good in the personalities of animals
create and maintain the universe
structure the laws of physics
provide food for the hungry [both human and animal]
provide solace for the dispossessed [both human and animal]
promote the spiritual in materialistic societies
promote the material in impoverished societies
provide stability to those in difficult times
answer prayers

I'm sure you can come up yourself with many more roles for God to play.

My second thought was, "Who else has such a parched and restricted view of the role of God?"  And then the answer hit me: "FL!  He shares the same blighted picture of God that Richard Dawkins does!"

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

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

dan the mereological reductionists and the presuppositionalists make queer but apropos bedfellows.  i love it so!

i'm still laughing about going RVing with jesus!!!!  it would probably look something like this


http://awkwardfamilyphotos.com/2009/09/12/the-prize/

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

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1005
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2009,17:31   

I just read where some kid got over a million points in Guitar Hero.

A MILLION points!

God could try for High Score.  That would give him both a goal and something to do.

After that, maybe He could join a WoW guild.

  
Chayanov



Posts: 289
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2009,17:59   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 20 2009,15:18)
dan the mereological reductionists and the presuppositionalists make queer but apropos bedfellows.  i love it so!

i'm still laughing about going RVing with jesus!!!!  it would probably look something like this


http://awkwardfamilyphotos.com/2009/09/12/the-prize/

The Christians have it all wrong. It's really Mary, mother of Dog:

http://awkwardfamilyphotos.com/2009/09/04/nativity/





(This post should probably be moved, since it contributes nothing to the debate. Then again, there is no actual debate going on, either.)

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

  
Amadan



Posts: 1244
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2009,07:22   

My favourite specimen was from a thread on Rapture Retards where they were discussing what they'd like to do in Heaven next week. One dweeb said he'd really like to ask Jesus for a light sabre.

--------------
"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.

   
Keelyn



Posts: 40
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2009,09:02   

Ok. I think it is reasonable to conclude that Floyd has lost the argument to part 1a of “Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity” – his “Four very serious incompatibilities.” We can now move on to part 1b – “…emphasis on "the biblical perspective on biology").” So far, I haven’t seen the “emphasis.” What do you say, Floyd? A little emphasis?

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

  
k.e..



Posts: 2873
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2009,09:39   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Sep. 21 2009,01:31)
I just read where some kid got over a million points in Guitar Hero.

A MILLION points!

God could try for High Score.  That would give him both a goal and something to do.

After that, maybe He could join a WoW guild.

According to Dan the god of the Abrahamic Bible get's the medal for I presume rock music.

I wonder how Dan can lay claim to Hindu music.

Dan just a question

Does music composed by a non christian for say the  Shakuhachi Flute fall in or out of your claims and if so does that still apply if the player is gay.

And what about the Roman aquaducts which were dedicated to pre-christian gods can Mr Jesus & his runaway daddy get credit for them?

Fuck those Romans were right give 'em an inch and they take a frikken mile.

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

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3553
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2009,10:16   

Quote
My immediate reaction was "What rubbish!"  Here are some things for God to do other than to create and diversify life:

create peace
make souls immortal
inspire art, architecture, music, science, and philosophy
expand the good in people's personalities
expand the good in the personalities of animals
create and maintain the universe
structure the laws of physics
provide food for the hungry [both human and animal]
provide solace for the dispossessed [both human and animal]
promote the spiritual in materialistic societies
promote the material in impoverished societies
provide stability to those in difficult times
answer prayers


The slacker should get started on at least one of these.

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
Dan



Posts: 77
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2009,11:13   

Quote (k.e.. @ Sep. 21 2009,09:39)
According to Dan the god of the Abrahamic Bible get's the medal for I presume rock music.

I wonder how Dan can lay claim to Hindu music.

I said no such thing.

I listed many roles for God to play.  Whether God is actually playing them is a different question -- one that's irrelevant to the fact that "evolution is compatible with Christianity".  There are, of course, things other than the God of Abraham that can inspire artwork, provide solace, etc.

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2009,14:06   

Okay, back again.  Still recovering from illness, could not post this weekend.  Was able to print off all six pages of ATBC debate, however, and I'm currently studying those.

Checked out Glenn Morton's site also.  He only addresses ONE of the Big Four (leaving three untouched).  He only addresses the fourth one, so I'll do his and DHeddle's together.  

(Btw, Morton doesn't do a good job on his one gig, so it shouldn't take long to move on to Heddle's.)

FloydLee

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2009,14:37   

Quote
Gee, it seems that I already debunked FL's claim that evolution is incompatible with Christianity by showing that one may believe in God and Jesus and not be blind followers of everything the Bible says as literally true. Why? Because the Bible was written by fallible, sinful men, not any God, and it would be insulting God Himself to claim otherwise.


Well, let's see Dale.  First, you've just denied the operation of the providence of God in the making of the Scriptures.

Second, your particular argument attacking the reliability of the Scriptures, is just as quickly applicable to the Gospels as well as Genesis, and is just as severe an attack on the historical claims of the Cross of Christ as well as the Creation.

So you haven't reconciled anything between evolution and Christianity by your specific argument there.  Instead, you've denied an important biblical attribute of God, and ALSO succeeded in employing a skeptic-argument that actualy attacks Christianity itself, not just Creation.  Good job!

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2009,14:51   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 21 2009,14:37)
Quote
Gee, it seems that I already debunked FL's claim that evolution is incompatible with Christianity by showing that one may believe in God and Jesus and not be blind followers of everything the Bible says as literally true. Why? Because the Bible was written by fallible, sinful men, not any God, and it would be insulting God Himself to claim otherwise.


Well, let's see Dale.  First, you've just denied the operation of the providence of God in the making of the Scriptures.

Second, your particular argument attacking the reliability of the Scriptures, is just as quickly applicable to the Gospels as well as Genesis, and is just as severe an attack on the historical claims of the Cross of Christ as well as the Creation.

So you haven't reconciled anything between evolution and Christianity by your specific argument there.  Instead, you've denied an important biblical attribute of God, and ALSO succeeded in employing a skeptic-argument that actualy attacks Christianity itself, not just Creation.  Good job!

How does all of this mewling word-lawyering, cherry-picked testimonials, and quotemining are supposed to convince us that evolution is incompatible with Christianity when the current and previous Popes have demonstrated that they have had no problems reconciling faith with the acceptance of evolution?

Are you saying that your definition of Christianity, which apparently excludes Roman Catholics, including Popes Benedict and John Paul is the one true Christianity?

Or are you saying that the Pope is the only Christian alive who has the sole privilege of reconciling evolution and faith in Jesus Christ?

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3553
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2009,15:10   

Quote
Or are you saying that the Pope is the only Christian alive who has the sole privilege of reconciling evolution and faith in Jesus Christ?

Don't leave out most mainstream protestant denominations.

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2009,15:25   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 21 2009,15:10)
Quote
Or are you saying that the Pope is the only Christian alive who has the sole privilege of reconciling evolution and faith in Jesus Christ?

Don't leave out most mainstream protestant denominations.

According to FL's innuendo, any Christian who has the satanic gall to accept the fact of evolution while accepting salvation from Jesus Christ, and who isn't the Pope, are either deluded fake Christians, or are evil atheistic Pagan sorcerers pretending to be Christians in order to ensnare and devour the unwary among the True Christians (T).

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3553
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2009,15:30   

So aside from Roman Catholics no true Christan accepts evolution, aside from Methodists and aside from Episcopalians and Presbyterians (PCUSA only), no TRUE Christian accepts evolution, aside from those that do.

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2009,15:39   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 21 2009,15:30)
So aside from Roman Catholics no true Christan accepts evolution, aside from Methodists and aside from Episcopalians and Presbyterians (PCUSA only), no TRUE Christian accepts evolution, aside from those that do.

No, according to FL, any Christian, of any denomination, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Unitarian, Baptist, Episcopalian, or even Epulopiscium, who isn't the Pope, but who accepts the fact of evolution, isn't actually a Christian.

Either that, or FL is apparently too polite to admit that he thinks that the Pope isn't a Christian.

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2009,15:58   

Keelyn recaps:
 
Quote
1. Floyd is a Young Earth Creationist (He says so in a Sept 18 post – 09:48)

True.  After several years of discussion and debate, I have come to the conclusion that the Bible does in fact teach YEC.  With any viewpoint you will have questions and challenges, but Old-Earth Creationism has more problems than YEC, and Theistic Evolutionism is a Total-Theological-Train-Wrec at this time.

At the same time, however, I like reading OEC writers like Hugh Ross and Rich Deem, and Francis Collins did show some real courage as a TE in his Language of God book, he's unwilling to serve merely as a shoeshine boy for the secular evolutionists.  So I commend him that much.  But neither OEC (and especially not TE) enjoys as much biblical support as YEC.

And of course, I like ID, particularly on the science front.

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2009,16:04   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 21 2009,15:58)
And of course, I like ID, particularly on the science front.

What "science" has Intelligent Design put out in the past couple of decades?

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2009,16:10   

continuing:
Quote
2. At no time (so far) has Floyd offered up any evidence that any part of evolutionary theory is invalid. (He has only made some disparaging remarks without any examples to support them)

Probably true.  The fact is that you simply DON't have to prove that "evolutionary theory is invalid" in order to establish that evolution is incompatible with Christianity.  Establishing that point can be accomplished whether evolution is scientifically 100% right or 100% wrong.

  
khan



Posts: 1479
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2009,16:12   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 21 2009,17:10)
continuing:
 
Quote
2. At no time (so far) has Floyd offered up any evidence that any part of evolutionary theory is invalid. (He has only made some disparaging remarks without any examples to support them)

Probably true.  The fact is that you simply DON't have to prove that "evolutionary theory is invalid" in order to establish that evolution is incompatible with Christianity.  Establishing that point can be accomplished whether evolution is scientifically 100% right or 100% wrong.

If evolution is incompatible with FL, maybe the problem is not with evolution.

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2009,16:23   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 21 2009,16:10)
continuing:
 
Quote
2. At no time (so far) has Floyd offered up any evidence that any part of evolutionary theory is invalid. (He has only made some disparaging remarks without any examples to support them)

Probably true.  The fact is that you simply DON't have to prove that "evolutionary theory is invalid" in order to establish that evolution is incompatible with Christianity.  Establishing that point can be accomplished whether evolution is scientifically 100% right or 100% wrong.

Then how come you refuse to explain why the Pope contradicts all four points you've made?

Are you saying that the Pope is an exception to your rules, or are you saying that the Pope isn't a True Christian?

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2009,16:45   

Quote
abiogenesis and evolution "leaves him [God] with nothing to do".

Interesting statement by Richard Dawkins, Dan.  
Thanks for looking it up and putting it on the table.  

Sorta reminds me of what Slate.com editor Jacob Weisberg said:
 
Quote
"Post-Darwinian evolutionary theory, which can explain the emergence of the first bacteria, doesn't even leave much room for a deist God whose minimal role might have been to flick the first switch."

Sure doesn't sound compatible with Christianity, folks!!

:)

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10094
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2009,17:07   

If God is timeless, then it all unfolds to the majesty of his great plan, surely?

--------------
"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. 21 2009,17:09   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 21 2009,16:45)
Quote
abiogenesis and evolution "leaves him [God] with nothing to do".

Interesting statement by Richard Dawkins, Dan.  
Thanks for looking it up and putting it on the table.  

Sorta reminds me of what Slate.com editor Jacob Weisberg said:
   
Quote
"Post-Darwinian evolutionary theory, which can explain the emergence of the first bacteria, doesn't even leave much room for a deist God whose minimal role might have been to flick the first switch."

Sure doesn't sound compatible with Christianity, folks!!

:)

It appears that your definition of Christianity is incompatible with the Pope's definition of Christianity.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2009,17:17   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 21 2009,16:45)
Quote
abiogenesis and evolution "leaves him [God] with nothing to do".

Interesting statement by Richard Dawkins, Dan.  
Thanks for looking it up and putting it on the table.  

Sorta reminds me of what Slate.com editor Jacob Weisberg said:
   
Quote
"Post-Darwinian evolutionary theory, which can explain the emergence of the first bacteria, doesn't even leave much room for a deist God whose minimal role might have been to flick the first switch."

Sure doesn't sound compatible with Christianity, folks!!

:)

What a "Slate" editor or what Dawkins might say about possible roles for a God doesn't mean a damn thing outside of being their own opinion.

Entire sects of Christianity are perfectly content with the notion of a prime mover God that enabled evolution to unfold.

Nothing irrefutably "Divinely Inspired" in the Bible contradicts this. That's why many Christian sects are content with their view -- the same view you haven't even managed to deal with as of yet *

*(see all the questions in previous posts that you deliberately avoided.)

Cherry-picking quotes from scientists or palming off your "creative interpretations" of Bible bits as "authoritative" is about as good as your arguments have gotten so far, Floyd.

And that's pretty bad. Even for YEC apologetics

Massive failure so far on your part, Floyd. Excellent.

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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2009,17:24   

A fun exercise might fall along the lines of

"Why Floyd Lee's YECtastic pseudo-Christianity is a destructive parody."

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

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2009,17:27   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 21 2009,17:17)
Cherry-picking quotes from scientists or palming off your "creative interpretations" of Bible bits as "authoritative" is about as good as your arguments have gotten so far, Floyd.

And that's pretty bad. Even for YEC apologetics

Massive failure so far on your part, Floyd. Excellent.

You want we should start moving on to discussing how and why FL's insistence that Intelligent Design is epic fail?

  
Dan



Posts: 77
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2009,18:39   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 21 2009,16:45)
 
Quote
abiogenesis and evolution "leaves him [God] with nothing to do".

Interesting statement by Richard Dawkins, Dan.  
Thanks for looking it up and putting it on the table.  

...

Sure doesn't sound compatible with Christianity, folks!!

:)

Note the quote mine.  I showed why Dawkins was wrong, but FL, bless his heart, left that part out!  (If he left it in, people reading it might have to think, so he saved you all the trouble.)

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2009,18:53   

Why Floyd Lee's Claims are Destructive To Christianity

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

Floyd Lee ("FL") points to 4 issues in which HE believes evolution and Christianity conflict. He describes those 4 points as "foundational."

He believes that Christians who don't adhere to HIS (FL's) view of such matters are not Christian.

Before going into those 4 issues, I'd say straightaway that FL's views are already divisive and destructive. FL's views are bibliolatrous. They elevate Biblical literalism and inerrancy. They invoke infallibly "right" interpretations of a pre-scientific Bible to cast judgement on people and knowledge today.

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

Wiser people than Floyd have seen this type of bizarre reality-denying literalism in the past -- astronomers were persecuted and sometimes burned alive for "violating" particularistic interpretations of the Bible which were held to be inviolable and inerrant.

Unfortunately, even today many people (like Floyd Lee)  think of God primarily as the explanation for things they don't understand, like astronomy, physics, chemistry,  genetics...or evolution. They shut off their brains and point to literalist Bibliolatrous interpretations of the past --which is why Floyd Lee is a YEC ( despite the Earth being scientifically demonstrably older than the Bible would allow given a literalist reading) .  

To define God and reality in those literalist-apologist terms, especially when Christians base their apologetics on bibliolatry, is a major, destructive error against Christianity.

It sets up the faithful for a fall whenever human curiosity and reason in the modern form of science does succeed in finding a "natural" explanation for what has been previously and antithetically claimed as "true" by a literalist/inerrant view of the Bible and God.

As science progresses the "gaps" in scientific explanation grow smaller. The theist who uses Bibliolatry to rationalize their claims may find that, at some point, there simply isn't enough room for their God anymore. They become viewed as being as antiquated and irrational as the primitive goat-herder who ascribes rainfall to a Thunder-God.

It is especially dangerous to draw a line in the sand and insist that the truth of Christianity *depends* on the existence/infallibility of a (or 4) Immutable foundational "Biblical Truths." Some, like Floyd Lee,  seem to have drawn such a line with regard to the evolution of life, which may be paving the way for an embarrassment comparable to that caused by the church's insistence on the "Biblical Truth" of a geocentric universe in Galileo's day. Even worse, what Floyd Lee claims to be "true" about evolution can be applied to major fields of science, arts and humanities.

That's part of why Floyd Lee's literalist (but only *selectively literalist* I'd wager) views are destructive to his own brand of Faith. They are destructive of and corrosive to human knowledge iteself, as well.

Ignorance and the advocacy of ignorance a la Floyd Lee isn't conducive to anything but the most virulent, primitive and violent forms of religion.

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

  
Dale_Husband



Posts: 118
Joined: April 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2009,19:09   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 21 2009,14:37)
Quote
Gee, it seems that I already debunked FL's claim that evolution is incompatible with Christianity by showing that one may believe in God and Jesus and not be blind followers of everything the Bible says as literally true. Why? Because the Bible was written by fallible, sinful men, not any God, and it would be insulting God Himself to claim otherwise.

Well, let's see Dale.  First, you've just denied the operation of the providence of God in the making of the Scriptures.

And this is a problem for you? Maybe you just need to grow up.

Second, your particular argument attacking the reliability of the Scriptures, is just as quickly applicable to the Gospels as well as Genesis, and is just as severe an attack on the historical claims of the Cross of Christ as well as the Creation.

Only if you assume that if the records of Jesus' life are not totally accurate, then the entire record is worthless. Rather, a little critical thinking would debunk those parts that are false and discover those that are true, resulting in a more accurate record about Jesus.

So you haven't reconciled anything between evolution and Christianity by your specific argument there.  Instead, you've denied an important biblical attribute of God, and ALSO succeeded in employing a skeptic-argument that actualy attacks Christianity itself, not just Creation.  Good job!

But you can still beleive in God and Jesus without beleiving blasphemous absurdities about the Bible, FL.

--------------
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.

   
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 21 2009,20:31   

Floyd Lee's "Big Four Foundational Claims"

 
Quote
1.  In biblical Christianity, God is the REQUIRED explanation for the origins and existence of all things. Evolution denies this.


If I were to cherry-pick some claims by various scientists in Physics or Chemistry, or Biology, or Astronomy, I have no doubt at all that I could find some that say "My field 'X' doesn't require that we ascribe orgins to Yahweh."

Floyd Lee's "logic" says a Real Christian must reject things like astronomy if SOME astronomers in it have made claims about "no God needed"

That's all he's offered about evolution --- cherry-picked quotes that run contrary to his "big 4 ." Well, as I said, all the major fields of science (and humanities and arts) include some statements by some practitioners to that effect.

This means that Floyd Lee's view is destructive not just to Christianity but to human knowledge in general -- Reject them all by the "logic" of Floyd Lee. Go back to the Dark Ages. Floyd Lee will lead you. Good riddance, too. 

 
Quote
2. Floyd Lee says Evolution doesn't agree with Floyd Lee's literalist concept of teleology, that evolution is clearly diametrically opposed to what biblical Christianity teaches about biological origins.


See above. Lee's God is apparently so small and impotent as to be incapable of lots of things. Reject Physics, if it claims that Genesis isn't LITERALLY "true" n all aspects. Reject Genetics if it says sheep don't change colors because of sticks placed near them, or reject Chemistry if it says that water cannot be *literally* turned into wine by instantaneous miraculous transmutation.

Forget the symbolic, non-literal value of the Bible when it pleases you and embrace literalism when it pleases you. Be like Floyd Lee and claim that people who aren't literalists aren't Christians.

 
Quote
3.  Evolution specifically denies the foundational Christian claim that humans are created and designed in the image of God.


See the answer of a previous poster who asked if Floyd Lee *really thinks* that God is a hominid primate.

Floyd Lee either worships a bizarrely anthropomorphic God or himself, or power, or posibly all three at once -- in a laughable trinity of (insert term of choice).

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

This is literalism at its worst. Reality-denying literalism that puts God in a little box based on words that men wrote thousands of years ago. It's the thinking of a child and a sure prescription for the destruction of Christianity. Reject paleontology and geology! Reject anything that has "Death-Before-Adam!"

Forget that Adam is a metaphor, a symbol. Forget reason and logic and deny the thinking abilities that lead to metaphors and symbols in general. Contribute to the destruction of the religion you pretend to thoughtfully embrace. Be a Floyd Fool.

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

  
Quack



Posts: 1751
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2009,02:25   

Quote
And of course, I like ID, particularly on the science front.

If that's the case, this ought to be of scientific interest to you.

--------------
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.

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2009,08:43   

Quote
Note the quote mine.  I showed why Dawkins was wrong, but FL, bless his heart, left that part out!


No quote mine there, Dan.  Dawkins said exactly what HE meant, and your attempt to escape his statement demonstrates that indeed it was a statement of incompatilibility.  It simply reminded me of somebody else's similar statement and all I wanted to do was mention it (and of course, to thank you for bringing up Dawkins' line in the first place! )

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2009,09:28   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,08:43)
Quote
Note the quote mine.  I showed why Dawkins was wrong, but FL, bless his heart, left that part out!


No quote mine there, Dan.  Dawkins said exactly what HE meant, and your attempt to escape his statement demonstrates that indeed it was a statement of incompatilibility.  It simply reminded me of somebody else's similar statement and all I wanted to do was mention it (and of course, to thank you for bringing up Dawkins' line in the first place! )

You must be a sad person, FL.  I mean, you wail and moan about how your faith is threatened by biological reality, and now you tell us that you follow the dictations of an atheist you've quotemined over what you can and can't believe.  I mean, why can't your faith be as robust as, say, the Pope?

And yes, we automatically assume that you're quotemining because we know you long enough to have learned that if you're not lying, you're either quotemining or you're purposefully misrepresenting whoever or whatever it is you're mentioning, be it a science textbook or the Bible, or whatever.

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2009,09:28   

Quote
If God is timeless, then it all unfolds to the majesty of his great plan, surely?


Very interesting you should word it that way, because the existence of "the majesty of His great plan" WRT biological origins is exactly what evolution denies.  

By claiming that there's a God whose majestic great plan includes evolution, you've just said that God is the required explanation for origins.  Which evolutionists Mayr and Olford already told you evolutionary theory means that God is NOT required as a explanation for origins.

By saying "the majesty of His great plan", you're also directly invoking Teleology and conscious forethought---which again, evolutionary theory itself DOES NOT admit. No-Teleology-No-Conscious-Forethought, remember?

And there's a third major problem with what you said, which multiple evolutionists have brought up already, everybody from Monod to Dawkins to Rosenhouse.  It goes something like this:

 
Quote
"(Natural) selection is the blindest and most cruel way of evolving new species, and more and more complex and refined organisms..."---Jacques Monod


 
Quote
"Evolution by natural selection, you see, is an awful process. It is bloody, sadistic, and cruel. It flouts every moral precept we humans hold dear.

It recognizes only survival and gene propagation, and even on those rare occasions where you find altruism and non-selfishness you can be certain that blind self-interest is lurking somewhere behind the scenes. All of this suffering, pain and misery, mind you, to reach a foreordained moment when self-aware creature finally appeared.

What theological purpose was served by all this bloodsport? If humans were inevitable why didn't God simply fast-forward the tape himself, thereby sparing all of those animals that died horrible deaths in the preceding hundreds of millions of years?

....Reconciling evolution and Christianity is not as simple as theistic evolutionists often try to pretend."

---Jason Rosenhouse's Evolutionblog, "My Review of Only A Theory", June 21, 2008


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

ANOTHER incompatibility.

******

So here's the real deal:  by suggesting that evolution is part of "the majesty of (God's) great plan", you have not only run afoul of evolution's clear teachings (Incompatibility #1 and #2), but you have actually introduced a FIFTH huge incompatibility, longstanding and intractable just like the others, between evolution and Christianity.

From now on I will be saying "The Big Five" instead of "The Big Four."

FloydLee

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2009,09:35   

Quote
And yes, we automatically assume that you're quotemining...

Saves you from having to factually check it out and do the actual homework for yourself, doesn't it?  How very convenient.    :)

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2009,09:37   

and bashing the heads of the little ones against the stones makes the OT god a veritable saint.

you equivocate and obfuscate

for one who believes in eternal paradise, you know that no amount of worldly suffering matters.  yet you lie about this to slander your opponents, rather than deal with the merits of the argument

if the way your gods work is that their actions are indistinguishable from their lack of action, yet your gods have omniscience and omnipotence, then what are you even complaining about?

your gods are petty and small indeed, if they cannot use natural selection to accomplish their ends.  even smaller, still, if they limit their moral scope to the workings of this world to the detriment of the great ecosystem in the sky where nothing ever dies and everyone has fitness of 1.0

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

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

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

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2009,09:38   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,10:35)
Quote
And yes, we automatically assume that you're quotemining...

Saves you from having to factually check it out and do the actual homework for yourself, doesn't it?  How very convenient.    :)

just like when the pavement is wet, we assume it's raining, those of us who have laughed at you read your junk on PT for years are well aware of your ahem inadequacies

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10094
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2009,09:40   

Quote
Very interesting you should word it that way, because the existence of "the majesty of His great plan" WRT biological origins is exactly what evolution denies.  



Except I said "If...", so it's conjecture, a possibility, to which science and even Dawkins himself is open:

"A serious case could be made for a deistic God." RD.

Next, who are we to judge God? Don't you guys throw that around a lot? What with our relative morals and such. My tiny mind can't grasp his awesomeness! plus we already have 'the problem of evil', so get over yourself already.

You're a bad hypocrite if you special plead on the problem of evil but can't take evolution.


So:

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

Edited.

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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2009,09:55   

Fundamentalist-Inerrantist-Literalists are a detriment to the human race -- They retard the advance of knowledge and human understanding.

For Christians, they represent additional concerns -

(1) the further destruction of Christianity's reputation
(2) the disdain of non-believers that are threatened with "damnation" and the like.
(3) The conflict created with other (non-literalist) Christians when literalists try to pretend that analogies, symbols and metaphor *must be* taken literally by a "True Christian."

Literalists are anti-intellectual, dishonest, hypocritical, manipulative, cult-like, and repulsive.

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2009,09:56   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 22 2009,10:55)
Fundamentalist-Inerrantist-Literalists are a detriment to the human race -- They retard the advance of knowledge and human understanding.

For Christians, they represent additional concerns -

(1) the further destruction of Christianity's reputation
(2) the disdain of non-believers that are threatened with "damnation" and the like.
(3) The conflict created with other (non-literalist) Christians when literalists try to pretend that analogies, symbols and metaphor *must be* taken literally by a "True Christian."

Literalists (like Floyd Lee represents) are anti-intellectual, dishonest, hypocritical, manipulative, cult-like, and repulsive.

so, full circle, why don't all the rational believers (sic) stomp out the t.a.r.d.'s?

bad politics, i reckon

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

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

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

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

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2009,09:59   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,09:28)
Notice how, under critical examination by evolutionists, evolution does NOT make God's plan look "majestic" at all, but instead cruel and sadistic.

ANOTHER incompatibility.

So, tell us of God's majesty when He annihilated all life on Earth that could not be stuffed into Noah's Ark simply because humans were too noisy and too naughty.

Or, tell us of God's kindness when He sent those she-bears to kill children.

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2009,10:01   

Anyone else notice how FL is too cowardly to acknowledge that the Pope continues to contradicts FL's so-called points?

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2009,10:02   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 22 2009,09:56)
so, full circle, why don't all the rational believers (sic) stomp out the t.a.r.d.'s?

bad politics, i reckon

I can't speak for believers, I can only say what I think -- and my view is that I don't think it's possible to stomp them all out:

"Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain." -- (Schiller, I think)

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

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2009,10:09   

Quote
cherry-pick

So far, none of the evolutionist statements I've quoted WRT the Big Five, have been cherry-picked or quote- mined.  

Each person quoted has meant exactly what he or she said on each point for which they were quoted WRT the Big Five.  

Nobody in this forum has come up with an extended quotation that contradicted the point expressed in the original quotation that I supplied.  Your felow evolutionists, authors, professors, are quite serious about what they are saying here.  They're not backing down one bit.

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2009,10:16   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 22 2009,10:09)
Quote
cherry-pick

So far, none of the evolutionist statements I've quoted WRT the Big Five, have been cherry-picked or quote- mined.  

Each person quoted has meant exactly what he or she said on each point for which they were quoted WRT the Big Five.  

Nobody in this forum has come up with an extended quotation that contradicted the point expressed in the original quotation that I supplied.  Your felow evolutionists, authors, professors, are quite serious about what they are saying here.  They're not backing down one bit.

Then how come numerous Christians, SUCH AS POPE BENEDICT, don't listen to these people whom you're misrepresenting into saying that Christianity and Evolution are incompatible?

Unless you can explain how the Pope can get away with ignoring your pathetic points, you have to realize that you're nothing but a bag of mean spirited hot air.

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 22 2009,10:16   

Quote
"A serious case could be made for a deistic God." RD.


Yeah, except that a deistic god doesn't fit biblical Christianity at all.   The religion of deism fits evolution fine, but deism is not compatible with Christianity.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10094
Joined: Jan. 2006