RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (100) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... >   
  Topic: FL "Debate Thread", READ FIRST POST BEFORE PARTICIPATING PLZ< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
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: 1006
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: 1268
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: 3067
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: 3607
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: 3607
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: 3607
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: 1486
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

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
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: 10324
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

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

Pages: (100) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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