RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

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



Posts: 10094
Joined: Jan. 2006

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

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

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

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4237
Joined: Oct. 2006

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

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 18 2009,10:23)
Real people are suffering real spiritual damage becasue of evolution--even to the point of abandoning their Christian faith and becoming real candidates for Hell itself when they pass away from this life.

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

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
nmgirl



Posts: 92
Joined: Sep. 2009

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

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 18 2009,08:48)
Quote
FL what's your timeline for the Earths history and what is your scientific explanation for the Flood?

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

why don't you answer the question?  

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

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

  
George



Posts: 312
Joined: Feb. 2006

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

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

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

1. The Pope is a Christian.

2. The Pope holds that evolution happens.

3. Therefore, Evolution is compatible with Christianity.

A simple three-line proof.

FL now has only five options:

A -- Contend that statement 1 is false.

B -- Contend that statement 2 is false.

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

D -- Accept that statement 3 is true.

OR

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


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

  
Amadan



Posts: 1244
Joined: Jan. 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
k.e..



Posts: 2866
Joined: May 2007

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

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 18 2009,17:23)
Btw, here's another guy who lost his Christian faith.  Was evolution the final trigger for that tragic loss?  Nope, apparently not.  (In fact he is very clear on what that final trigger turned out to be.)

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

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


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

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

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

FloydLee

Terrific an expert on Hell itself

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

wanker.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

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

Actually, another way of looking at Ricky Gervais' story (in a more chronological fashion) is that (if he received no exposure at all to evolution prior to losing his faith) is that he made an immature (8 years old), irrational decision.
(After all, exactly how does one's brother asking 'why do you believe in God' followed by Mom's shushing up said brother, rationally add up to a warrant for believing in atheism?)

In this case, a child made a tragic, unsupported decision to disbelieve in God.  Yet, as Gervais himself makes clear, that decision to jump into atheism did NOT rationally satisfy him -- he was aware that his atheism wasn't by itself providing any reason for his existence.

He could have said (in age-appropriate language), "My athiesm has failed to offer me a reason for being, for my existence, therefore I honestly don't have a rational warrant for hanging on to such a belief."  No intellectual fulfillment was being provided.

But nope.  EVOLUTION becomes his savior.  Evolution becomes the glue that reinforces his atheism in place, blinding him to his need to abandon it.

Btw, just like atheism, evolution didn't give him any reason for existence either -- but as you see from his remarks, NOW he's been anesthestized (via evolution) and no longer cares about that question which used to be important to find an answer to.

He's slid so far down via his comforting evolution-belief that he "no longer need a reason for his existence, only a reason to live."  

Evolution has thus robbed him of his motivation to move past his tragic irrational decision made when he was merely 8 years old, a decision which has placed his soul in jeopardy.

So here you can see that same sort of evolution-greases-the-slide action taking place in yet another life.  
Again, by itself, that doesn't prove evolution's incompatibility with Christianity.  

But added up with all the others, it shows that Christians have a REAL problem (affecting real people) on their hands with that incompability issue, and that it's necessarily to consider the issue very seriously.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10094
Joined: Jan. 2006

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

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

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

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,10:25   

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

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

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

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

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

FloydLee

  
nmgirl



Posts: 92
Joined: Sep. 2009

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

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 18 2009,10:13)
So here you can see that same sort of evolution-greases-the-slide action taking place in yet another life.  
Again, by itself, that doesn't prove evolution's incompatibility with Christianity.  

But added up with all the others, it shows that Christians have a REAL problem (affecting real people) on their hands with that incompability issue, and that it's necessarily to consider the issue very seriously.

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

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

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

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

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

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

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

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

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

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

FloydLee

  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

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

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


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

Quote
Yet, as Gervais himself makes clear, that decision to jump into atheism did NOT rationally satisfy him -- he was aware that his atheism wasn't by itself providing any reason for his existence.

He could have said (in age-appropriate language), "My athiesm has failed to offer me a reason for being, for my existence, therefore I honestly don't have a rational warrant for hanging on to such a belief."  No intellectual fulfillment was being provided.

But nope.  EVOLUTION becomes his savior.  Evolution becomes the glue that reinforces his atheism in place, blinding him to his need to abandon it.


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

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

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

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

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

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

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

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

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

  
k.e..



Posts: 2866
Joined: May 2007

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

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 18 2009,18:13)
Actually, another way of looking at Ricky Gervais' story (in a more chronological fashion) is that (if he received no exposure at all to evolution prior to losing his faith) is that he made an immature (8 years old), irrational decision.
(After all, exactly how does one's brother asking 'why do you believe in God' followed by Mom's shushing up said brother, rationally add up to a warrant for believing in atheism?)

In this case, a child made a tragic, unsupported decision to disbelieve in God.  Yet, as Gervais himself makes clear, that decision to jump into atheism did NOT rationally satisfy him -- he was aware that his atheism wasn't by itself providing any reason for his existence.

He could have said (in age-appropriate language), "My athiesm has failed to offer me a reason for being, for my existence, therefore I honestly don't have a rational warrant for hanging on to such a belief."  No intellectual fulfillment was being provided.

But nope.  EVOLUTION becomes his savior.  Evolution becomes the glue that reinforces his atheism in place, blinding him to his need to abandon it.

Btw, just like atheism, evolution didn't give him any reason for existence either -- but as you see from his remarks, NOW he's been anesthestized (via evolution) and no longer cares about that question which used to be important to find an answer to.

He's slid so far down via his comforting evolution-belief that he "no longer need a reason for his existence, only a reason to live."  

Evolution has thus robbed him of his motivation to move past his tragic irrational decision made when he was merely 8 years old, a decision which has placed his soul in jeopardy.

So here you can see that same sort of evolution-greases-the-slide action taking place in yet another life.  
Again, by itself, that doesn't prove evolution's incompatibility with Christianity.  

But added up with all the others, it shows that Christians have a REAL problem (affecting real people) on their hands with that incompability issue, and that it's necessarily to consider the issue very seriously.

And yet another way of looking at it is that FL is a talentless twit and mentioning Gervais somehow makes FL in his own mind less of one.

Face it FL as a shoe salesman you suck.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

  
Dan



Posts: 77
Joined: Sep. 2009

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

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

If this argument were correct, then Newtonian mechanics would also be incompatible with Christianity.

  
creeky belly



Posts: 205
Joined: June 2006

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

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 18 2009,08:36)
       
Quote
"No. No sir.   These kinds of public pronouncements are found only within--and are inherently part of-- EVOLUTION.  Evolution is incompatible with Christianity."

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

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

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

FloydLee

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

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

The story of Joshua?

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

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

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

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

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

  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

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

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

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


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

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
sledgehammer



Posts: 530
Joined: Sep. 2008

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

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

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

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

  
sledgehammer



Posts: 530
Joined: Sep. 2008

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

(deleted double post)

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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

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

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

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

FloydLee

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

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

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

  
FloydLee



Posts: 577
Joined: Sep. 2009

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

Quote
1. The Pope is a Christian.

2. The Pope holds that evolution happens.

3. Therefore, Evolution is compatible with Christianity.

A simple three-line proof.

So, let's check out this "proof".  Let's ask a few questions.  Better yet, let's just ask one question.

What exactly does (1) have to do with (2)?

Note carefully:  It is entirely possible, according to your 3-point set-up, that the Pope is affirming that "evolution happens" even though it creates a conflict with his personal belief in Christianity.  That would kinda wreck the claim of "proof."

(After all, you'll notice that nowhere in your e-point set-up did you actually claim that the Pope says that evolution is compatible with Christianity, nor is any evidence provided by the Pope to support such a claim, nor does the Pope offer any specific resolutions of any of the Big Four Incompatibilities.)

FloydLee

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

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

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

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

As for the second, OT summarizes succinctly:
 
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Sep. 17 2009,14:03)
None of this refutes what I said.  "Evolutionary theory does NOT admit conscious anticipation of the future, i.e. conscious forethought" because there is no evidence that it does, just as meterological theories don't admit conscious forethought due to the absence of evidence of that.  Evolutionary theory doesn't deny the possibility that evidence of teleology could be presented, but you certainly haven't presented any.

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


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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

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

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 18 2009,12:58)
Quote
1. The Pope is a Christian.

2. The Pope holds that evolution happens.

3. Therefore, Evolution is compatible with Christianity.

A simple three-line proof.

So, let's check out this "proof".  Let's ask a few questions.  Better yet, let's just ask one question.

What exactly does (1) have to do with (2)?

Note carefully:  It is entirely possible, according to your 3-point set-up, that the Pope is affirming that "evolution happens" even though it creates a conflict with his personal belief in Christianity.  That would kinda wreck the claim of "proof."

(After all, you'll notice that nowhere in your e-point set-up did you actually claim that the Pope says that evolution is compatible with Christianity, nor is any evidence provided by the Pope to support such a claim, nor does the Pope offer any specific resolutions of any of the Big Four Incompatibilities.)

FloydLee

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

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

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

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

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 18 2009,12:58)
Quote
1. The Pope is a Christian.

2. The Pope holds that evolution happens.

3. Therefore, Evolution is compatible with Christianity.

A simple three-line proof.

So, let's check out this "proof".  Let's ask a few questions.  Better yet, let's just ask one question.

What exactly does (1) have to do with (2)?

Note carefully:  It is entirely possible, according to your 3-point set-up, that the Pope is affirming that "evolution happens" even though it creates a conflict with his personal belief in Christianity.  That would kinda wreck the claim of "proof."

(After all, you'll notice that nowhere in your e-point set-up did you actually claim that the Pope says that evolution is compatible with Christianity, nor is any evidence provided by the Pope to support such a claim, nor does the Pope offer any specific resolutions of any of the Big Four Incompatibilities.)

FloydLee

Pope Benedict would beg to differ with your claims, FL

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

Or, are you saying that the Pope is lying?

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

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

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

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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

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

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 18 2009,12:58)
Quote
1. The Pope is a Christian.

2. The Pope holds that evolution happens.

3. Therefore, Evolution is compatible with Christianity.

A simple three-line proof.

So, let's check out this "proof".  Let's ask a few questions.  Better yet, let's just ask one question.

What exactly does (1) have to do with (2)?

Note carefully:  It is entirely possible, according to your 3-point set-up, that the Pope is affirming that "evolution happens" even though it creates a conflict with his personal belief in Christianity.  That would kinda wreck the claim of "proof."

(After all, you'll notice that nowhere in your e-point set-up did you actually claim that the Pope says that evolution is compatible with Christianity, nor is any evidence provided by the Pope to support such a claim, nor does the Pope offer any specific resolutions of any of the Big Four Incompatibilities.)

FloydLee

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

Try to keep up.

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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

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

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

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

The Pope said exactly that.

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

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

  
JohnW



Posts: 2225
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2009,13:28   

Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 18 2009,10:58)
Quote
1. The Pope is a Christian.

2. The Pope holds that evolution happens.

3. Therefore, Evolution is compatible with Christianity.

A simple three-line proof.

So, let's check out this "proof".  Let's ask a few questions.  Better yet, let's just ask one question.

What exactly does (1) have to do with (2)?

Note carefully:  It is entirely possible, according to your 3-point set-up, that the Pope is affirming that "evolution happens" even though it creates a conflict with his personal belief in Christianity.  That would kinda wreck the claim of "proof."

(After all, you'll notice that nowhere in your e-point set-up did you actually claim that the Pope says that evolution is compatible with Christianity, nor is any evidence provided by the Pope to support such a claim, nor does the Pope offer any specific resolutions of any of the Big Four Incompatibilities.)

FloydLee

(1) doesn't have to have anything to do with (2).  Your argument is whether the two are compatible, not whether they offer support to each other.

Consider, hypothetically:

1. The Pope is a Christian.
2. The Pope plays football.
3. Therefore, football is compatible with Christianity.

This does not imply that there is anything about football in the bible*, or that playing football is a religious act.  It simply means it's possible to be a Christian and a footballer.



* Although, since Jesus saves, we can infer that he's a goalkeeper.

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

  
Sealawr



Posts: 54
Joined: Feb. 2008

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

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

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

Text:offical Vatican Website

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

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

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

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

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

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


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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