RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (100) < ... 89 90 91 92 93 [94] 95 96 97 98 99 ... >   
  Topic: FL "Debate Thread", READ FIRST POST BEFORE PARTICIPATING PLZ< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2009,14:20   

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 03 2009,12:39)

Quote
Quote
It was obvious to educated people back in the middle-to-end of the eighteenth century, including loads of ordained ministers, that the Earth was far older than circa 10,000 years.

But that notion was NOT coming from the Bible texts themselves.  That's the difference.


Yo Twinky Weeper - the notion was not coming from "pro- evolution" or Darwin propostion either, contrary to the nonsense you stated earlier.

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

  
JonF



Posts: 571
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2009,14:40   

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 03 2009,13:39)
Quote
It was obvious to educated people back in the middle-to-end of the eighteenth century, including loads of ordained ministers, that the Earth was far older than circa 10,000 years.

But that notion was NOT coming from the Bible texts themselves.  That's the difference.

The source of their realized knowledge doesn't matter. They either always interpreted the Bible texts figuratively, or they started to do so as soon as they realized that a literal interpretation of the Bible texts was flat-out wrong (as is required to make the Bible texts conform to the real world). Either way, they interpreted the biblical days of creation as long "deep time" ages long before Darwin was a twinkle in his father's eye.

  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2009,14:53   

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 03 2009,13:51)

Quote
Quote (FrankH @ Nov. 03 2009,12:16)
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 03 2009,13:05)
Cosmological ID and biological ID are two different concepts, so bringing in cosmological when the subject matter of this thread was biological, was changing the subject.

Henry

I've noted that in the mind of a YEC, Evolution includes, but is not limited to:

Big Bang
Galactic Evolution
Stellar Evolution
Planetary System Evolution
Abiogenesis
Non flood Geology

and more!

Heavy element generation by supernova
Radioactive decay rates
Euclidean geometry
Axiomatic set theory

Well, maybe not those last two?


Oh their in there too, at least according to Greg Bahsen and other such presuppostional apologists and pastor Doug Wilson who's currently promoting his "discussion" with Christopher Hitchens.

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 4046
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2009,15:18   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 03 2009,08:54)
Why don't you go live in a cave with the other cavemen? That's where you and yours would have us all...

I doubt if J-Dog wants him. ;)

  
jupiter



Posts: 97
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2009,16:19   

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 02 2009,08:56)
   
Quote
I don't take them seriously as philosophical texts or moral precepts or recipes for meatloaf or anything other than what they are—personal testimonies.

And that's the way it should be.  The personal testimonies are provided so that you and I can see that this issue is a REAL problem for Christians, not merely an excuse to play around with online debating.

The testimonies establish that there's a genuine reason to talk about this issue.  The followup for that is to rationally examine the Big Five Incompatibilities.

Floyd, YET AGAIN you're not getting it.

The "REAL problem"? The "Big Five"? They only exist for you and those who agree with you at the outset. For the rest of us, Christians and otherwise, they're "NOT A problem" and the "Big Nothings"—confused analysis at best and narrow-minded hubris at worst. Your whole argument is pointless: unnecessary for those who agree already and unconvincing for those who don't. Don't you get that yet? Will you ever get it?

Your self-identified problems and incompatibilities would be significant only if agreement with you were required to be a Christian. You've acknowledged it's not, and at that instant you acknowledged that you have no argument at all. You have nothing but "an excuse to play around with online debating." That's all you're doing, playing around on the intertubes, obediently jumping when you're prodded by an audience that thinks you're a dim joke.

But hey, knock yourself out. Like I said, everyone needs a hobby. Shine on, you fundy diamond.

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2009,16:48   

Hey, I found that information I was looking for from OEC Hugh Ross.  Will post that shortly.

But first let's do one objection from Deadman and Amadan.  They're claiming that Gonzalez/Richards have "assumed their conclusions."

The problem is that, having actually read "The Privileged Planet", it's clear that there's absolutely no evidence of that at all.  The authors start with observations (not assumptions) and then go from there.

What sort of observations?  Well, observed items like:

Quote
...how earth is precisely positioned in the Milky Way---not only for life, but also to allow us to find answers to the greatest mysteries of the universe

Quote
...striking ways in which water doesn't behave like most other liquids---and how each of its quirks makes it perfectly suited for the existence of creatures like us

In fact, they point out:
Quote
Most of the examples we have selected  are based on well-understood phenomena, and they are founded on abundant empirical evidence.  Examples include the properties of our atmosphere, solar eclipses, sedimentation processes, tectonic processes, the characteristics of the planets in the solar system, stellar spectra, stellar structure, and our place in the Milky Way galaxy.

Some of our other examples have a weaker empirical base, because of the rapid change and recent acquisition of knowledge in certain fields.This new knowledge includes extrasolar planets, additional requirements for habitability, and a host of insights in the field of cosmology.  But even in these examples, our arguments have a reasonable theoretical basis.

Where our discussions are speculative, we have identified them as such. ----pg 319.  

So it's not a matter of "assuming the conclusion" on the Privileged Planet cosmological ID hypothesis, but instead a matter of working from empirical observations to a reasonable (and especially testable) conclusion.  

Such is the way science works.

FloydLee

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2009,17:00   

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 03 2009,16:48)
Hey, I found that information I was looking for from OEC Hugh Ross.  Will post that shortly.

But first let's do one objection from Deadman and Amadan.  They're claiming that Gonzalez/Richards have "assumed their conclusions."

The problem is that, having actually read "The Privileged Planet", it's clear that there's absolutely no evidence of that at all.  The authors start with observations (not assumptions) and then go from there.

What sort of observations?  Well, observed items like:

       
Quote
...how earth is precisely positioned in the Milky Way---not only for life, but also to allow us to find answers to the greatest mysteries of the universe

       
Quote
...striking ways in which water doesn't behave like most other liquids---and how each of its quirks makes it perfectly suited for the existence of creatures like us

In fact, they point out:
       
Quote
Most of the examples we have selected  are based on well-understood phenomena, and they are founded on abundant empirical evidence.  Examples include the properties of our atmosphere, solar eclipses, sedimentation processes, tectonic processes, the characteristics of the planets in the solar system, stellar spectra, stellar structure, and our place in the Milky Way galaxy.

Some of our other examples have a weaker empirical base, because of the rapid change and recent acquisition of knowledge in certain fields.This new knowledge includes extrasolar planets, additional requirements for habitability, and a host of insights in the field of cosmology.  But even in these examples, our arguments have a reasonable theoretical basis.

Where our discussions are speculative, we have identified them as such. ----pg 319.  

So it's not a matter of "assuming the conclusion" on the Privileged Planet cosmological ID hypothesis, but instead a matter of working from empirical observations to a reasonable (and especially testable) conclusion.  

Such is the way science works.

FloydLee

Science doesn't work by ignoring fallacious preconceptions and illogic ...and leaping to preassumed conclusions.

Even the points you try to raise "how earth is precisely positioned...for life, but also to allow us to find answers to the greatest mysteries of the universe" relies on argumentam ad ignorantiam to make a claim that is preassumed and subjective.

Or how "water doesn't behave like most other liquids---and how each of its quirks makes it perfectly suited for the existence of creatures like us." is simply a God-of-the-gaps claim ( a version of ad ignorantiam pointing to  a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world, and assuming the cause must be supernatural or due to aliens.)  since we have no idea, for instance, whether or not subsurface life on Mars exists in conjunction with water, too. Nor do we have direct knowledge now of how many planets might be suitable for "life" , or what "life" means *precisely* or how many planets without water might harbor it -- other chemicals can conceivably be used for energy exchange and metabolic function, Flody

So far as we know, water seems neccessary for life as we know it, sure. But water is ubiquitous in this universe, so far as we know, Floaty  -- it's found on planets and moons and in interstellar space. Having it on this planet doesn't seem to be unusual at all -- it doesn't make Earth a Very Special Place. It takes a leap to a preassumed conclusion to claim it IS unusual on planets.

The rest of their list is post-hoc rationalization to arrive at a preassumed conclusion, too.

Avoiding fallacies, having actual testable hypotheses and means of falsification as well as eliminating well-known illogical flaws like assuming the conclusion...well, THAT is part of what science is about.

What Gonzalez is doing is merely pandering to his fan base -- and he's NOT doing science.

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2009,17:12   

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 03 2009,16:48)
Such is the way science works.

FloydLee

Then the obvious question to ask yourself is why scientists are not convinced?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
JohnW



Posts: 2226
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2009,17:20   

Quote
...striking ways in which water doesn't behave like most other liquids---and how each of its quirks makes it perfectly suited for the existence of creatures like us

For example, the miraculous way in which puddles are exactly the right shape to fit the holes they sit in.  The odds against this happening by chance are astronomical.

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

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2009,17:46   

Now, I'm NOT arguing that "ID is science" based upon OEC Hugh Ross's writings.  That's absolutely clear, or I hope it is.  I'm strictly going by Gonzalez and Richard's cosmological ID hypothesis from "The Privileged Planet."

However, a classic laundry list by which a person might choose to infer cosmological design, happens to come from Ross.  Here are a few selections.  
 
Quote

strong nuclear force constant

if larger: no hydrogen; nuclei essential for life would be unstable

if smaller: no elements other than hydrogen

weak nuclear force constant

if larger: too much hydrogen converted to helium in big bang, hence too much heavy element material made by star burning; no expulsion of heavy elements from stars

if smaller: too little helium produced from big bang, hence too little heavy element material made by star burning; no expulsion of heavy elements from stars

gravitational force constant

if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn up quickly and unevenly

if smaller: stars would be so cool that nuclear fusion would not ignite, thus no heavy element production

electromagnetic force constant

if larger: insufficient chemical bonding; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission

if smaller: insufficient chemical bonding

ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant

if larger: no stars less than 1.4 solar masses, hence short and uneven stellar burning

if smaller: no stars more than 0.8 solar masses, hence no heavy element production

ratio of electron to proton mass

if larger: insufficient chemical bonding

if smaller: insufficient chemical bonding

ratio of number of protons to number of electrons

if larger: electromagnetism dominates gravity preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation

if smaller: electromagnetism dominates gravity preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation

expansion rate of the universe

if larger: no galaxy formation

if smaller: universe collapses prior to star formation

entropy level of the universe

if larger: no star condensation within the proto-galaxies

if smaller: no proto-galaxy formation

mass density of the universe

if larger: too much deuterium from big bang, hence stars burn too rapidly

if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang, hence too few heavy elements forming

average distance between galaxies

if larger: insufficient gas would be infused into our galaxy to sustain star formation for a long enough time

if smaller: the sun’s orbit would be too radically disturbed

galaxy cluster type

if too rich: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt solar orbit

if too sparse: insufficient infusion of gas to sustain star formation for a long enough time

average distance between stars

if larger: heavy element density too thin for rocky planets to form

if smaller: planetary orbits would become destabilized

fine structure constant (a number used to describe the fine structure splitting of spectral lines)

if larger: no stars more than 0.7 solar masses

if smaller: no stars less than 1.8 solar masses

if larger than 0.06: matter is unstable in large magnetic fields

decay rate of the proton

if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation

if smaller: insufficient matter in the universe for life

12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio

if larger: insufficient oxygen

if smaller: insufficient carbon

ground state energy level for 4He

if larger: insufficient carbon and oxygen

if smaller: insufficient carbon and oxygen

decay rate of 8Be

if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars

if faster: no element production beyond beryllium and, hence, no life chemistry possible

mass excess of the neutron over the proton

if greater: neutron decay would leave too few neutrons to form the heavy elements essential for life

if smaller: proton decay would cause all stars to rapidly collapse into neutron stars or black holes

polarity of the water molecule

if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too great for life to exist

if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too small for life; liquid water would be too inferior of solvent for life chemistry to proceed; ice would not float, leading to a runaway freeze-up

supernovae eruptions

if too close: radiation would exterminate life on the planet

if too far: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets

if too infrequent: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets

if too frequent: life on the planet would be exterminated

if too soon: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets

if too late: life on the planet would be exterminated by radiation

white dwarf binaries

if too few: insufficient flourine produced for life chemistry to proceed

if too many: disruption of planetary orbits from stellar density; life on the planet would be exterminated

if too soon: not enough heavy elements made for efficient flourine production

if too late: flourine made too late for incorporation in protoplanet

---Hugh Ross, http://www.origins.org/articles/ross_evidencescosmos.html


Just food 4 thought, that's all.

FloydLee

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2009,17:51   

More food for thought: Floaty won't or can't address the fallacies and illogical steps already pointed out to him.

Instead Floaty tries floating another laundry-list of claimed "tunings" that presume a desired conclusion by their adherents.

Again, without Floaty addressing the criticisms that Floaty was already given five days ago. (and which he claimed he'd address)

"Just food 4 thought, that's all."

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

  
didymos



Posts: 1822
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2009,18:14   

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 03 2009,07:28)
Quote
The context there in Genesis is apparently so ambiguous

Ohhhh no, it's not.  Not even slightly. I didn't mention the OEC astronomer Hugh Ross as an endorsement of his OEC views, I mentioned him as an endorsement of his adherence to the same Bible interpretation rule that YECs adhere to.

Well, it must be because Hugh Ross adheres to the same rules right?  And yet, he comes up with something completely different than YECs despite "his adherence to the same Bible interpretation rule that YECs adhere to."  

See Floyd, you have two options here:

1.  Admit that:

 
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 02 2009,21:53)

The context there in Genesis is apparently so ambiguous one can still be "literal" and arrive at one of two ages....which only differ by a measly 4.5 or so billion fucking years.


and still be within the "rules" of  biblical "literalism".

2.  Admit Ross doesn't follow your idiosyncratic interpretive "principles", demonstrating that you've either deliberately misrepresented him in order to cash in on his "authority" or that you're a moron who fails to notice the obvious problems with citing an OEC in an attempt to shore up your YEC views of Genesis.  Or both, of course.

Edited: forgot part of quote

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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3284
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2009,18:21   

He also hasn't answered...

As has already been established... it is not falsifiable because there is no difference between

A) the universe that we live in is was designed specifically for us
B) the universe that we live in is a giant simulation to determine if live could evolve in a universe like ours
C) the only (or one of a few) of an infinite number of universes

Please explain, in detail, the difference that would be used to judge between these possible scenarios.  Then describe the experiment that would be used to test that hypothesis.

You're right, the scientific method works.

and


here's some more questions that need to be answered before we can even begin...

Don't forget to define 'superior platform' as well.  

Actually, on further reflection... the whole argument is stupid.  "Quite hostile to life" means that there would be no life, therefore how can a scientific discovery be made.  If there was life, the environment wouldn't be hostile.

Therefore that part can never be met.



Of course, FLoyd doesn't have any original ideas and can only parrot those that stole them from someone in the 1800s when this idea originated.

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

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

   
didymos



Posts: 1822
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2009,18:40   

BTW, Floyd, it's even worse when we consider the universe as a whole rather than just the Earth.  The discrepancy then becomes one of 13-14 billion years. You stilll wish to claim that Ross follows your rules of "literal" interpretation?

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

  
Amadan



Posts: 1244
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2009,18:56   

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 03 2009,17:46)
Now, I'm NOT arguing that "ID is science" based upon OEC Hugh Ross's writings.  That's absolutely clear, or I hope it is.  I'm strictly going by Gonzalez and Richard's cosmological ID hypothesis from "The Privileged Planet."

However, a classic laundry list by which a person might choose to infer cosmological design, happens to come from Ross.  Here are a few selections.  
 
Quote

strong nuclear force constant

if larger: no hydrogen; nuclei essential for life would be unstable

if smaller: no elements other than hydrogen

weak nuclear force constant

if larger: too much hydrogen converted to helium in big bang, hence too much heavy element material made by star burning; no expulsion of heavy elements from stars

if smaller: too little helium produced from big bang, hence too little heavy element material made by star burning; no expulsion of heavy elements from stars

gravitational force constant

if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn up quickly and unevenly

if smaller: stars would be so cool that nuclear fusion would not ignite, thus no heavy element production

electromagnetic force constant

if larger: insufficient chemical bonding; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission

if smaller: insufficient chemical bonding

ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant

if larger: no stars less than 1.4 solar masses, hence short and uneven stellar burning

if smaller: no stars more than 0.8 solar masses, hence no heavy element production

ratio of electron to proton mass

if larger: insufficient chemical bonding

if smaller: insufficient chemical bonding

ratio of number of protons to number of electrons

if larger: electromagnetism dominates gravity preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation

if smaller: electromagnetism dominates gravity preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation

expansion rate of the universe

if larger: no galaxy formation

if smaller: universe collapses prior to star formation

entropy level of the universe

if larger: no star condensation within the proto-galaxies

if smaller: no proto-galaxy formation

mass density of the universe

if larger: too much deuterium from big bang, hence stars burn too rapidly

if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang, hence too few heavy elements forming

average distance between galaxies

if larger: insufficient gas would be infused into our galaxy to sustain star formation for a long enough time

if smaller: the sun’s orbit would be too radically disturbed

galaxy cluster type

if too rich: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt solar orbit

if too sparse: insufficient infusion of gas to sustain star formation for a long enough time

average distance between stars

if larger: heavy element density too thin for rocky planets to form

if smaller: planetary orbits would become destabilized

fine structure constant (a number used to describe the fine structure splitting of spectral lines)

if larger: no stars more than 0.7 solar masses

if smaller: no stars less than 1.8 solar masses

if larger than 0.06: matter is unstable in large magnetic fields

decay rate of the proton

if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation

if smaller: insufficient matter in the universe for life

12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio

if larger: insufficient oxygen

if smaller: insufficient carbon

ground state energy level for 4He

if larger: insufficient carbon and oxygen

if smaller: insufficient carbon and oxygen

decay rate of 8Be

if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars

if faster: no element production beyond beryllium and, hence, no life chemistry possible

mass excess of the neutron over the proton

if greater: neutron decay would leave too few neutrons to form the heavy elements essential for life

if smaller: proton decay would cause all stars to rapidly collapse into neutron stars or black holes

polarity of the water molecule

if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too great for life to exist

if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too small for life; liquid water would be too inferior of solvent for life chemistry to proceed; ice would not float, leading to a runaway freeze-up

supernovae eruptions

if too close: radiation would exterminate life on the planet

if too far: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets

if too infrequent: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets

if too frequent: life on the planet would be exterminated

if too soon: not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets

if too late: life on the planet would be exterminated by radiation

white dwarf binaries

if too few: insufficient flourine produced for life chemistry to proceed

if too many: disruption of planetary orbits from stellar density; life on the planet would be exterminated

if too soon: not enough heavy elements made for efficient flourine production

if too late: flourine made too late for incorporation in protoplanet

---Hugh Ross, http://www.origins.org/articles/ross_evidencescosmos.html


Just food 4 thought, that's all.

FloydLee

Are you suggesting that these are improbable, Floyd?

Compared to what, precisely?

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

   
Dan



Posts: 77
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2009,20:18   

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 03 2009,12:39)
Quote
It was obvious to educated people back in the middle-to-end of the eighteenth century, including loads of ordained ministers, that the Earth was far older than circa 10,000 years.

But that notion was NOT coming from the Bible texts themselves.  That's the difference.

That's the difference between what and what?

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5377
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2009,20:24   

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 03 2009,17:48)
Such is the way science works.

FloydLee

As if you had the vaguest fucking clue as to how science works, Tardbucket.

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

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Henry J



Posts: 4046
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2009,22:09   

Quote
Are you suggesting that these are improbable, Floyd?

Compared to what, precisely?

He seems to be saying that if things were different than they are, then any occupants of the universe would be different than us.

Henry

  
Henry J



Posts: 4046
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2009,22:57   

Cosmological "ID" is still a different subject from biological "ID", and pretending they're the same is a way of changing the subject while pretending to not be changing the subject.

But that aside, if there were actually a viable evidence based argument for deliberate engineering of lifeforms on this planet (outside of human intervention), it would have already become part of biology, and would be getting researched by biologists (i.e., not by lawyers, mathematicians, engineers, journalists, etc.).

It would not have sat around waiting for somebody to argue in its favor on the internet.

Henry

  
Constant Mews



Posts: 323
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2009,23:40   

Let's lay out Floyd's principle difficulty.

Christianity is not based on Biblical literalism.  The appropriate, rational reading of Biblical verses does not require literalism.  The reason no "incompatibilities" exist is that Biblical literalism is not a key tenet of Christianity, and the "incompatibilities" only exist with regard to Biblical literalism.

Do you understand that, Floyd?  Biblical literalism and Christianity are not synonymous.

Period.

Does it bother you to realize that you are lying in order to save face?  That you have put your ego on a pedestal above God?

Floyd - answer this question:

Does a person have to accept a literal version of Genesis to be a Christian.

That's the entirety of your "argument" and your "incompatibles" summed up.

Christians - educated, intelligent Christians - can accept evolution rationally and with full understanding both of scripture and of evolutionary theory and of Christian doctrine, because Christian doctrine does not require that they adhere to a literal understanding of Genesis.

  
Amadan



Posts: 1244
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2009,02:40   

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 03 2009,22:09)
 
Quote
Are you suggesting that these are improbable, Floyd?

Compared to what, precisely?

He seems to be saying that if things were different than they are, then any occupants of the universe would be different than us.

Henry

Az der bubbe vot gehat baytzim vot zie geven mein zayde, as Auntie Livnat used to say.

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

   
Quack



Posts: 1751
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2009,05:22   

Quote
Floyd - answer this question:

Does a person have to accept a literal version of Genesis to be a Christian.

IMHO, Luke 10:25 - 28 says all that needs to be said about that, but I am afraid FL ha painted himself into a corner.

--------------
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: Nov. 04 2009,06:55   

Quote
Floaty won't or can't address the fallacies and illogical steps already pointed out to him.

Already refuted (from the book, ahemm) your claim that Dr. Gonzalez assumed his conclusions.   You could at least acknowledge that much.

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2009,06:57   

Quote
Christianity is not based on Biblical literalism.

Quick question CM:  in the Bible, was Jesus'sResurrection literal or non-literal?

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2009,07:07   

Quote
Admit Ross doesn't follow your idiosyncratic interpretive "principles"

You know, it sounds like you're completely unfamiliar with what OEC Dr. Hugh Ross has written.  So tell me....what do you think of THIS?
   
Quote
1.  The Bible must be taken literally unless the context indicates otherwise.

2.  The Bible is inerrant in all disciplines of scholarship.

3.  The universe was both transcendentally and supernaturally created.

4.  Naturalism cannot explain the origin of life.

5.  Naturalism cannot entirely explain the history of life, nor can theistic evolution.

6.  Naturalism cannot entirely explain the geophysical history of the earth.

7.  Naturalism cannot explain entirely the astrophysical history of the universe and solar system.

8.  Genesis 1 is both factual and chronological in its content. It describes God’s "very good" creation in the space of six days.

9.   Adam and Eve were a literal couple created by God just thousands of years ago.  

10.  All human beings owe their descent to Adam and Eve.


---Dr. Hugh Ross, "Ten Similarities", Jan.23, 2001

Now, he's still an OEC and such, but this IS what Hugh Ross wrote. So, you agree with him?

FloydLee

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2009,07:13   

Quote
Cosmological "ID" is still a different subject from biological "ID",

Intelligent Design is Intelligent Design.  I said I'd present posts on "ID is science and therefore it should be taught in science classrooms."  That's exactly what I'm doing.  What are you complaining about?

Guys, I can't help it if you've never read "The Privileged Planet" by Gonzalez and Richards. It's there at your local library and bookstore, it's been there for years, why didn't you READ it when you had a chance?  

Now you'll just have to play catch-up.  Your local library should be open today during daylight hours, yes?

FloydLee

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2009,07:22   

Quote
Because it promotes a specific religion over other religions violating the establishment clause of the US Constitution.

Please explain how the cosmological ID presentation in Gonzalez and Richard's book/film "The Privileged Planet" promotes "a specific religion over other religions."
(Btw, exactly what specific religion?)

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2009,07:28   

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 04 2009,07:22)
Quote
Because it promotes a specific religion over other religions violating the establishment clause of the US Constitution.

Please explain how the cosmological ID presentation in Gonzalez and Richard's book/film "The Privileged Planet" promotes "a specific religion over other religions."
(Btw, exactly what specific religion?)

Christianity.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2009,07:33   

Quote (FloydLee @ Nov. 04 2009,07:13)
Intelligent Design is Intelligent Design.  

William Dembski
 
Quote
Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory


http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/William_Dembski

If ID is ID as you say, who would know better what religion it promotes then one of it's leading lights.

For further details on how ID is inextricably entangled with Christianity and the Bible please see this website

http://uncommondescent.com/

Search of UncommonDescent for "Jesus"

Therefore ID's designer = The Christian god, as shown by their very own words.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2009,07:33   

Quote
....observing X leading to falsification of Y occurs if and only if X is an entailed consequence of Y. In those circumstances, observing X leads to falsification of Y, but such falsification does not occur if entailment does not hold.

But curiously, nobody around here has shown that "...entailment does not hold" for the specific X's that Gonzalez and Richards wrote about in their book (which I previously quoted).

So, at your convenience?

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

Pages: (100) < ... 89 90 91 92 93 [94] 95 96 97 98 99 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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