RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (100) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >   
  Topic: FL "Debate Thread", READ FIRST POST BEFORE PARTICIPATING PLZ< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
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: 1956
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: 1956
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: 2883
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: 10116
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.

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

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


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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